By: Daniel Norton, Summer Blogger

In the past decade, Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) has been used to create artistic works as well as news articles. For example, A.I. has created works which can imitate famous artists such as Rembrandt van Rijn, as well as generating articles for newspapers like The Washington Post. These recent innovations have led some people to ask whether A.I. should be eligible to receive a copyright for its creations. Current Copyright Law does not classify A.I. works as copyrightable creations, however, A.I. might one day achieve a level of intelligence to warrant such accreditation to be protected under United States Copyright Laws.

Since 1973, it has been the official policy of the United States Copyright Office to deny any copyright claims if the work was not created by a human being. In fact, The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices states that in order for a work to be eligible for copyright protection, it must be “created by a human being.” In one instance, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals seems supported the requirement that a human must be the creator for a work to receive copyright protection. In the case Naruto v. Slader, the court denied the monkey, Naruto, standing to bring an action under the Copyright Act. This holding from one of the primary goalsof Intellectual Property Law: to benefit society by incentivizing innovation by allowing creators and innovators the right to profit from their creations for a set period. Continue reading »

By: Whitney Hosey, Editor-in-Chief

On Monday, July 9, President Trump announced his nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The nominee, the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh, has served as a federal appeals court judge since his appointment by President George W. Bush in 2006. In that time, Judge Kavanaugh has “written almost 300 opinions.” Among those opinions are several involving both business law and intellectual property law.

On the business end of things, Kavanaugh has consistently ruled in favor of businesses in pivotal cases. For example, in Verizon New England Inc. v. NLRB, Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion overruling the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) decision in favor of an employees’ union. Instead, the Court determined that the union had violated a collective bargaining agreement with Verizon by “displaying pro-union signs in their vehicles.” On the whole “Kavanaugh is considered pragmatic.” The biggest business law and telecom related case which may come before the High Court is determining “whether a proposed nationwide class of consumers can sue Apple, Inc. for allegedly monopolizing the iPhone app market.” The lower court has already granted the plaintiffs standing on the anti-trust claims, whether Kavanaugh would choose to overrule that determination is unclear. Continue reading »

By: Hannah Fry, Summer Blogger

With growing environmental awareness, more technology is being developed to harness what at one time would have been considered a useless commodity. Renewable energy in the form of solar power and wind power have been at the forefront of technological advancement. While water has always been an essential resource, updates to age-old methods of utilizing falling water have revolutionized hydropower.

Hydropower operates by capturing the kinetic energy of falling water passing through a dam to generate electricity by utilizing a turbine to transfer the kinetic energy into mechanical, then into electrical via a generator. The amount of electricity a hydropower plant can generate is directly related to the volume and distance the water falls. The further the water falls and the greater volume of water that passes through the turbine the more electricitycan be generated. As hydropower’s popularity as a reliable and renewable form of energy increases, the updates and new technology associated with hydropower raises questions of ownership which ultimately results in delays of licensing and regulatory approval of hydropower facilities. Continue reading »

By: Phillip Jester, Summer Blogger

A recent White House report accused China, the world’s second-largest economy, of engaging in aggressive “acts, policies, and practices that fall outside of global norms and rules.” The report highlights a new threat posed by China: the presence of “Chinese Nationals” serving as “Non-Traditional Information Collectors” at American universities.  The White House alleges that the Chinese State has created educational programs which encourage science and engineering students to master important military technologies in order to share such technologies with Beijing.

