Uncategorized

Kirsten Johanson, MJLST Staff Member

Over the last few years, companies and private individuals have fully embraced novel space activities. Felix Baumgarner completed a space jump with the Red Bull Stratos making him the first human to break the sound barrier without any engine power. SpaceX developed the first reusable rocket, the Grasshopper, and was the first private company to deliver a shipment to the International Space Station. Recently, for the first time in history, the European Space Agency’s Rosetta mission successfully landed its space probe, Philae, on a comet. All of these ventures pushed the boundaries of space exploration beyond limits previously imagined and all indications are that such ventures will continue. One such undertaking is the concept of asteroid mining.

Asteroid mining is exactly what it sounds like–humans landing equipment on asteroids (and other celestial bodies) and mining for the minerals that exist on such bodies. This concept might seem far-fetched but, in reality, it is a serious topic of debate primarily because of the usefulness of the minerals that exist in the crust of asteroids. NASA has released an estimate “that the mineral wealth resident in the belt of asteroids between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter would be equivalent to about 100 billion dollars for every person on Earth today.” The reason such minerals are so valuable is because of their potential usefulness in “developing the space structures and in generating the rocket fuel that will be required to explore and colonize our solar system in the twenty-first century.”

Today, the physical process of actually mining these minerals is still not cost-effective. As a result, the bigger debate on this issue is currently over the legal implications of mining these minerals and returning them to earth. In space, no single country’s laws apply but, in 1967, over one hundred countries signed the United Nations’ Outer Space Treaty of 1967. This treaty is the current law governing space and it prevents the appropriation of outer space or any celestial body in space by any nation in its space explorations. While this law unequivocally applies to sovereign nations, the recent dispute is over the extension of this treaty to private companies participating in asteroid mining. If it does not, companies like Deep Space Industries, Planetary Resources, SpaceX, or other private players in the space exploration field could begin developing mining procedures that would give them rights to any mined asteroid minerals. However, if it does extend to private companies, this opportunity will likely die before it gets started.

Many in the public and private sector in the United States are pushing for a narrow application of the law to nations which would leave open a huge industry for private development. In Congress, the American Space Technology for Exploring Resource Opportunities In Deep Space (ASTEROIDS) Act was recently introduced in the House of Representatives to officially clarify the law. The Act states that “[a]ny resources obtained in outer space from an asteroid are the property of the entity that obtained such resources.” This would mean that any asteroid mining company would have unlimited access and appropriation rights over any asteroid materials they mine but not over the asteroid itself.

Proponents of such a reading have introduced various statutory interpretation arguments that get them to this conclusion, but it is still unclear which of these will likely be the winning argument. Or even if there will be a winning argument. While asteroid mining does present significant opportunities well into the future, it is still a long-term venture unlikely to launch anytime soon. As a result, if the ASTEROID Act does find enough support in Congress, that is only the first step. The United States will still have to assert an international position amenable to other countries.

Overall, this Act and the publicity it will need to generate to garner sufficient support of this industry is an important first step but it cannot be the only step. Other countries, particularly the signers of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, must develop a workable solution to the ownership question of asteroid materials. However, with the potential technological advancements and economic realizations of such an industry, it is unlikely that countries with active space exploration will be opposed. Hopefully, these countries see the development opportunities as outweighing the costs because, if there is wide acceptance, this might be the real start of space development and colonization.

Comi Sharif, Managing Editor

This week marks the end of the 2014 Major League Baseball regular season, and with it, the completion of the first regular season under the league’s expanded rules regarding the use of instant replay technology. Though MLB initially resisted utilizing instant replay, holding out longer than other American professional sport leagues, an agreement between team owners, the players association, and the umpires association produced a gross expansion of the use of replay technology beginning this season.

The expanded rules permit managers to “challenge” at least one call made by an umpire during a game. The types of calls allowed to be challenged are limited to objective plays such as whether a runner was safe or out at a base, or whether a fielder caught or “trapped” a batted ball. Subjective umpire calls, including calls regarding balls and strikes and “check” swings, are not reviewable. The complete set of MLB’s instant replay rules is available here.

