By: Max Angel In this article, Angel explores the unique challenges of estate planning with cryptocurrency, which include accurately valuing those assets, preserving their value, and addressing the complex tax implications of transferring cryptocurrency to heirs. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 23 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 137
By: Jacob Stotser With a garbage truck’s worth of plastic being dumped in the ocean each minute, there is a dire need for effective technological solutions aimed at mitigating the marine plastic pollution problem. However, the reliance of the U.S. patent system on market demand to incentivize this type of innovation has proven insufficient in light of the peculiarities of “green” technologies. To remedy this, this article proposes a multi-faceted incentivization approach that looks beyond the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to stimulate the development of remediation technologies through comprehensive regulatory interventions, the establishment of prize funds and other alternative incentive mechanisms, and targeted reforms to patent procedures. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 23 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 114
By: Jackson Samples Electronic surveillance now plays a central role in the criminal legal system. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people are tracked by ankle monitors and smartphone technology. And frighteningly, commentators and policymakers have now proposed implanting radio frequency identification (“RFID”) chips into people’s bodies for surveillance purposes. This Note examines the unique risks of these proposals—particularly with respect to people on probation and parole—and argues that RFID implants would constitute a systematic violation of individual privacy and bodily integrity. As a result, they would also violate the Fourth Amendment. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 23 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 89
By: Muxuan (Muriel) Wang Higher education institutions (HEIs) are highly susceptible to cyberattacks, particularly those facilitated through phishing, due to the substantial volume of confidential student and staff data and valuable research information they hold. Despite federal legislations focusing on bolstering cybersecurity for critical institutions handling medical and financial data, HEIs have not received similar attention. This Note examines the minimal obligations imposed on HEIs by existing federal and state statutes concerning data breaches, the absence of requirements for HEIs to educate employees and students about phishing attacks, and potential strategies to improve student protection against data breaches. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 23 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 35
By: Kimberly A. Houser & John W. Bagby The proliferation of sensors, electronic payments, click-stream data, location-tracking, biometric feeds, and smart home devices, creates an incredibly profitable market for both personal and non-personal data. It is also leading to an amplification of harm to those from or about whom the data is collected. Because federal law provides inadequate protection for data subjects, there are growing calls for organizations to implement data governance solutions. Unfortunately, in the U.S., the concept of data governance has not progressed beyond the management and monetization of data. Many organizations operate under an outdated paradigm which fails to consider the impact of data use on data subjects due to the proliferation of third-party service providers hawking their “check-the-box” data governance systems. As a result, American companies suffer from a lack of trust and are hindered in their international operations due to the higher data protection requirements of foreign regulators. After discussing the pitfalls of the traditional view of data governance and the limitations of suggested models, we propose a set of ten principles based on the Medical Code of Ethics. This framework, first encompassed in the Hippocratic Oath, has been evolving for over one thousand years
By: Maura R. Grossman, Paul W. Grimm, Daniel G. Brown, and Molly Xu Generative AI (“GenAI”) systems such as ChatGPT recently have developed to the point where they can produce computer-generated text and images that are difficult to differentiate from human-generated text and images. Similarly, evidentiary materials such as documents, videos, and audio recordings that are AI-generated are becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate from those that are not AI-generated. These technological advancements present significant challenges to parties, their counsel, and the courts in determining whether evidence is authentic or fake. Moreover, the explosive proliferation and use of GenAI applications raises concerns about whether litigation costs will dramatically increase as parties are forced to hire forensic experts to address AI-generated evidence, the ability of juries to discern authentic from fake evidence, and whether GenAI will overwhelm the courts with AI-generated lawsuits, whether vexatious or otherwise. GenAI systems have the potential to challenge existing substantive intellectual property (“IP”) law by producing content that is machine, not human, generated, but that also relies on human-generated content in potentially infringing ways. Finally, GenAI threatens to alter the way in which lawyers litigate and judges decide cases. This article discusses these issues, and offers a
By: Brendan Clemente Rule 3.8 of the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct should include rules that specifically address unethical uses of forensic evidence in criminal prosecutions. Forensic evidence is common in criminal trials. But the traditional rules of ethics do not effectively address the use of forensic evidence. Rule 3.8 should include a rule requiring prompt and full disclosure of information about expert witnesses whom the prosecutor plans to call and all relevant information that the prosecutor knows about a forensic method’s application in the case. Rule 3.8 should also include a requirement that the prosecutor use reasonable diligence to learn about a forensic method and possess a good faith belief that the method’s application in the case will be reliable before introducing the evidence at trial. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 22 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 1
By: Dan L. Burk Increasing use of machine learning or “artificial intelligence” (AI) software systems in technical innovation has led some to speculate that perhaps machines might be considered inventors under patent law. While U.S. patent doctrine decisively precludes such a bizarre and counterproductive result, the speculation leads to a more fruitful inquiry about the role of causation in the law of inventorship. U.S. law has almost entirely disregarded causation in determining inventorship, with very few exceptions, some of which are surprising. In this essay, I examine those exceptions to inventive causality, the role they play in determining inventorship, and their effect in excluding consideration of mechanical inventors under current law. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 20 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 116
By: Alanna Potter Over the last several years, the demand for socially responsible companies has exploded. Many states have responded to this demand by offering a new corporate form, the public benefit corporation (“PBC”), which arguably allows companies to prioritize social benefit in a way that traditional corporations cannot. The technology industry has adopted the PBC structure at higher rates than corporations in other industries. This Note offers reasons for the appeal of PBCs to corporations generally and to the technology sector in particular. This Note also explores why technology companies may be able to achieve the goals discussed without the need for PBCs. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 20 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 90
By: Andres Paciuc Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 19 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 198
