T HE School of Law Newspaper Since 1970 ADVO C ATE Santa Clara University School of Law Wednesday, April 15, 2015 Volume 45 Issue 6 LBS Hosts Ethics in Law with Distinguished Alum Chip Lion By Nikki Webster Managing Editor was lost, the ethical answer would require the truth and conversations with the Lawyers are human – lawyer’s partners or general they make mistakes. So counsel, malpractice carrier, what should be done when and the client herself. mistakes are made? What As professionals without can be done to prevent them much oversight, lawyers often in the first instance? have only themselves to turn Last Thursday, April to with regard to making 9th, Santa Clara’s Law and ethical decisions. Lawyers Business Society hosted should behave ethically the event “Ethics in Law,” not just because it is the presented by distinguished right thing to do, but also alumnus, Paul “Chip” Lion, because the consequences of III, and SCU law professor, unethical action could be far William Woodward. worse than making the right 2015 recipient of the choice in the first instance. Alumni Special Achievement Knowledge of the law places Award, Lion is the head of LBS Co-President Jack McCormack introduces Chip Lion and Professor William Woodward. lawyers in a superior position the American Bar Association’s to clients such that lawyers various hypotheticals that represent common Business Law Section. Professor Woodward, in could easily abuse their power without their clients ethical issues that arise in the legal profession. A addition to teaching contracts at Santa Clara, realizing. noteworthy hypo is the one in which a lawyer is also Chair of the Pro Bono Committee of the Jack McCormack, Co-President of the Law and does not file suit within the statute of limitations ABA’s Business Law Section. for his client’s claim. Though the lawyer would be Business Society, told me his main takeaway from Together, Lion and Woodward presented See Page 2 “Ethics in Law” in a position to simply tell the client that the case Legal Eagles Soar High in HMCI By Kyle Glass Copy Editor In their briefs for the Supreme Court, Honors Moot Court Internal Contestants dealt with a variety of complex legal issues stemming from an On Thursday, April 2nd, Santa Clara extensive record created by the HMCI Law’s Honors Moot Court Internal board. Advocates created arguments conducted its final round in the Music regarding statutory interpretation and Recital Hall. The final hearing consisted tried to discern the intent behind a of Kevin McManus and Tamarah law through its legislative history. In Prevost as counsel for the petitioner. addition, competitors had to argue Spenser Noh and Peter Tran were whether empirical results implied a counsel for the respondent. A three causal connection which, for those of us judge panel presided over the hearing who have taken Con Law II, is always a and included Judge Paul Grewal and difficult task. Judge Ronald Whyte from California’s The road to the HMCI finals began Northern District. The Chief Justice way back in the Fall semester, with was Cathy Sakimura who is the everybody’s favorite class: Appellate Family Law Director and Supervising Advocacy. Students interested in Attorney for the National Center for competing submitted applications and Lesbian Rights. Although both teams were selected based on the quality of of advocates did an excellent job Competition winners Kevin McManus and Tamarah Prevost pose after the HMCI final. their coursework in advocacy. Sixteen proceeding through their arguments Maria Lopez was arrested in 1998 for drug related teams were selected. In addition to their and fielding the panel’s questions, Kevin and Tamarah crimes, pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 5 normal course loads, they wrote and submitted briefs, were selected as the Best Team and were also awarded years in prison with fines. and participated in practice oral arguments in the Second Place Brief. Quarterfinalists Mike Morey and After being released early for good behavior, weeks leading up to the competition. When asked to Kat Arianejad were awarded with the Competition’s Miss Lopez was unable to pay off her fines, and reflect on the process, winners Kevin and Tamarah had Best Brief. under Atlantica’s felony disenfranchisement law was this to say: This year’s competition focused on the State prohibited from voting. In 2011, she challenged the law “HMCI was a great challenge. We learned and grew of Atlantica’s felony disenfranchisement law and in United States District Court but the court granted so much throughout the course of the competition. whether it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights the State of Atlantica’s motion for summary judgement. Professor Flynn, Director Kyle Cakebread, and the and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States On appeal, the Fourteenth Circuit overturned the rest of the executive board did an outstanding job Constitution. Atlantica’s felony disenfranchisement district court’s ruling finding that the law acted as preparing the record, coordinating the tournament, law was initially enacted in 1960 with the obvious a voting qualification with a discriminatory effect and pushing the competitors to improve every single goal of discriminating against Hispanics. Over 30 violating the Voting Rights Act. In addition, the Court round. We feel blessed to have had this opportunity. years later, Atlantica reenacted the statute, this time found that the law was enacted with a discriminatory Kudos to all of the extraordinary advocates that with a legislative record free from any discriminatory purpose which, coupled with the law’s discriminatory participated!” intent. Despite the law’s reenactment, the law still had effect, violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Those interested in partcipating in next year’s a disparate racial effect, disenfranchising minority Clause. Atlantica then petitioned the Supreme Court competiton should use Advocacy to sharpen their skills groups at significantly higher rates than white people. for Writ of Certiorari which was granted. and keep their eyes peeled for HMCI announcements. In the fact pattern presented by HMCI, respondent THE ADVOCATE 2 STAFF Editor-in-Chief Brent Tuttle Managing Editor Nikki Webster Associate Editor Lindsey Kearney Copy Editor Kyle Glass Business Editor Hannah Yang IP Editor Jodi Benassi Privacy Editor Sona Makker Social Justice Editor Nnennaya Amuchie Staff Writer(s) Angela Habibi Campbell Yore For The Advocate Tori Anthony Jonathan Joannides Erica Riel-Carden Editor Emeritus Michael Branson Email The Advocate: [email protected] The Advocate is the student news publication of Santa Clara University School of Law. The various sections of The Advocate are articles that reflect the viewpoint of the authors, and not the opinion of Santa Clara University, The Advocate or its editors. The Advocate is staffed by law students. Printing is contracted to Fricke-Parks Press of Union City, California. April 2015 Ethics in Law Event Continued... the presentation: “It’s inevitable that mistakes will be made. They might not be the fault of anyone, but there’s a right way to fix things and a wrong way to fix things. The result might be similar, but ultimately short cuts will get back to you.” There may be a way to help prevent mistakes altogether: learn from current professionals who have experience. As law students, we have very limited experience to the vast range of fact patterns that arise every day, and to the legal consequences of action and inaction in each instance. Some problems may be very nuanced, and some solutions outside our current know-how. This week, Santa Clara Law students have the opportunity to learn from the 1800-2000 business lawyers expected to attend the ABA Business Law Section’s Spring Meeting. Mr. Lion has invited us all to attend for FREE. Topics range from current legal issues in corporate law, bankruptcy, and business transactions; a full schedule is available at http:// www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/ business_law/2015/04/spring/guide.authcheckdam. pdf. The Business Law Section has also created a recommended schedule for law students at http:// www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/events_ cle/spring_2015/students.html. Some events that grabbed my attention are “Cross Border Lending and Trade Financing,” “A Taste of IP Wine Law,” “Making it Rain: Business Development for Young Lawyers,” and the Law Student Speed Networking Program. Law students should consider attending the Spring Meeting for three reasons. First, the Business Law Section will be covering a plethora of interesting topics on the cutting edge of law; where both lawyers and law students can learn and provide input that may impact the profession. Second, the event is a prime networking opportunity where law students can engage their potential employers and converse with leading practitioners in the field. Finally, did I mention law students can attend for FREE? The only requirement is on-site registration – click “register” on the linked page for registration hours: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/ business_law/events_cle/spring_2015/students.html. The ABA Business Law Section has over 50 substantive law committees, including