Due to confusion about the definition of an application programming interface, or API for short, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that they are are subject to copyright. The confusion surrounds the distinction between software and APIs. While the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, also known as the CAFC, appears to have made the ruling based on the idea that software and APIs are the same, it is clear that there are many differences between the two. According to Pam Samuelson, a highly respected authority on copyright law, “The design of many program structures, including APIs, is inherently functional and aimed at achieving technical goals of efficiency.” Basically, saying an API is the same as software is akin to thinking “a dictionary is the same as a novel that uses those words”, as explained in an article by Techdirt concerning the CAFC’s ruling. Therefore, APIs aren’t copyrightable just because software is.

If APIs are more similar to “processes, procedures, systems, and methods”  than software as Samuelson says in her paper “Three Fundamental Flaws in CAFC’s Oracle v. Google Decision”, does the CAFC ruling make sense? In accordance with section 102 of the Copyright Act, which states, “In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system…regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work”, APIs should not be copyrightable. However, due to more confusion concerning the purpose and function of APIs, the Supreme Court has refused to hear the case. Therefore, as of now, the ruling made by the CAFC will remain in place.

Article via Techdirt, August 18, 2015

Photo: Free Stock: Copyright sign 3D render via MusesTouch – digiArt & design [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

 

Innovation has allowed cars to be outfitted with rear-end cameras, internet connectivity, computerized maintenance systems, and other technological components that can greatly benefit drivers. Unfortunately, new technology sometimes leads to new problems. The instant a car connects to networks,  it is opened up to cyberattacks, which could eventually lead to hackers controlling the car remotely. This could potentially create a multitude of problems, which has caused Intel to create the Automotive Security Review Board. The goal of the ASRB is to diminish the risk that cyberattacks present to vehicles. Chris Young, the Senior Vice President and General Manager of Intel Security, states that “with the help of the ASRB, Intel can establish security best practices and encourage that cyber-security is an essential ingredient in the design of every connected car.”

The board seeks to use ongoing security tests and audits to determine how best to advise automobile manufacturers. This, in turn, will keep cars and their drivers safer. Considering that some companies are already recalling cars due to security breaches, the ASRB and their findings will be useful to automotive companies. Intel will provide its advanced development platforms to assist with the board’s research into security and has already published an initial version of its automotive cybersecurity best practices that will be updated as the ASRB continues to conduct research. A key component of Intel’s advice centers on the fact that vehicle security is something that needs to be monitored and updated even after the sale of the car is finalized. As Intel stated in their report on best practices, “Threat analysis and risk assessment continues throughout the life of the car as old vulnerabilities are patched and new ones come to light, so the risk of attack can even increase with time.” As new threats are presented to technology, especially to its applications in cars, manufacturers will need the cybersecurity research that organizations like the Automotive Security Review Board are conducting.

Article via CNET, September 14, 2015

Photo: Urban Congestion via Doug [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

The legal profession is resistant to change, but the world is changing very fast. The longer it takes law firms—and law schools—to catch up, the more painful the transition is going to be. According to Paul Lippe of the ABA Journal and the idea of prudent innovation, it’s important that lawyers do not resist change just because it makes them uncomfortable or believe that there is only one method suited for preparing law students for the future. In fact, sticking to the same process for teaching law students and funding their education isn’t “sustainable”, according to Lippe.

An article in the New York Times by Steven Harper titled “Too Many Law Students, Too Few Legal Jobs” points out some of the flaws in legal education, including tuition, and states that the American Bar Association should start trying to limit the number of law students. Lippe, on the other hand, argues that  law schools do not need to decrease their numbers. Instead, they need to innovate an change according to how the rest of the world is changing. He cites the University of Colorado Law School, and specifically it’s dean Phillip Weiser who will be stepping down in 2015, as proof that prudent innovation works. Contrary to Harper’s ideas, Weiser has increased the number of students in the University of Colorado Law School and kept tuition the same due to exceptional fundraising. In addition to those impressive feats, Weiser has created several ways for law students to learn about technology, including the Tech Lawyer Accelerator and the Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology and Entrepreneurship. By implementing these initiatives and waiting to see if they benefit their students in the careers, Weiser and the rest of the University of Colorado Law School can make sure that their style of law education is ready to solve the new problems the legal profession is being tasked with as technology, security, and intellectual property laws change and become more important.

