Tag: Law & Technology

Who is Responsible in an Accident Involving a Car With Autonomous Driving Features?

By: Bo Li

Advanced driver assistance systems (“ADAS”) are technological features designed to improve vehicle driving safety.[1] These systems improve safety and reaction time to potential hazards through warning and automated systems.[2] With 42,514 people dying in motor vehicle crashes in 2022, many of which were related to human error, ADAS can not only help keep drivers and passengers safe, but also protect other drivers and pedestrians.[3] Tesla’s Autopilot is an ADAS that improves the safety and convenience of driving, and when used properly, can reduce the overall workload of the driver.[4] In 2021, many other manufacturers also offered ADAS, with at least 97 models featuring adaptive cruise control with lane-centering steering.[5]

Increased IRS Tracking of Cryptocurrency: Form 1099-DA

By Donovan Sbiroli

On June 29, 2025

In Blog Posts

Increased IRS Tracking of Cryptocurrency: Form 1099-DA

By: Elise Norotsky

Beginning January 1, 2025, cryptocurrency will have its first form of standardized reporting, the form 1099-DA, Digital Asset Proceeds From Broker Transactions.^[1] The form reports gross proceeds and gain, loss and cost-basis information and is filed by brokers dealing with digital assets, such as Coinbase, Kraken, or Gemini.^[2] Prior to its enactment, the lack of standardized reporting made the realm difficult to efficiently audit, and thus regulate. This significant shift in how digital assets like cryptocurrencies and NFTs are taxed aligns digital asset reporting with traditional financial and tax reporting practices.^[3] While it makes certain aspects easier for investors, taxpayers with digital assets should expect an uptick in audits and investigations in addition to complexities introduced by new rules for computing gains and losses, determining cost basis, and applying backup withholding.^[4] Additional problems arise for those holding previously unreported crypto, foreign exchanges, and real estate transactions involving digital assets.^[5]

Google’s Geofencing Stance: an Ode to Apple in 2016

By JOLT

On July 15, 2024

In Blog Posts

Google’s Geofencing Stance: an Ode to Apple in 2016

By Michael Mellon

In 2016 Apple faced off with the federal government, who had obtained an order to compel Apple to create software which would allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to unlock a cellphone used by a suspected terrorist.^[1] The software was needed because Apple had recently redesigned its operating system, making it impossible for anyone to access information stored on one of their devices.^[2] The government maintained that the All Writs Act justified the compulsion because it “empower[s] judges to order that something be done, even if the legislative body (here, Congress) hasn’t officially said that it should be.”^[3] It further relied on a test established in United States v. New York Telephone Co. concerning the same.^[4] Apple was prepared to challenge this, but the issue became moot when the United States Attorney’s Office indicated it had found another means of entry into the phone.^[5] This situation may very well have been the inspiration for Google’s recent stance related to mobile devices.

Can AI-Generated Output Be Protected Under Intellectual Property Law?

By JOLT

On May 17, 2024

In Blog Posts

Can AI-Generated Output Be Protected Under Intellectual Property Law?

By Audrey Zhang Yang

Introduction

AI-generated output represents a groundbreaking integration of technology and creativity that increasingly challenges established norms in the legal world. Inevitably, it raises the question on whether law and policy on intellectual property protection should evolve and adapt to recognize this changing innovation trend. The Progress Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science…by securing for limited Times to Authors…the exclusive Right to their…Writing.”[i] Pursuant to this authorization, the Copyright Act extends copyright protection for “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.”[ii] The Copyright Act neither defined “authorship” not “works of authorship.”[iii] Traditionally, courts assigns authorship to individuals who create original works. However, determining authorship is more challenging in the case of artificial intelligence (AI). Some believe that since AI systems are tools programmed by humans, the programmers are entitled to authorship rights.[iv] Also, when someone instructs AI to solve a problem, that person might qualify as an investor if she formulates a problem in a manner that requires inventive skill.[v] However, laws on intellectual property, patent, and copyright were not originally passed with AI in mind. Therefore, there is no law specifically addressing AI-generated invention in any jurisdiction.