mergers and acquisitions, Uniform Commercial Code, private equity, banking, bankruptcy, venture capital, and more. The Spring Meeting is an excellent time to tap into the resources the Business Law Section has to offer. More importantly, engaging with current practitioners is an expedient and efficient way to gain experience without personally dealing with all of the legal and ethical situations those professionals have encountered. Attending Spring Meeting could be more than just a fun and interesting weekend of free hors d’oeuvres, drink, and stimulating conversation; it could enable you to prevent future mistakes in practice by growing your legal foundation with experiential wisdom. Rumor Mill with Dean Erwin By Susan Erwin Senior Assistant Dean The summer and fall schedules hardly have any classes listed. How am I supposed to finish my certificate if you aren’t offering any of the classes that I need? It’s true that the summer offerings are much reduced from previous years. Summer registration numbers have been going down for the last couple years. I like to think it’s because you all are getting jobs and externships and going abroad and spending time with your families in summer. We also have a much smaller study body, which will also keep enrollments low. We are being cautious and trying to plan wisely. Initial registration is about over and it looks like we have a couple of small wait lists that will probably clear on their own. It doesn’t look like we have enough of a waiting list to add another Advocacy section. There are seats open in the day section of Advocacy, for those of you who can take a day class. The campaign to add a Legal Profession class was very successful and there are almost 60 of you enrolled! (We should probably put Ruby and Megan in charge of organizing more stuff around here!) The fall and spring schedules on the Current Students webpage are tentative. We added the classes that our faculty are teaching. We will be adding days, times and notes soon. Once those classes are scheduled, we will be taking a look at the electives offered by our adjuncts and deciding which of those to add. The directors of our centers and professors in our other specialty areas are giving us advice on course offerings and sequencing. You all will register for fall in June. We should have a completed fall schedule in May. In the meantime, we will keep adding classes as we confirm them to try to give you as much information as we can as soon as we can. My section has been talking about grades. Is it true that we won’t know our grades until the end of summer? What if we end up on Directed Study and have to change our schedule? Will our summer abroad grades count toward our GPA to get us out of Directed Study? The professors have 30 days from the date that the bulk of the exams are available for pick up from the Faculty Support Office to turn in grades. (That’s usually about 2 days after the exam.) So, you shouldn’t start stressing about grades until mid-June-ish. We will start watching your grades and will send you an email (to your official SCU email address) right away if you are on Directed Study. (Remember the speech I gave during Academic Advising Week: a third of you on DS, not a bad thing, not on transcript, personal counselor, lots of help, good thing, helps pass the bar, good not bad.) The folks in Academic Success are there all summer to meet with you (and Skype) and work with you to adjust your schedule, if we need to. There’s plenty of time before classes start to get this all worked out. Please note: there is no “off Directed Study” - there is “on” and there is “not” – there is no “off ”. You can’t work your way off of the program. Like it or not, you are going to have all the help that Academic Success can give you for the full 2 years of upper division. The grades that you earn in summer courses will count toward your cumulative law school GPA once summer grades are posted in August. The GPA that we use to calculate your ranking and to make determinations about Directed Study and academic disqualification is the cumulative GPA that you have after spring semester each year. So, yes your summer grades count, but no, they don’t count in determining directed study. What’s with the slides about how depressed law students are? This is not a good time to be telling us that we have problems! March 27th has been designated by the ABA as Mental Health Day and the week of April 13th is the Law School’s Wellness Week. We put these things near the exam period for a reason. As you gear up for exams and papers and studying, it is a good thing to be reminded that you need to take care of yourself. Think Balance. Eat. Sleep. Find healthy strategies to deal with your stress, avoid unhealthy ways. Almost 70 of you took the free on-line mental health screening. About half of the responders reported feeling anxiety. About a third reported feelings of depression. The site – MentalHealthScreening.org – offers suggestions on how to deal with these issues. Our Counseling and Psychological Services Office is here to help. I am here to help. Many of us are here for you. Check in with us or check out the tools available to you on the Current Students webpage - law.scu. edu/current/. Follow the links under Resources: Law Lifeline, Mental Health Screening, Counseling Center, Disabilities Resources, Office of Academic and Bar Success. Or . . . just stop by and see me. Good Luck on Exams! Heard any rumors lately? If so, send me an email – [email protected] April 2015 THE ADVOCATE 3 17th Annual Trina Grillo Retreat Inspires Social Justice By Nnennaya Amuchie Social Justice Editor On Friday, March 20th and Saturday, March 21st, many law students took time out to attend the infamous 17th Annual Trina Grillo Retreat hosted by the Center for Social Justice and Public Service, along with Consortium Law Schools. The Trina Grillo Retreat provides a unique opportunity for public interest and social justice law students, faculty and practitioners to forge an alliance by exchanging viewpoints, exploring career opportunities, and formulating strategies for social justice. Co-sponsored by Santa Clara Law School and the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT), with other west coast law schools, this retreat honors the memory of Professor Trina Grillo, 1948-96, who was a source of inspiration to many. Trina Grillo was a champion of intersectionality and anti-essentialism. She once said, “Anti-essentialism and intersectionality are checks on us; they help us make sure that we do not speak for those we cannot speak for or ask others to share our agenda while they patiently wait for their own.” Trina believed that it is important for us to listen to one another and believe each other’s experiences. We become a more compassionate and open society when we are willing to reach out to others. The Trina Grillo Retreat was well attended with over 80 participants. In addition, the retreat received positive feedback from attendees with six Santa Clara Law alumni participating as panelists or moderators. To kick off the weekend, students participated in community service events all throughout the South Bay which included providing lunch to the homeless, working with elementary school students in their gardening class, making handmade blankets for children, crafting handmade bracelets for U.S. Service members, and inspiring young children to attend Attendees pose at the Trina Grillo Retreat. college and pursue careers in the legal field. Ernest Estes, who volunteered to visit an elementary school, told me, “The event was great! As busy law students, we sometimes need a reminder that we have a role outside of the legal community. For children this young, just being visible and accessible makes a difference. We each represent different and often unfamiliar routes to success. Although dodgeball was amazing, in the end we hope the children could see themselves in us, as much as saw younger versions of ourselves in them. After all, we’ll need them to solve the problems that our generation can’t.” Many students were inspired and renewed their vision for social justice and public interest. Following the community service events, there was a series of speakers and panelists. This year’s panelist and speakers included representatives such as Deputy Chief of Staff & Public Safety Director, City of San Francisco, Santa Clara Law, Southwestern Law School, Bay Area Legal Aid, Tirien Steinbach, East Bay Community Law Center, Golden Gate University School of Law, Red Light Legal, Pro Bono Project of Silicon Valley, ACLU of Northern CA, LawGives, Stanford Center for Computers and Law, and deans from the participating law schools. Many innovative topics were discussed including “Social Justice Entrepreneurialism” which explored innovative trends in social justice entrepreneurism. Increasingly, law school graduates are developing innovative methods to provide legal services in new ways, to new populations, in new areas of law. These panelists gave the audience advice on finding a passion and creating sustainable models to launch your own practices that reflect your passion. Another interesting topic was “Using Technology and Social Media to Change the World”. Santa Clara alum, Zsea Beaumonis, told me, “It was inspiring to see so many law students