Because “crowdfunding” is a relatively new term in my lexicon, I found this article to brush up on the basics of crowdfunding and why it seems to be such an essential influence in the paths of many entrepreneurs. In the article, Wharton professor Valentina Assenova describes the facets of  crowdfunding, and, in particular, who it is affecting. Assenova began by noting that venture capital, the traditional source of funding for entrepreneurs, is very concentrated in the US (specifically, in Cambridge and Silicon Valley). With the outbreak of crowdfunding, though, geographies around the US that have not traditionally attracted capital have had upticks in investment. As Assenova describes, “All of that is to say that crowdfunding appears to be democratizing access to capital among a larger pool of innovators who are coming up with innovative ideas around the U.S.”

According to Assenova, the implications of this finding are numerous. Entrepreneurs no longer have to move to Silicon Valley in order to acquire funding. This may mean that an impressive business degree is also no longer necessary. Additionally, crowdfunding can be a great way to not just attract money from the “crowd,” but can eventually attract venture capitalists, as well.

To me, this all sounds like a wonderful way for non-traditional entrepreneurs to obtain necessary capital for their ideas. My only question would be whether it gives hope to too many ideas and entrepreneurs, who, perhaps, could use more iteration before receiving money to put these ideas into action.

Speaking of the growing connection between the law and the advent of new tech, there are a ton of CLEs offered at SXSW. I was lucky enough to be able to attend a few this year, and they are incredibly interesting. I highly recommend everyone keeping in mind SXSW for Continued Legal Education in the future. 

(Hint, you can listen to this story on the New Yorker site – the guys has an amazing voice)

Going off of my previous VR theme, I thought of this article I had read in the New Yorker (it’s literally so cheap for students). This article examines Out of Body Experiences (O.B.E.) and likens them to virtual reality. The magazine has been very much into this topic recently, with another article on fugue states in this week’s issue.

Although VR has a ways to go, it is amazing that it’s already tricking human minds so well. “I have tricked my body into thinking the virtual limb were mine… when I leaned into the mirror to make eye contact with myself, my face was cartoonish.”

The most applicable portion of this article applies the the “virtual reality code of ethics.” I wonder if this code of ethics, will soon become law. I would absolutely not be surprised, as we need statutes covering the needs of new VR technology.

This article describes an interaction with a virtual therapist, which is interesting as well. What do we do about privacy concerns with virtual therapists, doctors, real estate agents, clerks? The question surrounding store clerks is an applicable one, as we know actually do have virtual clerks being tested. Japan is a hub for VR at the moment, not just for video games, with therapeutic, educational and travel experiences being offered to those in need.

For example, tourists who are perhaps too elderly, ill or poor to travel abroad, are now able to experience a flight and tour of a far away country.  

I sat in on this year’s SXSW panel on the legalities of VR. Legal counsel from Oculus, Google, and Pokemon discussed the legal issues that arise with VR – particularly when individuals are expected to merge VR with reality.

This is the case for Pokemon Go for example, as people were getting mugged, hit by cars, or just disturbing memorials or graves. Where can we make legal boundaries that affect VR? What if someone in your VR game assaults you, do you have a claim against them?

Here’s a brief article outline the events at SXSW geared towards the law. 

This article points out 6 lessons entrepreneurs can learn from the fall of Theranos:

1. Entrepreneurs have to be honest to their advisers to actually benefit from their advice.
2. Be transparent in what your product can do and in what it can’t, especially to business partners.
3. Raising capital does not solve all of a company’s challenges.
4. Take proactively full responsibility of a failure.
5. Follow the lean-startup method (build, measure, learn) and admit to (and learn from) early failures to prevent later failures with devastating consequences.
6. Be careful when promoting your product in the public.

I think the article is correct in pointing out that there are several lessons both entrepreneurs and investors may learn from the Theranos debacle. But the fall of Theranos itself and the willingness of financiers to invest in it without seeing a full working prototype for years also indicates to me that at a certain point, it might become extremely difficult for all the involved parties to accept a complete failure of the project.

This article identifies 6 “secrets” for increasing the value of a start-up with intellectual property. I found it interesting that the article is that straightforward in pointing out that IP might be  a business’ most valuable asset (in particular in the context of technology start-ups) and that the legal regime governing it might be used very effectively to increase a start-up’s value.

This article attempts to identify the roots of patent trolls. It discusses a Harvard study suggesting that the country’s problems with low-quality patents and rampant patent litigation is driven by inadequate scrutiny of patents by patent examiners. The study shows that patents issued by patent examiners who demand the fewest changes from applicants account for a disappropriately high share of patents used by patent trolls.

The article proposes better educated and equipped patent examiners to solve the problem. However, some legal scholars (as the article points out) question whether this would be worth the additional capital expenditures, since most patents eventually remain unused. These scholars therefore favor to wait until an entity with an actual interest in using the invention challenges the patent in court.

This article analyzed a few cases in which antibody-related claims were challenged for obviousness. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim is not patentable if the “differences between the claimed invention and prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious” to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. This article analyzes obviousness issues related to antibody patents at the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in federal courts.It shows that method of treatment attracts the most patent claims. I thought this was an interesting read (thought half of it went over my head) following our debate in class over patenting health care equipment.

The syllabus this week directed us to consider the differences between how the Supreme Court and Congress are treating copyright and patent law. This article touches on the intersection of Congress and “Big Tech,” as it relates to privacy concerns. While this article doesn’t speak directly to patent or copyright regulation, I thought this article and the rising trend of “cracking down” on tech implicates a broader regulatory environment that is coming as the “techlash” continues.

This article discusses the WTO agreement for poorer countries to copy patented drugs. The waiver applies to 48 countries and include many African and Asian countries.

http://theconversation.com/worlds-poorest-countries-allowed-to-keep-copying-patent-protected-drugs-50799