[Carlos Plazas, Contributing Member 2020-2021, Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal]

           As part of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the United States government has budgeted a total of $242 billion for procurement, research, development, testing, and evaluation of new equipment for the United States military.^[1] This quantity is outside the sustainment, maintenance, and operation costs of already existing equipment which total over $255 billion.^[2] These numbers are not out of the ordinary for the U.S. government, which usually ranks at the top of defense spending amongst other countries.^[3] What is relatively recent is the regulation surrounding the acquisition of new equipment, research, development, testing, and evaluation in conjunction with civilian organizations such as corporations or universities.^[4]

[Hebeh Refaei, Contributing Member 2020-2021, Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal]

Introduction

            As online transactions and electronic storage of personal information occur more frequently, especially during the COVID19 pandemic, consumers should consider whether their claims could be heard in court when companies’ privacy protections are inadequate. Global eCommerce transactions increased by 20% from January 2019 through November 2019 and January 2020 through November 2020.^[1] By volume, fraud attempts from 2019 and 2020 increased by 1.7%, and by value, fraud attempts increased by 3.4%.^[2] One of the fundamental principles of the U.S. court system is that everyone should be allowed to have their day in court.^[3] However, a plaintiff must have standing to be able to sue.^[4] Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over “cases and controversies.”^[5] To satisfy the requirements under Article III, a plaintiff must establish standing.^[6] The Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits have ruled that an increased risk of identity theft can establish standing to sue an organization that exposed individuals’ personal data to hackers.^[7] However, the Second, Third, Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that plaintiffs who claim they were harmed by an increased risk of identity theft do not have standing to file a suit against an entity that exposed the plaintiffs to the identity theft.^[8] The circuits that reject the existence of standing in these cases fail to fully consider the consequences of these rulings.

[Morgan Hartgrove, Contributing Member 2020-2021, Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal]

Introduction

            Over the past decade, the fitness industry has experienced exponential growth and development, especially the boutique fitness industry.^[1] From 2013 to 2017, boutique studio memberships grew by 121%.^[2]

            Unlike a traditional gym, boutique fitness usually involves a niche class (e.g., cycling, barre, or interval-type classes) in a smaller studio.^[3] Boutique fitness thrives from offering a unique experience to clients with the opportunity to become part of a fitness and studio community.^[4] Besides providing specialized workouts, boutique fitness classes offer an avenue for socialization and allow customers to participate in something unique and trendy.^[5]

[Jacob Harrod, Contributing Member 2020-2021, Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal]

Introduction

            A great disparity exists in the American financial markets, and now more than ever the gap between those with power and those without is evident. To be sure, a similar disparity exists throughout the world, in many countries.^[1] One need look no further than the contrasting treatment of retail and institutional investors in a company’s initial public offering (IPO) process to see that there is an evident and systemic problem.^[2] This Article, however, will focus on the United States stock market, and the relationship that exists between retail investors, institutional investors, and the government. 

[Emily Feeley, Contributing Member 2020-2021, Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal]

           It should come as no surprise that architectural structures can receive copyright protection, but that has not always been the case. Prior to 1990, there were relatively few protections for architectural works.^[1] It was only with the passing of the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (“AWCPA”) that copyright protection extended to protect architectural structures.^[2] Presently, architectural works are one of the eight categories of works that are subject to copyright protection under 17 U.S.C.A. § 102(a).^[3] Are these protections enough, or is there a need to expand their protection? This blog will look at what types of architectural works are subject to copyright protection, how architectural copyrights are registered, and the feasibility of enforcing the copyright.