in attendance at the Grillo Retreat, as they are already heeding the call to serve neglected, underserved communities so early in their legal careers. I appreciated hearing about the way practitioners serve the public interest through their entrepreneurial endeavors, and how they incorporate new technologies to broaden their impact. I hope the Consortium members continue to support this important institution and incorporate the goals of social justice throughout their entire legal curriculum, beyond the silo of Public Interest Law.” The Center for Social Justice and Public Service invites you to attend next year and keep Trina Grillo’s legacy alive! For more information, visit http://law.scu. edu/socialjustice/trina-grillo/. Panetta Institute Offers Students Invaluable Insight By Tori Anthony For The Advocate In this frustrating time of gridlock in Washington D.C., the question on the minds of many is, “How can we actually get something done?” Santa Clara Law provides the chance for students to answer this question by becoming fellows at The Panetta Institute for Public Policy. Fellows are given the chance to conduct research and develop an in-depth knowledge on issues of international, national, state and local concern. The Institute creates an inspiring atmosphere that motivates everyone who steps within its doors to consider a life of public service and become a leader in the community. The Panetta Institute was founded in 1997 by Secretary Leon Panetta and Sylvia Panetta. Secretary Panetta served as the CIA director, the Secretary of Defense, White House Chief of Staff, and as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Secretary Panetta is also a Santa Clara University alumnus receiving his B.A. degree and J.D. degree from Santa Clara. In 2006, Santa Clara Law and the Panetta Institute jointly created The Panetta Institute Fellows program in which Santa Clara Law upper division students are chosen each fall and spring semester. The Panetta Institute Fellows acquire knowledge on the most prevalent and pressing policy subjects through extensive research. Currently, the fellows are preparing for the Leon Panetta Lecture Series, which focuses on the areas of energy, race relations, the economy, and cyber security. In the fall semester fellows provide support for the Jefferson-Lincoln Awards: An Evening to Honor Lives of Public Service. Fellows help with SCU Law Alum Leon Panetta speaks at graduation in 1988. Photo credit: Charles Barry any research and writing needs of the Institute, building a greater understanding of the workings of the American political system. An invaluable aspect of the program is when elected officials, experts, and other prominent academics come to speak directly to the fellows. This Spring semester, fellows have met with Secretary Panetta, as well as other experts, including State Senator Bill Monning; Drew Liebert, Chief Counsel, California Assembly Judiciary Committee; Ryan Coonerty, Santa Cruz County supervisor; Steve Isenberg, former publisher of New York Newsday, a university professor and former chief of staff to New York City Mayor John Lindsay; John Laird, California Secretary for Natural Resources; and Fred Keeley, former state Assemblyman. The speakers tell their story, often explaining how their law degree has led them to their careers and the current policy issues facing public officials. All of the speakers are experts in their fields and are genuinely interested in talking with the fellows and providing guidance for future career paths. Fellows also attend a weekly seminar and discussion, where they are introduced to the scholarly work of leading academics and writers that are discussed in the Institute’s master’s level courses: Money, Media and Politics; Legislative and Executive Politics and Policymaking; and Budget Policy. Lastly, the fellows write policy papers on topics of their choosing. After extensive research, fellows boil down the key elements of a policy problem and propose a solution to the current policy issue. Individual feedback is given to help improve upon writing skills. The Panetta Fellowship gives students the rare opportunity to understand how to develop a solution to major policy issues, and to learn the qualities and principles needed to be a successful leader in any area. Applications are currently being accepted for the Spring 2016 Fellowship. For further information contact Dean Magliozzi at [email protected] or visit http://law.scu.edu/ apd/panetta-fellowship/. THE ADVOCATE 4 April 2015 Office Hours Unwound 1.What is your favorite summer memory to date? The summer when I got my first real six-string. I bought it at the fiveand-dime and played it ‘til my fingers bled. 2. What was your favorite course from law school and why? My most memorable graduate school course was taught by investment banker Michael Milken. Milken earned $550M in 1987, so my peers and I aspired to be just like him—until he went to jail. After Milken was released from prison, in Fall 1993 he taught a UCLA Business School course called “Corporate Finance, Financial Institutions and Investments.” The course sparked nationwide controversy (see, e.g., http://articles.latimes.com/199402-18/local/me-24338_1_michael-milken) and was repeatedly lampooned in the Doonesbury comic strip (start with http://www.gocomics.com/ doonesbury/1993/11/15). The class had kickoff and closing dinners just like investment bankers do when they are working on important deals. At the closing dinner, all of the Eric Goldman students got commemorative Lucite plaques reprinting 12 pearls of wisdom Co-Director of the High Tech that Milken wanted us to remember. For example, Concept #6 says: “The Law Institute & Professor of Law 1980’s was a time of giving.” I still have the Lucite plaque in my office. Drop by and check it out. Areas of Specialization: Internet Law, Intellectual 3. Which character(s) from literature and/or film do you most Property, Advertising & identify with? Marketing, Slinkies I’ve always aspired to be the “Joe Cool” version of Snoopy, but I’m actually more like Woodstock. I also identify with Mr. Spock from Star Education: Trek TOS. He’s logical, loyal, acerbic, dedicated to his job, a vegetarian, and -J.D., UCLA played by a Jewish man. -M.B.A., UCLA -B.A., UCLA 4. What is your favorite source, (news / journal / legal blog / other) for keeping current with the law? For legal news, I rely heavily on TMZ and The Onion. I also read The Advocate and my own blog, http://blog.ericgoldman.org. 5. What would you do with a time machine? I would patent it! But I’m not sure I would actually use it. In the movies, time machines always seem dangerously finicky. 6.What was your favorite summer job that you had while in law school and how did you get it? During my 1L summer (1991), the legal market was in a recession—not as severe as now, but still bad. I applied to over 100 firms in the major metro areas throughout the western United States and generated a giant stack of rejection letters. 1. What is your favorite summer memory to date? I think summers when I was a kid were amazing and some of the best memories. I lived in a town where in the summers kids just rode bikes and played in yards and playgrounds all day. There were no scheduled activities or structured teams. There was a 6:00 whistle that you could hear all over town and all the kids knew they had 10 minutes from the whistle to get home. As an adult, my favorite summer memory was taking a trip last summer to Macchu Picchu with my family. A truly magical place. 2.What was your favorite course from law school and why? I have very little memory of almost anything from law school- and definitely not from a favorite course. The work I did outside of classes was what made law school a great experience. 3.Which character(s) from literature and/or film do you most identify with? I would have to say Cher in the movie Suspect- only because while preparing for the movie, Cher came and watched me in a quadruple murder case I was trying. We chatted about what it was like to be a Public Defender. Cher drove a white Honda civic in the movie- like I drove and the set department copied parts of my apartment including my ironing board in the living room with files on one end and the iron on the other. Only big difference was Cher slept with a juror- (played by Dennis Quaid)- and I have never done that! Of course, I have never had a juror who looked like Dennis Quaid. Unfortunately, it’s not a very good movie… and I guess it really means that Cher should identify with me. 4.What is your favorite source, (news / journal / legal blog / other) for keeping current with the law? Important Supreme Court cases were always well covered and analyzed by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Sadly now, I’ll have to find new sources of news and legal analysis. Maybe Professor Eric Goldman will start blogging about criminal law and death penalty issues instead of just IP law. 5.What would you do with a time machine? I would like to go forward to see how long it takes us to finally get rid of the death penalty and join the rest of the civilized world in abolishing that practice. (Those who know me were probably waiting to see how I would work the death penalty into these questions.) As summer drew nearer, I needed to change search strategies. I tried to find markets where I could be more competitive—such as markets where smart people wouldn’t want to go. In retrospect, the solution was obvious: smart students don’t want to spend their summers in the desert, where it’s hotter than heck. Armed with this insight, I sent out three resumes to law firms in Palm Springs. I immediately got three interviews. I got hired at a small tax and litigation firm in Palm Springs. I got paid less than I was making before I went to law school. The temperature repeatedly topped 120. I lived 1/3 of a mile from the office, but I still arrived at the office sweaty and gross. I didn’t really love the legal work. On the plus side, eventually I married the boss’s daughter, so the job turned out great. 