Author: Joseph Noser

Strategic Patenting Stifles Antibiotic Innovation

By: Brian Wilmans

Antibiotics are one of humanity’s greatest discoveries. They’ve made it possible to eradicate instances where a cut on a finger could turn fatal due to bacterial infection.

However, today, antibiotics are losing their efficacy. The CDC tracked seven different strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria from 2019-2022, and six out of the seven increased their prevalence by 20 percent.[1] Overprescription of antibiotics is certainly a contributing factor in the increase in resistance, but another factor is the decreased number of new antibiotic classes being brought to market. Since the first antibiotic, penicillin, was discovered in 1940, the largest gap between new types of antibiotics being invented had been 13 years.[2] We are now in year 15 since the last novel class of antibiotic was created. There are myriad reasons for that, from funding for R&D to decreased profit margin for pharmaceutical companies. However, another reason for it that may be more on the periphery: pharmaceutical companies’ practice of strategic patenting.

Who Owns GMOs?

By Joseph Noser

On January 30, 2025

In Blog Posts

Who Owns GMOs?

By: Brian Wilmans

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been around since the early 1970s and have steadily grown to impact all forms of commerce. From food to healthcare, the growing impact of GMOs has been felt around the world but very heavily in the United States specifically. As the landmass and population of the U.S. are significantly larger than that of most other countries and most of its farming is done on a larger, industrial scale, the U.S. has leaned more heavily on the use of GMOs to provide security for the country’s food supply.[1] In the U.S., it is estimated that over ninety percent of crops are genetically modified and that up to ninety-five percent of meat and dairy products feed on genetically modified crops.[2]

This has led to questions surrounding the ownership of those GMOs. If the organism could be obtained naturally, how do you determine that someone is the owner?

NFL and UFC Mobilize the Feds Against Illegal Streams

By Joseph Noser

On January 30, 2025

In Blog Posts

NFL and UFC Mobilize the Feds Against Illegal Streams

By: Donovan Sbiroli

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)

Image via Homeland Security Investigations *HSI) and WIBX.

For fans of the National Football League (NFL) to have access to most out-of-market games throughout a season, they need to purchase “NFL Sunday Ticket.” The product, which is sold by Alphabet, Inc. under its YouTube TV service, costs $479 at the start of the season.[1] In lieu of paying the base price of $479, millions of fans have turned to piracy and illegal streams.

Domain names of such illegal streams can be seized, however. Section 2323 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code provides for civil asset forfeiture and seizure. Paragraph (a) of the section reads:

“The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States Government: any article, the making or trafficking of which is prohibited under section 506 of title 17… any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of an offense referred to in subparagraph (A)…For seizures made under this section, the court shall enter an appropriate protective order with respect to discovery and use of any records or information that has been seized . . . the court shall order that any property forfeited under paragraph (1) be destroyed.”[2]

Artificial Intelligence in the Law Classroom: Good? Bad? Or Maybe Both?

By Joseph Noser

On January 30, 2025

In Blog Posts

Artificial Intelligence in the Law Classroom: Good? Bad? Or Maybe Both?

By: Nadia Farashahi

Whether we like it or not, artificial intelligence has taken its place in our society. Law schools are no exception.[1] With the rise in artificial intelligence, law schools are faced with the challenge of adapting to this new technology.

Bloomberg Law’s Spring 2024 Path to Practice survey encompassed data from more than 150 U.S. Law schools.[2] This survey reflected that the status quo is changing: “technological advancements have pushed law schools to address longstanding gaps in tech skill development, specifically by embracing and offering more AI-focused courses.”[3] Faculty respondents were asked whether their law schools “asked or encouraged them” to update their courses to reflect these new technological advancements in the legal field, and more than a third of the respondents said “yes.”[4] The survey also inquired about AI specific courses that are available to law students. Around 40% of respondents indicated that the courses give students “practical experiences using AI for legal work.”[5]

The American Bar Association Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence conducted a similar survey.[6] The survey, completed by 29 law school deans or faculty members in 2023 to 2024, showed that AI is steadily establishing a firm presence in the law school classroom. Around 55% of the law school respondents reported that they have classes centered around teaching students about AI, and around 83% reported having curricular opportunities that allowed students to learn to use AI effectively.[7]