To the surprise of no one, Instagram is pretty popular; Samsung puts a billion dollars into the Internet of Things; the FCC’s trying to decide if radio noise is a problem; and there’s an approach to virtual reality that won’t make you want to throw up.
AI teaching assistants and the NBA’s interest in VR aside, this week’s roundup has plenty of darker-themed stories, including torture-proof passwords, live-streamed suicide and death while AR gaming.
It’s apparent by now that along with an expected economic impact of billions or even trillions of dollars, the Internet of Things (IoT) also brings with it a host of security, health and policy concerns. (See our earlier post on managing the cybersecurity risks of the medical IoT for just one facet of these concerns.)
The U.S. government has noticed, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), part of the Department of Commerce, is now seeking comments to guide its own rulemaking on the IoT. In a recent client alert, colleagues Aimee Ghosh, Sheila Harvey, and Glenn Reynolds break down what exactly the NTIA will be looking for in terms of feedback.
Last week, the en banc Federal Circuit declined to rehear its November 10, 2015, decision in ClearCorrect v. ITC, 2014-1527, leaving the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (ITC) Section 337 jurisdiction to “material things” that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights. This denial and the 2015 Federal Circuit decision have wide implications for a variety of industry sectors, especially those involved with the Internet of Things or any company that may transfer digital assets across the U.S. border. Regarding the case, this denial restricts the ITC from prohibiting ClearCorrect’s importation of digital files used to manufacture teeth aligners that allegedly infringed complainant Align Technology’s patents. (For more details on the November 10, 2015 decision, see our post, “Living in a Nonmaterial World: Determining IP Rights for Digital Data.”)
Intel and Sony give us an idea of the future of virtual reality; Google goes shopping in the cloud; the FBI warns consumers about car hacking; the Internet of Thing’s language problem; and more …
GE’s tech chief discusses gamification and cars; Apple and the FBI’s faceoff continues; Microsoft will give developers a new toy to play with; man’s best friend takes a disliking to man’s made friend; and more …
Recently, we noted vulnerability issues from use of the Internet of Things and how that has come to impact the health industry. Recent events continue to highlight this development. Since the start of the year, there have been cyber attacks targeting hospitals. Perhaps recognizing the extensive disruption and potential privacy concerns to patients, the hackers have targeted these institutions to either make a point or seek large sums in exchange for returning access to the hospital data. In January, Hurley Medical Center, based in Flint, Mich., was attacked, although a spokesperson stated that policies and protocols were followed and patient care was not compromised. The hacktivist group Anonymous released a video with the hashtag #OpFlint prior to the cyber attack and suggests responsibility for the breach to make a point regarding the city’s water crisis, although no confirmation has been made.
The cybersecurity ramifications of the Internet of Things (IoT) are perhaps nowhere more crucial—potentially a matter of life and death, in fact—than in the realm of medical devices. Until recent times, a potential hack of the data-sharing that is a hallmark of the IoT raised far more privacy concerns than actual health risks. However, as medical devices begin to evolve and make use of the connectivity of the IoT, this balance may change. For one example, think pacemakers, where a malicious glitch in a networked piece of equipment could have fatal consequences.
Continue Reading →
In our recent post, Living in a Nonmaterial World: Determining IP Rights for Digital Data, we discussed the potential impact of the Federal Circuit decision in ClearCorrect v. ITC, 2014-1527, in which the appeals court held that the “articles that infringe” are limited to “material things” and thus do not include “electronic transmission of digital data.” The decision limited the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to articles that are considered physical products. The implications of the decision are far-reaching since the Internet of Things touches on most industry sectors. As previously noted, the decision has been supported by open-Internet advocacy groups, characterizing the decision as a “win for the Internet,” while other groups (including the dissent to the opinion) see the decision as a significant setback in the fight against overseas piracy of patented and copyrighted works.