Symposium Spotlight: David Levine

By: Nathaniel Reiff

On March 8, 2019, the Wake Forest Journal of  Business & Intellectual Property will have the privilege of hosting Professor David Levine at its Spring Symposium: “Lawyering in the Future: Impact of Technology on the Law.” Professor Levine will be part of a panel alongside Professor Jose Vega and Lateek Willie from Wake Forest University, to discuss various implications of data, collection, including new data and cyber concerns, evolving security standards, and what people should consider when permitting others to access or store their personal data. The panel will be moderated by Professor Simone Rose of the Wake Forest University School of Law.

Professor Levine is currently an “Associate Professor of Law at Elon University School of Law and an Affiliate Scholar at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School.” Professor Levine’s scholarship primarily focuses on the relationship between intellectual property law, privacy, and public life. Specifically, Professor Levine spotlights how information impacts the lawmaking and regulatory process. Furthermore, the former Princeton University Center for Information Technology Policy fellow entertains how intellectual property law affects secrecy and accountability in the privacy realm. Professor Levine’s personal education features a BS from Cornell University and a JD from Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

Outside of the classroom setting, Professor Levine has made presentations for Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiators and is a former member of the North Carolina Mining and Energy Commission’s Protection of Trade Secret and Proprietary Information Study Group. Professor Levine’s broad expertise has been recognized by various media outlets, including NBC News, NPR, The Los Angeles Times, and Slate.

As an attendee and current student enrolled in Professor Levine’s Privacy Law course, I expect Professor Levine to incorporate much of his well-established scholarship into his commentary and perspectives. As made evident by recent events in the business community, effective cybersecurity and proper data protection can save companies hundreds of millions of dollars. I also expect Professor Levine to discuss the implications of legislating data broker clearinghouses and how this may affect commerce.

Recent Lawsuits Could Pioneer Gig Economy Reform

By: Nathaniel Reiff you are an economist or financial analyst, the term “gig economy” might be foreign. However, the “gig economy” is growing readily more important in our daily lives with the prominence of mobile phone apps coupled with our desire for rapid convenience.,.

A gig economy is a free market system in which organizations and companies primarily contract with independent workers for short-term engagements. Non-profit business-research organization, Conference Board, defines gig workers as those who perform “non-core functions” that don’t require institutional knowledge but involve specific well-defined tasks where output is easily measured and monitored. Prominent companies that employ gig workers include Uber, Airbnb, and Grubhub. Although the number of independent contractors, temporary workers, and contract workers has actually remained relatively unchanged since 1995, according to Yahoo Finance, the transportation sector has seen a major increase in the percentage of self-employed workers over the last two decades. Continue reading »

The European Union’s Animosity Toward Google

By: Nathaniel Reiff

Soon, there may be an exile of American tech companies in the European Union (“EU”). After a record 4.34-billion euro ($5 billion USD) fine imposed by EU antitrust regulators, Google has initiated an appeal claiming its Android mobile operating system did not stifle its rivals.

The appeal, filed with the General Court of the EU, comes after the European Commission claims the tech giant abused its market dominance since 2011. According to Reuters reporter Foo Yun Chee, “EU competition enforcers had said Google’s illegal practices included forcing [smartphone] manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and its Chrome browser together with its Google Play app store on their Android devices, . . . [and] also paid manufacturers to pre-install only Google Search and blocked them from using rival Android systems.”  Continue reading »