7. What is your favorite concert that you’ve attended? I’m not much of a concert-goer. I even avoid going to my kids’ school performances. 8. If you could sit down for dinner with any Supreme Court Justice, dead or alive, who would it be and why? If I had a time machine per Q5, I wouldn’t be limited to just one! But if I had to pick only one, I would enjoy having dinner with Justice Evelina Qirjako of the Albania Supreme Court. I believe she has written some interesting opinions (although I’m not sure because I can’t read Albanian). 9. What do you consider to be the most important development in your field over the last 5 years? The collapse of student demand for legal education is pretty significant. I’ll also note the changing demands of legal employers, who used to prize smart generalists who lacked well-defined career plans but now prefer hyper-focused specialists. 10. How do you unwind? My family situation doesn’t leave me with much downtime any more. However, in my limited free time, I like to think about ways to make my final exams harder for my students. I find my stress level reduces as I come up with innovative ways to ratchet up the stress for students. It’s like a principle of stress conservation. 6. What was your favorite summer job that you had while in law school and how did you get it? I worked as an investigator at the D.C. Public Defender Office during my second summer of law school. I was walking around the law school and saw a room filled with people who were wearing jeans- no suits and no ties. So I figured I’d see what they were doing in the law school. This was at a DC law school where even a lot of the students wore suits! Turned out they were Public Defenders hiring for the summer. I took the job- although I really had no particular interest in criminal law. Within a week, I knew I had found my passion. Just shows- you never know! 7. What is your favorite concert that you’ve attended? There was a Grateful Dead Concert back in Philadelphia when I was in college that has to be a favorite. Back then they played for 5-6 hours at a time and that’s all I have to say about that. 8. If you could sit down for dinner with any Supreme Court Justice, dead or alive, who would it be and why? I would love to sit down with the Notorious RBG- Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She is an amazing intellect while still compassionate for the individual. She has seen a lot, done a lot, and would have much to say and, at this point in her life, I believe she would not hold back. Any Supreme Court Justice who admits to being a little tipsy at the state of the union message would be fun as well as interesting. 9.What do you consider to be the most important development in your field over the last 5 years? My field is criminal law and, in particular, the death penalty. The most important development in my field is yet to come- as I wait for abolition in California and the rest of the country. In the past few years six states have abolished the death penalty and several more have imposed moratoriums while they study whether or not to continue the practice. The Pope is finally speaking out more forcefully against the death penalty and many more people have come to appreciate that it is a practice that does not belong in today’s society. 10. How do you unwind? I like to run (outdoors- not running in place on a treadmill looking at the outdoors); I have two adorable golden retrievers who are always ready to take me for a walk and listen to any problems or concerns of the day. (Sometimes I bring them to school to help students unwind.) And I like to read- just for fun. So anyone who has a good book recommendation- send it on to me. Ellen S. Kreitzberg Professor of Law Areas of Specialization: Criminal Law, Death Penalty, Evidence, Trial Advocacy Education: -J.D., George Washington University Law School -B.A., University of Pennsylvania April 2015 THE ADVOCATE How Ellen Pao’s Loss is Really a Victory By Hannah Yang Business Editor The dust has settled somewhat since the jury in the Ellen Pao case found for her former employer, Kleiner Perkins, on all four counts. But, as Ms. Pao has suggested in posttrial interviews, the conversations should not end here. While the facts of the case focused on the venture capital world, Ms. Pao’s story could have easily been transmuted into any field. There is an unfortunate familiarity. In the wake of trial lies the foundation of this story. One that includes practices that are far too common, but which have since emboldened those who have been similarly situated to speak out against inappropriate practices in the work environment. The men-only ski trips, and dinner parties. Dropped invitations to conferences and events. Inappropriate sexual comments in the office. Lack of support from supervisors and alienation from male colleagues. Through all this morass, Pao attempted to voice her reasonable complaints to her supervisors, but without any luck or change. Some suggested she develop a tough skin. Others suggested she bite the bullet, and make herself more amenable to the unwanted advances. Pao’s options became more limited, until finally, she filed suit, and subsequently was terminated. Pao’s supporters praised her for her courage in standing up for herself in an area where many women feel that they don’t have a voice. On the 5 other hand, critics suggest Pao is just an unlikable person, and that based on her own background and history, she may have had ulterior motives in pursuing these claims. Anyway, at trial both sides had all their dirty laundry aired out, and while was documented during “Gamergate.” The results from recent diversity studies detailing the alarming disparity between men and women in both the skilled employee and high-level management roles in Silicon Valley are widely known now, and represent a real problem. The tech industry’s struggles in recruiting women have causes at all levels, from poor interest development in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) courses, to burdens upon entering the workplace, such as lack of mentors and role models, to harassment by colleagues, and hostile work environments. Still, it does not follow that the homogeny among those in management is due to the smaller pool of women in the industry. A note here: while venture capital firms are not per se tech companies, the two worlds share a symbiotic relationship, where venture boasts an even lower female participation rate. Hopefully, even as interest in Ellen Pao takes the stand in her suit against Kleiner Perkins. the case winds down, the events Illustration credit: Vicki Ellen Behringer that unfolded last month can inspire Kleiner Perkins won the jury, there is a feeling that greater consciousness of these issues. Along with Pao and her supporters don’t view this as a true this knowledge comes the ability to effectuate loss, but as motivation to continue the fight toward changes to the current standard. Although the fairer representation. Coincidentally, the trial structural biases disadvantaging women run unfolded at a very relevant time: issues of gender deep, there is good news in that the desired inequality had made its way back to the public’s outcome is attainable, so long as there is continued awareness through studies; the word “feminism” recognition and work toward progress. resurfaced in popular discourse; the harassment toward female gamers and Internet personalities High Tech Law Journal Finishes Volume 31 Strong By Erica Riel-Carden & Brent Tuttle Editor-in-Chief, HTLJ & Editor-in-Chief, The Advocate Journals are considered a co-curricular activity where students further develop their Bluebooking, legal research, and leadership skills. The High Technology Law Journal (HTLJ), ranked 5th in the Nation for Intellectual Property by Washington & Lee Journal, focuses on all aspects of IP and high-tech law. This year, Volume 31 sought to preserve its place in the community through publication of its articles and other programs. Santa Clara’s HTLJ is a leading forum for multidisciplinary discourse on emerging issues at the juncture of technology, the law, and public policy. The Journal publishes four issues per volume. This year, Volume 31 procured 16 articles from legal scholars and law students across the country. Below is a summary that touches on the wide range of subject matter. Issue 1 was devoted to our 2014 Symposium regarding the regulation of the high-tech sharing economy, commonly referred to as “disruptive technologies.” These new technologies and business models are challenging the typical