Student Blogs

New York’s Home-Sharing Law: An Obstacle To Combatting The Consequences Of Gentrification

Gentrification, the process of renewal and rebuilding which accompanies the migration of middle-class or affluent people into historically poor urban areas, may on its face seem beneficial for all members of a community. After all, gentrification provides numerous benefits to blighted neighborhoods – it can help stimulate economic growth, garner greater resources for public education, public safety, and other areas of public welfare through increased property taxes, and provide new job opportunities for community members. While these benefits are noteworthy, the poor and people of color rarely enjoy them. Gentrification emphasizes the interests of the middle and upper classes—frequently at the expense of the poor and communities of color. With the renewal and rebuilding of dilapidated structures comes higher property values, large corporations and businesses that target the middle and upper classes, and highly skilled workers. The result is often the displacement of poor communities of color from the neighborhoods they have lived in their whole lives and embraced as their own. Thus, while gentrification encourages economic growth, it also results in increased homelessness among the original residents who cannot keep up with the rising property values. In an attempt to combat the negative consequences of gentrification, many low-income residents [read more]

Protecting Patents from the Looming 3D Printing Storm

The current state of U.S. patent infringement law does not meet the challenges of 3D printing technology. 3D printing is a process in which a printer produces a physical three-dimensional object from a “CAD” file, which is an image file formatted for computers. Owners of the printer merely have to upload the CAD file onto the printer to reproduce the desired object. Although 3D printing has yet to gain broad use and appeal, the law may need to catch up with the technological advancement. Data indicate that 3D printing could be mainstream in even five years. The federal statute controlling the area of patent infringement (including 3D printing) is 35 U.S.C. § 271. The statute explains both direct and indirect patent infringement. Direct infringement is the act of making, using, selling, offering, or importing into the U.S., any patented invention, without permission. Indirect infringement, is any act that is not direct infringement, but which requires some knowledge and intent regarding the actual infringement. The federal statute protects against infringement in the most basic sense. In Bauer & Cie. v. O’Donnell, the Supreme Court ruled that physically reproducing a patented invention is the same as “making” a patented invention (direct infringement). [read more]

The Erosion of Free Will and Its Legal Implications

By Noah Danielson The state of our knowledge about “free will” is still very unsettled. Much of the research in this field is the subject of hotly contested debate and answers to many important questions remain up in the air. However, a number of studies have corroded the edges of a previously widely accepted principal: that human decisions are the result of conscious choices. This idea is central to the retributivist theory of justice, by which a willful wrongdoer’s blameworthiness subjects them to punishment. Human Understanding of Our Conscious Choice In a study published in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, researchers found that transcranial stimulation – magnetic stimulation of the nerve cells in the brain – could impact human choices. Researchers asked participants to randomly raise their hand 50 times. Prior to stimulation, a right-handed person would select their right hand 60% of the time. After transcranial stimulation, the same person would select their left hand 80% of the time. Interestingly, participants still reported that they believed their choices had been made freely. The results suggest that the conscious mind may mistakenly believe that conscious intent is the impetus for an action, when in actuality there is an outside [read more]

Gobble, Gobble: A Pardon for Turkeys, But Not for Snowden

By: Francis Cullo   On November 23, the day before Thanksgiving, President Obama will pardon a turkey (or two) for the eighth and final time in his presidency. This lighthearted tradition dates back to the Truman White House, although some trace the practice back to Lincoln’s clemency of a turkey all the way back in 1863. It is a somewhat absurd tradition. For one thing turkeys have not even committed a crime! But so many of our Thanksgiving traditions are absurd. The National Turkey Federation (yes, it’s a real lobbying organization) sponsors the White House ceremony. The Federation pays for the pardoned turkeys to arrive to the White House by motorcade flanked by Secret Service agents. For all the pomp and circumstance of the Thanksgiving ceremony, President Obama is a reluctant pardoner in another way as well. Obama trails every two-term president in number of pardons except for our first president George Washington, favoring instead the use of commutations. Executive clemency powers are serious business, and should not be taken lightly. However, under federal mandatory minimum standards, non-violent first-time offenders are not eligible for parole, and many are serving harsh sentences. That makes executive clemency powers effectively the only safety [read more]

Why it’s time we talk about “That Time of the Month”

By Danielle Bernstein   Don’t worry about paying sales tax the next time you go to CVS to pick up a prescription, buy some condoms, or stock up on sunscreen. These items are exempt from sales tax because they are considered medical necessities that are “intended for use, internally or externally, in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of illnesses or diseases in human beings.” But go to CVS to pick up a package of tampons? Time to pay up. Under the current tax code tampons and pads are not medical necessities, instead they are classified as items “used to maintain cleanliness.” This designation places tampons and pads in the same category as cosmetics like lipstick and shampoo. Interestingly, dandruff shampoo made the cut for a “necessity” and is not taxed. Any woman who has ever had to ask a stranger for an emergency tampon in the bathroom (and most of us have) knows this designation is incorrect. Tampons and pads are not luxury items. As one woman put it, “[They are] one of the most important things for a woman to have available.” And insofar as there is a spectrum of “necessity,” tampons are certainly more necessary that treating [read more]

523(a)(8): The Elusive Student Loan Debt Discharge

By Sam Gamer   This past summer, the total student loan debt owed by Americans crested up to $1.2 trillion. For those staring down their own slices of that staggering sum, the options available to pay it off can seem daunting. A lucky few of these former students might be able to find high-paying jobs that enable them to easily handle their debts. For most, however, the path likely includes some combination of sacrifice, payment plans, multiple jobs, and refinancing. And for those who have an appetite for uphill battles, an additional tool might make sense: bankruptcy. The discharge of one’s debts is a hallmark of the consumer bankruptcy system. Whether filing for chapter 7 or chapter 13, the debtor emerges from the process with his debts forgiven. Well, most of them. Contained within section 523 of the federal bankruptcy code is a list of certain debts that, even in a bankruptcy context, a borrower can’t escape from. Student loans are on this forbidden list. Specifically, the law says that, unless the former student can prove that keeping the loans will impose an “undue hardship” on him or her, the loans will not be discharged even after a bankruptcy filing. [read more]

The Converse Shoe Case: Why We Should “Chuck” the Aesthetic Functionality Doctrine

By Max Scharf Converse is currently in the midst of litigation which seems to completely depend on the status of the aesthetic functionality doctrine. When consumers think of Converse, they often think of their Converse All Star sneakers (as seen below), also known as “Chuck Taylors.” In October 2014, Converse filed suit against Wal-Mart (and dozens of other companies) claiming these companies were selling knock-off Chuck Taylors. For the sake of brevity, this post will mainly focus on Converse’s claims against Wal-Mart. Converse is claiming trade dress infringement on the grounds that Wal-Mart’s “Stinson Oxford” shoes are likely to cause consumer confusion.     Converse claims Wal-Mart is unlawfully reproducing its “midsole trademark” which consists of a particular design, including stripes, a toe cap, and a toe bumper. Indeed, in 2013, Converse registered this design with the Patent and Trademark Office.   Background on Trade Dress Protection In Two Pesos, the Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act protects trade dress, which includes the “shape, color or color combinations, texture, [and] graphics” of a product. Trade dress, in the form of a product design, can only be registered and protected, under the Lanham Act, if it acquires secondary meaning. Secondary [read more]