More than 100 American universities currently collaborate with Confucius Institutes, educational organization that are sponsored by China’s Communist Party.  Lawmakers and intelligence officials are now speaking out against the role of Confucius Institutes as possible “spying outposts.” In February, Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) Director Christopher Wray stated that Chinese spies are being planted in American schools in order to exploit “very open research and development” environments.  The exploitation of open educational environments may already be paying off.  Chinese Scientists returning from American laboratories have played a key role in the development of hypersonic glide systems, systems capable of penetrating any current missile defense. Continue reading »

By: Matthew Welch, Summer Blogger

Attorney-client privilege is the keystone of the legal system that has been in place since the inception of the United States.  This privilege protects confidential communications between an attorney and his or her client. The purpose, put forth by the courts, for allowing these communications to be protected is that it “encourage[s] full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients.”  Thus, without this protection, clients would be less than forthcoming since all communications with their attorneys could potentially be used against them in future litigation.  However, a problem has arisen over the years regarding a specific application of attorney-client privilege.  That problem is patent-agent privilege.     Continue reading »

By: Nathaniel Reiff, Summer Blogger

As today’s consumer seeks new and innovative ways to save money and preserve the environment, it may be a while until they achieve this objective with the cars they drive. Tesla Inc., the American international corporation renowned for its electric vehicle production, has been hit with a score of lawsuits that could put the energy-giant in a nasty predicament.

Last October, shareholders filed a securities fraud lawsuit claiming Tesla gave false public statements about the progress of producing its Model 3 sedan. The complaint identifies that shareholders bought “artificially inflated” shares of Tesla because Elon Musk, Tesla’s Chief Executive Officer, and other executives misled them with such statements. Tesla counters that since the vehicle was “the first of its kind,” the company had experienced numerous “bottlenecks.” The company said it provided the shareholders in “frank and in plain language” that the challenges the company faced with the Model 3 derived from problems with the battery module process at its Nevada Gigafactory to general assembly at its Fremont plant. Continue reading »

By: Christopher Lewis *| Staff Writer

With the advent of new technology, privacy concerns are becoming an increasingly hot topic of debate in many different forms. People across the globe are becoming more cognizant of the personal right to privacy and are working to protect it; however, other factions believe that technological advances and the integration of life and technology are worth the loss in privacy rights. Some believe that it is only a matter of time before we fall into the dystopian worlds that George Orwell and Ray Bradbury, respectfully, espoused in 1984 and Fahrenheit 451. Continue reading »

The Wake Forest Journal of Business and Intellectual Property Law present its Spring Symposium:

Intellectual Property and Medical Technology: From Creation to Commercialization 

The Symposium is being held, today, Friday, February 2, 2018, from 8:30 am – 4:00 pm at the Wake Forest Innovation Quarter (Biotech Place). This year’s event will look at medical patents, bioethics and the intellectual property implications of medical technology.

MORNING SESSION

Overview of Regenerative Medicine, Role of Law, & Bioethics

Keynote Speakers: Julie Watson and Dr. John D. Jackson

Julie Watson, Chief Legal Counsel for the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at the Wake Forest School of Medicine, opened the Wake Forest Journal of Business and Intellectual Property Law Symposium by introducing the first speaker of the day, Dr. John D. Jackson. Dr. Jackson, an associate professor at the Institute since 2010, began the day’s events by explaining the technical components of the Institute.

Continue reading »

The Wake Forest Journal of Business and Intellectual Property Law will be hosting its spring symposium,  “Intellectual Property and Medical Technology: From Creation to Commercialization,” beginning at 8:30 a.m. this Friday, February 2, 2018, in the Wake Forest Biotech Place Atrium at Wake Forest Innovation Quarter. Medical patents, the intersection of bioethics and the law, and the venture capitalist-side of regenerative medicine are among some of the topics to be discussed at this year’s symposium. This blog post is meant to provide a brief overview of bioethics and venture capitalists of medical devices.

Continue reading »

By: Jamie Burchette *| Staff Writer

Native American tribes were sovereign nations long before Europeans arrived in America. Eventually, European settlers pushed Native American tribes into smaller and smaller pieces of land and their sovereign power was weakened. While the Native American tribes’ existence as an independent nation was recognized in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the U.S. Government’s treatment of the Native American tribes was less than respectful. Native Americans continued to lose their land and have their culture attacked. Things changed, somewhat, with the introduction of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. The U.S. Government recognized the Native American’s tribal sovereignty and stopped taking Native American land.

Continue reading »