Project Nightingale – The Case for Google

By Monica Tapavalu on

It is no secret that major tech companies are entering the healthcare space by collaborating with
healthcare providers to create new tools for patients, hospitals, and insurers. On November 11, 2019, the
Wall Street Journal first reported on the previously unknown Project Nightingale, a partnership between
tech giant Google and Ascension, the second largest healthcare provider in America.


Project Nightingale – The Case for Increased Privacy

By Elizabeth Magnan on

In an increasingly connected world, where technology companies are gathering private and
personal information on millions of Americans, it is important to protect the personal health information
of each individual. Technology companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple are progressively moving
into the healthcare industry through patient’s medical records.


Does the Cloud Act give us a glimpse at a template for GDPR-like adequacy decisions in the US?

By Justin Hartley on

The Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (“Cloud Act”) was passed in 2018 and sought to
more efficiently facilitate law enforcement access to data. This was in response to issues with preexisting
U.S. laws like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”) and, more specifically, the
Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), that were showing their age when applied to global cloud
infrastructure.


Artificial intelligence and the fog of innovation: a deep-dive on governance and the liability of autonomous systems

By Brandon W. Jackson on

Alan Turing, in his famous 1950 paper, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” wrote, “we can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done.” This sentiment, expressed nearly 70 years ago in the context of whether machines can think, reflects the current momentum of recent technological breakthroughs to endow machines with the ability to make intelligent decisions — the concept of Artificial Intelligence (AI). While the notion of AI is not novel, it has recently become a driving factor in industry because of compounded advancements in the availability of big data, machine learning approaches and algorithms, and powerful computing mechanisms.


Defective Computer-aided Design Software Liability In 3d Bio-printed Human Organ Equivalents

By Jamil Ammar on

Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting offers the exciting prospect of printing 3D multicellular human organs by combining a host of specialisms, including software development, biotechnology and tort law. 3D bioprinting methods rely on highly specialized computer software that incorporates computer-aided design (CAD). Optimizing development of CAD software is paramount to the quality of the final bioprinted organ.


Empirical Analysis Of Australian Trademark Infringement Decisions: Implications For The U.S. Trademark Use Debate

By Dr. Vicki T. Huang on

In the U.S., under the Lanham Act, to establish infringement of a registered mark under section 32 or an unregistered mark under section 43, the plaintiff must show ownership of a valid mark and that the defendant’s use of the mark in connection with goods or services causes a “likelihood of confusion.” With regard to infringement, the likelihood of consumer confusion has been called “the litmus test” or “touchstone” for establishing trademark liability.


“Fly Home Ye Ravens!”: How the FCC’s Abandonment of Broadband Regulation Will Harm Music Diversity

By Luke Batty on

Citing supposed harms to competition among Internet service providers, the 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order reverses a decade long push to implement a regime of broadband regulation protecting net neutrality. However, the 2017 Order failed to recognize non-pecuniary interests in its sweeping change. Critical infrastructure, national security, and democracy all rely on a free and open Internet.


From Bits to Atoms: Does the Open Source Software Model Translate to Open Source Hardware?

By Dana Beldiman on

Many believe that open source innovation works “faster, better and cheaper” than conventional, proprietary innovation. The success of open source innovation has been seen primarily in open source software (OSS), whose output is an intangible, digital product (bits). This paper asks whether the success of OSS can be replicated in an open source hardware (OSH) environment, which involves tangible products (atoms). Specifically, it considers whether the tangible nature of OSH products presents legal or practical obstacles to their successful commercial implementation, in an environment where no appropriable IP rights exist. To answer these questions, the paper follows the innovation knowledge flow generated by an OSH invention and examines the legal structure and enforceability of open hardware license. It further considers in what way the absence of IP rights impacts the choice of a business model for OSH.


Unfair Misuse: How Section 512 of the DMCA Allows Abuse of the Copyright Fair Use Doctrine and How to Fix It

By Joel D. Matteson on

Hoping to spur the growth of the early Internet, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998. The goal was to balance online service providers’ interests in avoiding secondary copyright liability based on their users’ online posts with Internet users’ interests in maintaining their right to fair use of copyrighted material online. Twenty years later, the evidence demonstrates that the DMCA has skewed too far towards protecting providers of online services at the expense of fair use. This has resulted in unnecessary chilling of otherwise protected speech. Specifically, under the DMCA, putative copyright holders may immediately force down any content they deem to be infringing, regardless of fair use considerations. To address this imbalance, Congress should amend § 512 to eliminate the automatic takedown period so that no material comes down until the poster has had a reasonable opportunity to present his or her fair use defense.


The Biosimilar Patent Dance- If You Don’t Dance You’re No Friend of Mine

By Alexej Ladonnikov on

In response to political pressure, Congress has been seeking solutions to control drug prices and make it easier for consumers to afford pharmaceuticals. The legislative response to this concern was the Biosimilar, Price, Competition, and Innovation ACT (“BCPIA”). This act allows the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to accelerate the approval pathway for biosimilar drugs that effectively act as generic drugs (“generics”). This note analyzes how courts have handled the following three outstanding issues with the BCPIA: (1) whether compliance with the BCPIA is required or optional; (2) whether an applicant needs to wait until after the FDA approves a drug to notify the creator of the patented product of their intent to market the biologic; and (3) whether the applicant needs to participate in the entire process.


Page 1 of 2