ownership structures of goods or services. One article in particular reviewed the currently regulatory framework of autonomous, self-driving cars. Issue 1 also contained HTLJ’s 2014 student comment winner, Robert Klein, who wrote an in depth piece on Net Neutrality, exploring the arguments around data caps from the perspective of the consumer, the content provider, and the internetservice provider. Four articles from Volume 31 were devoted to measuring patent litigation damages. While one article advocates for the Nash Bargaining Solution as HTLJ Editors & Associates visit Google HQ a sound economic method, another piece argues that willfulness should only be proven by a preponderance standard instead of clear and convincing evidence after Octane Fitness and Highmark. Additionally, one author analyzes the evolution of damages and the Federal Circuit’s most recent holistic approach toward calculating royalties. The last article discusses Shell’s test when determining whether a licensee should be relieved of royalties on an invalid patent. Cybersecurity was featured in three articles in distinct areas: Department of Defense IT acquisitions, botnets, and consumer privacy. Two pieces tackle patentable subject matter while one author considers whether Directors should have a fiduciary risk to manage patent portfolio risks. The Volume ends with a recap of 2014 SCOTUS IP cases. All of these articles will be on Digital Commons before Fall 2015. Volume 31 also implemented an eSignature program, Hellosign, to archive all of our author publication agreements. In addition, the Journal was able to renegotiate one of its royalty licenses until 2019. This is significant as fewer than 10% of all legal journals generate royalties. Beyond improving their research skills and working with leading IP scholars, HTLJ’s student Editors and Associates were given the opportunity to meet with members of our supportive and successful alumni group. In November, students and practitioners all gathered at our Fall Launch Party. Our alumni represented firms including Baker Botts, Foley & Lardner, Gard & Kaslow, and Hopkins & Carley. In addition, companies such as Coursera, Crown Castle, Intuit, and SAP America were all in attendance to meet with the Journal staff and other alum. In January 2015, HTLJ hosted its annual symposium on “Open Source in the Legal Field” where approximately 80 attorneys attended to discuss the legal implications for open source software. In February, a group of HTLJ’s student Editors and Associates toured the Google campus and met with five Google in-house attorneys. When asked about HTLJ’s future, incoming Editorin-Chief Brian Wood had this to say, “Volume 32 aims to carry on the distinction of past volumes by further developing our network within the high tech community, enhancing the online edition, and procuring cutting-edge scholarship for our growing base of subscribers. Our new editorial board is currently focused on recruiting a strong associate class and reviewing article submissions by some of the foremost academics and practitioners. Moving forward, we expect that Santa Clara law students on the HTLJ will continue to influence judicial decision-making and advance the legal profession.” 6 THE ADVOCATE April 2015 Close but No Cigar: Telecommunications in Cuba By Jodi Benassi IP Editor Not too long ago I travelled to Cuba with the Cuban Legal Immersion group to research the history and current state of Cuba’s telecommunication infrastructure. In Havana, I observed a culture virtually void of the compulsive relationship to mobile phones. Having traversed through most of Latin America, I found Cuba to be an anomaly in the region; here access to the Internet is far more controlled and censored than in any other country. Presently, Cubans find access to telecommunication services in their country extremely limited for three main reasons: the impact United States sanctions have had on communication construction given the extraterritorial jurisdiction the United States maintains over multinational telecom corporations; the Cuban economy; and the Cuban government’s fear of freedom of information. Unbeknownst to many, Cuba is a country rich with a history of developing advanced communications. The first discovery of the electrical transmission of speech was made by the Italian scientist, Antonio Meucci in Havana in 1849, pre-dating Alexander Graham Bell by 27 years. It wouldn’t be until 1877 for the first telephone conversation to actually take place in Havana at a cost of $22.35 for a three minute conversation to San Francisco. The Castro led Cuban revolution unquestionably set into motion a series of events which changed how Cuban society utilized its resources for technological innovation. To prevent covert action by the United States government, as well as to eliminate internal dissent, Castro immediately and continuously to present day maintains control over all forms of media outlets. Lack of access is the primary blocking tool used by the government to restrict technology to the population. By Angela Habibi Staff Writer According to security technologist and New York Times best selling author Bruce Schneier, “data is the pollution problem of the information age, and protecting privacy is the environmental challenge.” Schneier analogizes the informational age with the early Industrial Revolution in stating: “Just as we look back today at the early decades of the industrial age and wonder how our ancestors could have ignored pollution in their rush to build an industrial world, our grandchildren will look back at us during these early decades of the information age and judge us on how we addressed the challenge of data collection and misuse.” Data production causes very real issues concerning: what happens to the information collected and how it is being used, who has access to such information, and how information is being disposed. As Schneier puts it, these challenges, like the climate change addressed in the passage above, are central to the health of our information economy. When asked, people often uniformly state that they value privacy. Despite this, modern technologies collect information that formerly left no trace. In the United States, there is not very much protection for data generated by people, as collected by third parties. In this way, personal information is collected and inferred from patterns of Internet behavior as raw data. Information is then used for advertising and persuasion. Thus, the ads seen by you will differ from the ads seen by someone else based on interests, By the early 1990s, following decades of revolution. U.S. sanctions, hurricanes, and a significant There are currently only two ISPs in fire, the Cuban telecommunication Cuba: Ceniai and ENet. The estimated infrastructure had become a hodgepodge Internet penetration rate is less than three of antiquated analog equipment that was percent, one of the lowest in the world. rapidly In 2013, deteriorating. ETECSA (the Faced national phone with the company), necessity of opened 118 modernizing Internet salons its telephone around the service, Cuba island, only was forced to twelve of compromise which are in on its socialist Havana proper. principles Contrary and become to what is more open published by to private news sources, enterprise my research and foreign discovered that investment the “Internet through Cafes” are partnerships limited to with Spain, the Cuban Italy, “Intranet” only. Mexico, and The Intranet Venezuela. is tightly These controlled relationships by the enabled Cuba government ETECSA: National Phone Company - Photo: Jodi Benassi to begin and consists a massive of a national overbuild of cable, fiber, and wireless email system, a Cuban encyclopedia, telecommunications that connected educational material, Cuban websites, and government offices, businesses, military foreign websites that are supportive of the installations, and key resorts. Cuban government. As of March 6, 2014, Today, all national and international the average rate for Intranet use was $1.50 telecommunication services, radio, and TV CUC per hour, a rate of approximately 6% of within Cuba are owned by six Cuban state an average monthly salary, unquestionably entities. In 2007, Cuba and Venezuela laid a more than a typical Cuban can afford. 