Even though schools like the University of Colorado are taking bold strides toward prudent innovation, many schools are in denial or nostalgic for the “good ol’ days”. Law schools have a responsibility to society and their students to make sure that the law profession remains relevant and viable. And, unfortunately for those who hate change, that means law schools will need to start determining how best to adjust and grow to suit the needs of the rest of the world.

Articles via ABA Journal, September 10, 2015; New York Times, August 25, 2015;

Photo: Harvard Law School Library via NKCPhoto [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

The best protection against widespread government surveillance now comes from major tech companies, including those accused of collecting mass amounts of data to sell to other companies seeking targeted advertising.

The FBI has accused Apple of aiding criminals by offering default encryption in the new iPhones it sells. Government reproach is also directed towards Google, which is offering the same encryption for its new Android phones. However, the majority of Americans are grateful for the tech companies’ new developments; a recent Pew survey found that 65 percent of people believe that there aren’t enough limits on government surveillance.

Smartphone encryption is not the only guard against surveillance, either. Google and Yahoo announced that they’re both working on end-to-end encryption in email, and Facebook was established on a Tor hidden services site so that people with access to network traffic can’t access user data.

Encryption tools are generally difficult to operate, and thus only tech-savvy users have been able to achieve full privacy. As a result, anyone using encryption tools was unique and therefore suspicious to government officials. With new integrated encryption, privacy will be more universal, and those previously using encryption systems will be better camouflaged.

Articles: The Center for Internet and Society, September 9, 2015

Photo: DC Ralley Against Mass Surveillance via Susan Melkisethian [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

According to a study done by Robert Epstein and Ronald E. Robertson, changes made to Google’s search algorithm have the ability to manipulate voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the study experimented with the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) in two countries with over 4,500 participants.

The investigators conducted an experiment where participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups in which search rankings favored Candidate A, B, or neither. Before researching for 15 minutes on a search-engine called Kadoodle, participants were provided a short description of both candidates and asked whom they would be voting for. The 30 search results were the same for everybody, but ordered differently depending on the group. The number of people favoring a candidate increased between 37 and 60 percent due to the biased search algorithm.

Google adjusts its search algorithm 600 times a year. In refutation of SEME, Google comments: “Providing relevant answers has been the cornerstone of Google’s approach to search from the very beginning. It would undermine the people’s trust in our results and company if we were to change course.”

 

Articles: Politico Magazine, August 19, 2015; via MILRN

Photo: Campaigning with a Smile via Jack [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Ellen Pao has been in the news a lot in the last couple of years. She has had a very high profile suit (and loss) to Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers as well as very public exit as CEO from Reddit.  After 3 years of litigation in her sex discrimination suit against Kleiner Perkers, she has decided to call it quits.

According to a guest post that she wrote on re/code, Pao has decided to move on.

“Over the past three and a half years, I have pursued a legal case against Kleiner Perkins for gender discrimination and retaliation”, says Pao. “Seeking justice in the courts has been painful for me personally and professionally, and for my family. I am now moving on…”

She went on to say how her experience shows how hard it is to bring gender discrimination suits in our legal system.

“Our society is struggling with workplace discrimination and harassment…human resources is a company-oriented function — when you can find it at all. But we have a long way to go, as women and minorities continue to make up a small fraction of the management at our most lucrative and productive companies.”

Ellen Pao’s struggle is a reminder that gender discrimination is still a large issue that is hard to prosecute. She documents how she was out numbered by the other side from the beginning, and believed that her only option was to trade her silence for a settlement. She has chosen to do neither in an attempt to bring sex discrimination issues to light in the hopes to foster debate and improvement.

Article via CNet, 10 September 2015

Photo: The girl with no feet via Riccardo Romano[Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]