As alluded to above, the process of going from the idea of instant replay in baseball to actual implementation was long and complex. First, rule changes must be collectively bargained by MLB and the players association (MLBPA). Thus, the proposal to expand the use of instant replay had to be proposed during the recent collective bargaining agreement (CBA) discussions in 2011. What both sides agreed to was language in the CBA stating that subject to approval by the umpires association, MLB baseball could expand the use of instant replay. Second, after agreeing to general idea of more instant replay, MLB developed specific rules and policies for instant replay, which had to be approved by the owners of the 30 MLB franchises. Once the owners approved the specific rules, which they did unanimously, the rules could finally be put into action. One issue to watch is how each of the different parties involved in the approval process reacts to the changes instant replay has on the league. The current CBA expires in December of 2016, at which time wholesale changes to the current instant replay system could be realized.

The replay technology used by MLB is somewhat unique compared to that used by other professional sports leagues such as the National Basketball Association and the National Football League. Often in the NBA and NFL, referees or officials view video replays of a contested call themselves with technology located at the playing venue itself. MLB, however, created a “Replay Operation Center” (ROC), located at MLB headquarters in New York City, where a team of umpires reviews video replays and communicates a final ruling through headsets to the umpires on the field. Additionally, MLB permits each team to have a “video specialist” located in the clubhouse to watch for challengeable plays; the specialist can call the manager by phone to communicate whether or not the play should be challenged.

In one sense, the MLB system may be advantageous because it allows the ROC to have the best available technology, whereas the NBA and NFL have to adapt the sophistication of their replay systems to make it possible for use at every stadium and to the referees or officials at the venue immediately. While the NFL and NBA referees and officials typically look at one relatively small monitor when reviewing a play, the ROC houses 37 high-definition televisions, each of which can be subdivided into 12 smaller screens. Though this may not seem like a big deal to the casual observer, a number of calls are so close that the quality of the image available on replay can directly impact the call. One might conclude, then, that because MLB has more advanced technology at its disposable, its replay system is, in fact, more accurate. The MLB system does have its downsides, however. Outsourcing the review process can lead to lengthy delays and put decisions in the hands of an umpire thousands of miles away from the action, which many find unappealing.

The site Retrosheet has a comprehensive collection of data on MLB’s replay system, including an entry for every play reviewed, its result, and the length of time taken for the review to be completed.

Overall, there are mixed reviews concerning the success of the expanded replay rules used in MLB this season. Though it’s unclear exactly how MLB will adjust its system in the future, if the current trend continues, as increasingly effective technology becomes available, the impact of that technology on the sport of baseball is only likely to rise as well.

Mickey Stevens, MJLST Staff

The Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Davis, 754 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2014) has created a split among the circuits regarding the interaction between the Third-Party Doctrine and cell site data recorded by cell phone service providers. The Stored Communications Act 18 U.S.C. § 2703, which was enacted as part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, allows the Government to obtain disclosures of information regarding wire and electronic communications held by third-party service providers. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d), the Government may obtain this information by court order and bypass any requirement of a warrant or showing of probable cause. The Third-Party Doctrine, which says that a person who voluntarily turns information over to third parties has no legitimate expectation of privacy in that information, served as grounds for this provision to operate without violating the Fourth Amendment. This practice was a central issue involved in the Davis decision, rendered this past June.

In Davis, a panel for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that law enforcement officers violated the Appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights when they obtained, without a warrant, records of location evidence based on cell site information. Despite this ruling, the panel concluded that the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motions to suppress did not constitute reversible error due to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

In reaching its decision, the panel rejected the Government’s argument that the Third-Party Doctrine applied to the cell site data evidence. The panel cited to a 2010 decision from the Third Circuit, In re United States for an Order Directing Provider of Elec. Commun. Serv. to Disclose Records to the Gov’t, 620 F.3d 304 (3d Cir. 2010), which held that a cell phone user voluntarily conveys only the number dialed and not the location data when he makes a call. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision is clearly contradictory to a 2013 decision from the Fifth Circuit, In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013). There, the Fifth Circuit held that a cell phone user voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call, and that this data could be properly obtained without a warrant.