995 mile underwater fiber cable to connect From a legal perspective, the framework the island to the global Internet. Even in Cuba provides for certain rights and before the cable was fully connected, the freedoms; however the Constitution of Cuban government made it clear that the Cuba narrows the scope of these freedoms Cuban people should not expect a digital by prohibiting private ownership of media Data and Goliath what the company believes is your income level, what type of customer you are and more. This personalized form of advertising is designed to influence you and you alone. In fact, host websites that provide books in digital form online (to be read on the computer, iPad, or Kindle) know what is being read, how quickly it is being read, and For example, last year the ride-sharing service company Uber used the data collected of customer routes to determine one-night stands through rides happening in the evening to a place and rides happening the next morning away from that very same place. Because Uber receipts include a map of the route taken, the company what information is being re-read. So, if you download Fifty Shades of Grey as Schneier points out, Amazon will know which parts you read and re-read. Further, Schneier shares that cellular phone companies collect data on your calls; credit card companies collect data on your purchases; search engines collect data on your searches, and all of the data collected by third parties are then owned by those third parties to do what they wish with the information. stores where a person starts and ends their ride. The data remains. Uber labeled such rides as “Rides of Glory” and searched its database to produce aggregate statistics on the cities, neighborhoods, and days of the week that this activity was being done. This data could be subpoenaed and if Uber so decided, it could have released the names of the people engaging in such Rides of Glory. Legally, Uber has no obligation to keep such information private. outlets and allowing “free speech” only when it conforms to the aims of Cuban socialist society. Soon after the Internet emerged in Cuba, the Cuban government issued Decree Law 209, also known as, “Access from the Republic of Cuba to the Global Computer Network” which mandates that the Internet cannot be used “in violation of Cuban society’s moral principles or the country’s laws” and must not “endanger national security.” The following year, Resolution 127, a network security measure, banned the use of public data-transmission networks for the spreading of information that was against the “social interest, norms of good behavior, the integrity of the people, or national security.” Cuban law requires service providers to install controls to allow them to detect and prevent the proscribed activities and report them to the authorities. Ultimate access is determined by the designated authorities who may argue that the nation’s Intranet and “Informed” website should suffice for a given portion of the population. Through limiting the ability of the average Cuban to access the World Wide Web, Cuba in turn limits potential dissidents. The reasons for preventing Cubans from having access to the Internet are indeed complex. Ultimately, Cuba needs to overcome the dictator’s dilemma, the perceived political and cultural threat of access to the World Wide Web versus its value in improving lives and the economy. Governmental control policy can change, as seen during the severely depressed economic period of the 1990s, commonly known as the “special period”, when the Cuban government relaxed its policies toward foreign investment. In the words of Jose Marti y Perez, “To change masters is not to be free.” Cuba only needs to figure out how it can keep its values while at the same time providing economic and intellectual opportunities for its people. All in all, Schneier offers a deep but accessible look at surveillance from a practitioner’s perspective and proposes a new class of “information fiduciaries” to guard against commercial exploitation of data. He opines that privacy is about individual autonomy and the essential thought of being in charge of your own personhood. Privacy is not about something to hide, but rather, a fundamental human need. The crux of the problem is that data is interconnected, however. There is thus a dire need for protection in the data chain of collection, use, storage, transfer (or selling), and ultimately, deletion. Such protection will alleviate the threat of major data breaches, as exemplified with Target Corporation, Home Depot or Anthem Health, where data is stored by a third party and stolen by criminals. How can people protect their privacy? Much of the data collected is metadata and is collected by the systems we use. As such, using privacy enhancing technologies, or PETs, can help with blocking surveillance. Examples of PETs that block sites tracking your data as you wander the Internet are: Lightbeam, Privacy Badger, Disconnect Ghostery, Flashblock and others. Being careful what is said on Facebook, using search engines such as DuckDuckGo, programs to secure email and chats, as well as encryption programs for voice are all steps in this direction. Schneier ultimately suggests it important to be mindful of the data collection and surveillance and to engage in dialogue that could spark legal change. THE ADVOCATE April 2015 7 What We Risk When We Ban Racist Speech Op-Ed by Marc Randazza Managing Partner, Randazza Legal Group America used to be a place where we said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” We live by a credo that “freedom isn’t free,” and that our Constitution is worth dying for. How inspirational it is to believe that this is the wind of thought that blows underneath the Eagle’s wings. Unfortunately, whenever that wind becomes just a little too gusty for comfort, we find out just how little relationship our poetic credo has to our collective guts. The latest example: Nine seconds of video of a number of boys singing an offensive song. Immediately, the University of Oklahoma expelled two of the boys for their speech. Forget whether you like the speech or not. That is not relevant. These boys got kicked out of a public school for singing a song, on their own time, in a privately rented bus, simply because the government didn’t like the content of their song. Censors overstepping their bounds is no surprise. What surprises me is how readily the public supported the expulsions, and how many supposedly intelligent people were willing to turn the First Amendment on its head, because of nine seconds of video. I don’t like the song or its message either. I can’t imagine anyone reasonable who would. But I want to live in a country where the government does not listen to my songs and then decide whether or not I should be punished, based on what words I used. That is not freedom. I understand that most of us hate racism. We are on a mission to eradicate it from all corners. But I am not willing to trade the First Amendment for a society where we don’t need to hear racist words. In Abrams v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a passage that ultimately became the cornerstone of a liberty-based view toward free speech, and which became the dominant theory in First Amendment jurisprudence. In Abrams, Holmes gave us “the marketplace of ideas.” And what a brilliant theory it was. Holmes noted that if someone was completely confident in the belief that they were right, then it would seem logical that they would want to suppress dissenting views. “If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition.” Those who wish to eradicate racism are certain that they are right. I believe in a racism-free world. I have marched in counterprotests against the Ku Klux Klan. I’ve stood up in places you don’t want to be, against violent neoNazis. And I would do it again. “These boys got kicked out of a public school for singing a song, on their own time, in a privately rented bus, simply because the government didn’t like the content of their song.” But I feel no kinship with anyone who would harm the First Amendment to fight racism. Some things are worse than racism -- like a loss of the right to speak your mind and think your own thoughts. Unfortunately, that is a price that too many of us are willing to pay. I am not. As certain as I am that my views on race are correct, I cannot shake Holmes’ wisdom from my mind. He wrote: “But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution.” For that reason, I would gladly protest against the KKK, but I would never abide any government official denying the KKK its right to speak. I understand those who would wish to do so. They want to eradicate racism, and the end will justify the means. However, we have slowly been descending into a place where we are trading this for freedoms that are far more precious than the freedom to avoid having our feelings hurt by offensive statements. Of course, some say that these were more than “offensive.” The song was a “threat.” After all, it did mention lynching black people. But was that really a threat? An idiotic ditty in an all-white bus? To call it a threat is disingenuous. What about the disruptive nature of the song? Should other students have to go to school with people who clearly despise them, and who carry these offensive racist thoughts? Yes. They should be free to have these thoughts, they should be free to say these things. If it crosses the line into action, or even imminent incitement to action, that’s another story. In this case, that never happened. The First Amendment prevails here. It is easy to claim that these Sigma Alpha Epsilon boys did not deserve First Amendment protection. Many have said so. But, when you hear that, your immediate reaction should be one of skepticism. The First Amendment is not there to serve as a comforting blanket of civility. In fact, it is there precisely to protect the sharp edges. It is there for the KKK, the Nazis, SAE, and you alike. It is there for words that shock us, challenge us, and that bother us. You should want to protect the SAE boys -- not that they deserve it. You should do so because the day will come that your speech is unpopular. Once, speech in favor of racial equality was considered to be “bad speech.” Once, professors were kicked off campus for not being “anti-gay enough.” But, today, the thought of equality and tolerance have won out in the marketplace. Let that victory stand, without trying to cement it with the force of law, and without destroying the very liberty that allowed these “good thoughts” to flourish in the first place. Building Resilience: Embracing Stress to Optimize Your Performance By Jonathan Joannides For The Advocate As a Marine Officer, I developed strategies to prepare Marines for combat situations by stress inoculation. The goal was to familiarize Marines in stressful situations to be aware of their own abilities that would maximize their performance. More importantly, it was to teach the coping mechanisms to recover from stressful experiences making them resilient to stress and expanding their abilities to perform in more stressful environments. In this lull prior to the chaos of finals, I hope this insight from my former profession will enable you to better understand what the human mind goes through in stressful situations and how you can better prepare yourself to embrace law school as a valuable stress inoculator that hones the management of your own stress to optimize your performance and lead a healthy life. Stress and the body’s response to it Stress is your physical and emotional response to an external or internal event called a stressor. Such an example of an external stressor would be a test, a reading assignment, or even going on a date. An internal stressor may be an illness or a headache. What’s important is that a stressor is something you cannot control. What creates stress is how you perceive the stressor. In other words, you create your own stress by framing the external or internal event as a threat. So what do people do with threats? They fight, they flee, or they freeze. The first two are choices, the last is not. Your brain handles these situations without you really thinking about it. The brain’s autonomic nervous system controls the interactions of the physical brain with its physical environment. The brain is divided into the thinking brain and the survival brain. The thinking brain is the neocortex, which handles rational thought and self-awareness. The survival brain is a combination of the mid-brain, which handles emotions and memories, and the brain stem, which handles your instinctual survival mechanisms for circulation, breathing, digestion, sleep and sex. This nervous system seemingly operates without your awareness, but a finer distinction among the nervous system occurs when faced with a stressor. When an event outside your control occurs, the sympathetic component of your nervous system activates, causing you to fight or flee. Think of this as an accelerator on your car. You are going to push the gas to do something, and you will continue to do it until you have made it through the event. If you remain “activated” during an event, you are inevitably going to crash without some sort of closure to the stressor or an ability to manage it. The crash is out of your control. A final exam causes you to “fight” in the sense of pushing yourself to study. If your body constantly remains activated, such as if you constantly study, you will crash in the worst case scenario. Either your body shuts down or freezes. In the best case scenario, you will suffer from a degraded performance. Therefore, you need a mechanism to slow down the sympathetic nervous system to develop resiliency. The natural brake to deactivate and develop resiliency is the other half of your nervous system, the parasympathetic component. This is the component that slows down your body to recover, usually through rest, digestion, and mental relaxation. One way to picture this is to view the accompanying images here and here. Notice the upper limit of the graph is the sympathetic “activation” bar. The lower limit is the parasympathetic “recovery” bar. Your resiliency, or ability to manage stress, is the area between the bars. When you stress yourself, you activate yourself towards the sympathetic bar. If you don’t recover with the parasympathetic system, you will get stuck above the bar and freeze. By striving to de-activate yourself through an awareness of these stressors, then you actually separate the area between the bars, creating a greater resiliency. However, too much recovery may result in an apathy to confront a situation or recognize its importance. This may be the result of choosing not to do something and then being unable to come out of that frozen state. Awareness and building resiliency This awareness of your own stress is critical. How to define and articulate this is beyond the scope of this article but a necessary topic of self-study. However, you can assume stress is occurring when you are preparing for finals or while you are trying find and build your legal resume, such as through job searching and internships. This is the “fight” mechanism that you choose to activate. Therefore, in order to develop resiliency and keep yourself from freezing or performing at a degraded pace, you must strive towards deactivating your sympathetic nervous system when you are activated. Resiliency is a by-product of both good stress, called eustress, and bad stress, called distress. One must accept that both are part of the deal. I used to tell my Marines to “embrace the friction [distress]” because it isn’t going anywhere. Therefore, remember that you are never quite out of the activation phase; it is something you tolerate. You can’t hide from your finals or your job search. Your goal is to keep from freezing -the choice you cannot control -- and you do this with eustress. One way eustress can be thought of in this context is a sliding scale of activities that cause you to break from the grind of the stressful activation that you perceive. Call these the healthy distractions, if you will. From the most healthy to the least: (1) practicing meditation/ mindfulness exercises, (2) striving for sleep/ exercise/healthy eating and hydration, (3) talking to friends/confidants, (4) sitting quietly or walking in nature, (5) reading a book or magazine, (6) listening to music, (7) habitual eating of food, especially junk food, (8) watching movies/video games/surfing the web, (9) using excessive tobacco/caffeine, and (10) drinking or partaking in adrenaline seeking behaviors. Note the elephant in the room on number ten with respect to the stereotype of lawyers. The scope of this article is not to judge behaviors as bad, but to elicit an awareness of them. What is important to grasp is the development of resiliency, not how to escape from stress. Escaping is otherwise known as fleeing, which is not an option for lawyers given their duties to their clients. These behaviors should serve a purpose towards building resiliency that enables you to “fight” at a heightened performance. Healthy interactions with friends (number three) through strong social ties to work collaboratively together are the single greatest thing you can do for each other. In the right context, having drinks with your fellow classmates may be healthy, but recognize where the benefit comes from: social interactions. Therefore, be there for each other, talk about the stress, but make sure you are striving towards recovery actions each day in midst of your law school career. At a bare minimum, breathe. The best mindfulness exercise for a break is to visualize yourself smelling some fragrant roses while physically breathing through your nose. Then, with a wish in your head, blow out through your mouth, imagining that you are extinguishing the candles on your birthday cake. Embrace the stress and focus on your recovery actions constantly! Challenge yourself to develop the resiliency here in law school before you hit the real world. This mindset to be a stronger and more effective lawyer begins by taking on the most difficult challenges. Use your finals as the vehicle to begin developing the proper mental habits to develop resiliency! 8 THE ADVOCATE April 2015 Additive Manufacturing: a Case Study on Disruptive Technology By Campbell Yore Staff Writer Soon we will live in a world of ubiquitous electronics. With Samsung, Apple, Microsoft and Google already committing millions to this technology, not even the privacy doomsdayers can prevent the inevitable rise of the internet of things (IOT). Additive manufacturing (AM) or 3D printing is one of many technologies necessary to enable IOT. Aleph Objects, Formlabs, Voxel8, and other manufacturers of personal 3D printers envision consumers printing microelectronics on ordinary objects to bring them online. The promise of desktop 3D printers has introduced a new market for AM devices, disrupting the industry and igniting a battle between established first movers and startups for personal 3D printer revenues. Although new to consumer electronics, 3D printers have been around for decades. The first AM patent covered a method of using lasers to build objects layer by layer and dates back to 1951. Currently, a myriad of different application specific methods of AM exist, but the basic methodology is consistent. An object is first drawn in computer assisted design (CAD). Software then slices the drawing into very thin layers and generates a series of “paths” for the printer head to follow in manufacturing. From this data, the printer assembles objects by building them up one layer at a time. This additive method of manufacturing has several advantages over traditional subtractive machining techniques like powder metallurgy or casting. The most prominent include superior design flexibility, reduced tooling, shorter design to manufacturing cycle time, instant local production, and material, energy, and cost efficiency. These advantages are not just theoretical with the aerospace, automative, medical, architecture, and food industries all incorporating AM techniques into their manufacturing operations. Historically, a small contingent of companies have dominated 3D printer market share. 3D Systems (NYSE: DDD; Rock Hill, SC) specializes in laser based (sterolithographic) printers, Stratasys (Nasdaq: SSYS; Eden Prairie, MN) manufactures objects by fused deposition (melting together layers of semi liquid material) and Optomec (Albuquerque, NM) focuses on direct metal deposition printing. Each of these firms is backed by hundreds of millions in product and technology development and generates revenue from selling room size AM devices with six to eight figure price tags. Only recently, upon pressure from startups and the market, have these behemoths pursued desktop 3D printers. Startups, on the other hand, have controlled the market for personal 3D printers since its inception by combining ivy league technology with millions in crowd and venture capital funding. Devices like the Form 1 and Voxel8 embody the mesmerizing effects of AM’s reduced tooling to deliver unprecedented at home manufacturing capability. In response to the growing demand for sleek, small yet powerful devices, AM’s first movers have aggressively entered the new consumer electronics market for 3D printers. Stratasys acquired MakerBot and its king desk top printer, The Replicator, in 2013 with a hybrid stock purchase and performance conditioned cash out totaling $604 million. First movers have also been active in litigation. In 2012, 3D Systems sued newly minted Kickstarter millionaire Formlabs for patent infringement its home South Carolina district court. The original complaint also named Kickstarter for contributory infringement, but no answer was filed before 3D Systems voluntarily dismissed and refiled a more sophisticated infringement suit alleging direct infringement of US patent 5597520 (filing date 04/25/1994) and seven other patents in the Southern District of New York. With many of the infringed patents nearing expiration and Formlabs’ lack of interest in paying litigate invalidity, the parties eventually reached a settlement agreement in 2014. To get out of court, Formlabs had to pay 3D Systems an 8% royalty on all 3D printer and liquid resin sales. With similar aggression, Stratasys has used litigation to protect its investment in MakerBot. Less than a year after the acquisition, the company asserted its patent rights against desktop competitor Afinia. In its complaint, Stratasys alleges neighboring Minnesota firm Afinia repackaged Maker Bot knockoffs from China and marketed them to universities and educators as a cheaper alternative. In conclusion, the above empirics demonstrate the necessary marriage between disruptive technology startups and lawyers. When a company’s business model depends on unseating or directly competing with an established contingent of savvy, more resourced first movers, lawyers are needed to define the boundaries of technology ownership and assure each side uses its intellectual property assets to most efficiently support, protect, and market its profit generating operations. As a result, lawyers remain among the first employees entrepreneurs should seek to hire. The consequences of being under-lawyered in today’s intensely competitive business environment are just too high. Step 1: BART Trains; Step 2: South Bay; Step 3: Profit Op-Ed by Lindsey Kearney Associate Editor Extending BART to the South Bay Area is astoundingly smart growth when assessed on rider demographic, job market, and convenience metrics. Currently, BART lines run as far south as Fremont in the East Bay, and Millbrae on the Peninsula, stopping just short of the vibrant world-class Silicon Valley economy that occupies the South Bay Area region. Santa Clara County’s Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has teamed up with BART to develop a plan for expanding BART’s service to the South Bay. In 2000, 70% of voters passed Measure A, which provides a 30-year extension of a prior sales tax for the purpose of funding BART’s extension to Santa Clara. Again in 2008, a 2/3 majority of Santa Clara voters approved a 30-year 1/8-cent local sales tax dedicated solely to funding the operating and maintenance costs associated with VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Extension. BART’s extension to Silicon Valley is scheduled in two phases: Phase I will include an additional BART station in south Fremont, and stations at Milpitas and Berryessa. This extension will bring commuters into the Silicon Valley with combined BART/VTA service to a list of employers including Cisco Systems, Adobe, and EBay. Phase II of the expansion will bring BART all the way into San Jose, including stations at Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Diridon, and Santa Clara. The addition of these stations will not only connect East Bay commuters with Caltrain, providing a viable public transit opportunity to the South Bay and the Peninsula, but they will finally unite the three major Bay Area metropolitan hubs with rapid, environmentally friendly, and cost-effective public transportation service. San Jose is the third largest city in California, with over 1 million residents in its city limits. The South Bay Area region at large contains over 4 million people, all of whom will now have access to the greater Bay Area via BART. In late 2014 and early 2015, VTA and BART held a series of public town hall forums for residents to ask questions and voice their concerns about the project. Questions and concerns ranged from environmental impact, to changes in property values for those living near or adjacent to a proposed station. There was a contingent of audience members who were of the opinion that tunneling two miles to create a Santa Clara station would be redundant since Santa Clara is already served by Caltrain. BART representatives were quick to respond with a detailed plan regarding train storage: every station at the end of a line must have enough space to accommodate train parking, and Santa Clara is a logical location for this (it would be unreasonable, for example, to create a BART train parking lot in downtown San Jose). Furthermore, and of paramount importance for SCU students, the fact that Santa Clara is already served by Caltrain is not mutually exclusive to the fact that Santa Clara residents would benefit from BART service. Since Caltrain only serves the Peninsula and the SOMA district of SF, and BART serves the East Bay, wider SF, and the greater Bay Area, dual service in Santa Clara would not be redundant, but instead complimentary. Caltrain is an effective way for a rider to get into San Francisco, if that rider is has a schedule handy (Caltrain serves Santa Clara with roughly one train every 30-60 minutes, depending on the time of day), and if that rider is going to an area of SF near AT&T park or elsewhere in the SOMA. However, if a rider is travelling to, say, an internship in Oakland, Berkeley, Pleasanton, or Walnut Creek, then the efficiency of Caltrain is greatly diminished; commuting this way would require a rider to travel up the Peninsula, through the City, and under the Bay to reach Oakland, or else that same commuter could weather the drive up the 880 freeway to Fremont and board a BART train there. Since the BART parking lot at Fremont station often fills to capacity before 9:30 a.m., the wary commuter could choose to drive up to Union City and BART to the East Bay from there. All of these methods are timeconsuming, expensive, and would be alleviated by BART service in the South Bay. Oh, the places you’ll go, as a resident of the Bay Area, once the three major regional hubs are now connected—San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. On a macro level, extending BART to the Silicon Valley region has sweeping public policy implications that are overwhelmingly positive. The expansion will affect the job market, the housing market, and even public safety. Imagine being a business owner able to recruit labor from a larger pool, or as an employee being able to apply to a wider variety of jobs because your commute has become feasible. Imagine living in the East Bay and working in the South Bay with greater flexibility and ease. Increased BART ridership means fewer cars on the freeways, which in turn means better air quality and safer freeways. Connecting the South Bay Area with the greater Bay Area by way of a BART expansion is smart growth that the region has needed for years and, by 2018 for Phase I and 2025 for Phase II, it will finally achieve. If the goal of a public transit system is to provide as many residents as possible with rapid, cost-effective, and convenient service, then bringing BART to Santa Clara makes both dollars and sense. Feel free to contact me with comments or questions at [email protected]
© Copyright 2024