On September 4, 2014 the Eleventh Circuit granted a motion for rehearing en banc. If the en banc court’s decision maintains the split between the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits, we might see a decision from the Supreme Court on the matter. The Supreme Court seems to have shown a particular interest in digital data as of late, judging by recent decisions in Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014), and United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012), among others. If the pro-privacy holdings and rationale in Riley and Jones serve as any indication, the Supreme Court may put an end to the Third-Party Doctrine’s application to warrantless gathering of cell site data.

by Katelyn DeRuyter, UMN Law Student, MJLST Staff

The FDA is responsible for safeguarding public health by “assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.” The FDA inspects products and manufacturing facilities in order to ensure these important goals. If the inspection finds that a company has fallen short of the applicable standards, the FDA often will issue a Warning Letter. An FDA warning letter is written correspondencee “that notifies regulated industry about violations that FDA has documented during its inspections or investigations.” The FDA views warning letters as giving the recipient an opportunity to take voluntary and prompt corrective action before the FDA initiates official enforcement action. Despite the fact that the FDA Warning Letter is considered a mechanism for inducing “voluntary” compliance, in recent student note published in Issue 12.2 of the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, entitled “FDA Goes Loko,” Rebecca Boxhorn argues that warning letters do not induce truly voluntary compliance because recipients that do not wish to voluntarily comply have limited options. Under the current state of the law, FDA Warning Letters are not subject to judicial review. This lack of judicial review is problematic because warning letters subject recipients to real consequences. Boxhorn proposes that FDA Warning Letters should be subject to judicial review.

This positions runs contrary to current case-law but is supported by many industry participants. The crux of the Boxhorn’s argument is that given the consequence of receiving a warning letter, “judicial review of warning letters must be allowed to protect regulated parties from agency coercion and potential misapplications of the law.”

A recent Supreme Court decision in Sacketts v. EPA has sparked speculation over whether courts will begin to re-evaluate their previous view of FDA Warning Letters as not fit for judicial review. The Court in Sackett analyzed whether an EPA Compliance Order constituted final agency action that was subject to APA judicial review. The Sacketts brought suit in U.S. District of Idaho claiming the EPA’s compliance order was arbitrary and capricious and deprived them of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The district court dismissed the claims based on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Court granted certiorari, reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and held that the contested compliance order constituted “final agency action for which there [was] no adequate remedy other than APA review, and that the Clean Water Act does not preclude that review.”

The Court analyzed whether the compliance order in question constitutes final agency action and concluded that it “has all of the hallmarks of APA finality that our opinions establish.” The opinion walked through three factors that support the finding that the compliance order is final agency action: (1) the fact that “[t]hrough the order, the EPA ‘determined’ ‘rights or obligations;'” (2) the fact that “‘legal consequences . . . flow[ed]’ from issuance of the order;” and (3) that the agency action “mark[ed] the ‘consummation’ ‘of the agency’s decision making process.'” Whether applying Sackett would lead a court to conclude that an FDA warning letter is final agency action depends on the extent to which the warning letter in question is similar, or dissimilar, in language and ramifications, to the compliance order addressed in Sackett–at least in regards to the “hallmarks of finality.” A key component of the Sackett Court’s analytical approach is the fact that the Court looked beyond the EPA’s stated intent of compliance orders, and evaluated the actual effect of the compliance order on the Sacketts. If courts adopt this approach and look at the consequences of receiving a warning letter, recipients might finally gain access to judicial review.

by Caroline Marsili, UMN Law Student, MJLST Staff

In a 6-3 decision that came down March 25, the Supreme Court held that copyright’s first sale doctrine, which allows the lawful purchaser of a copyrighted product to resell the product without interference from the copyright holder, applies to copyrighted works lawfully made abroad. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons marks the resolution of a decades-long uncertainty over the potential international reach of the first sale doctrine. This moment of clarity, however, is sure to be followed by challenges, given the newly-sanctioned threat to some domestic industries.

From a legal standpoint, the case was rightly decided. Briefly, plaintiff publishing company John Wiley & Sons sought relief from Cornell student-turned-professor Supap Kirtsaeng, who paid his way through university by reselling Wiley’s English-language textbooks manufactured abroad. Kirtsaeng’s family bought the books in Thailand and mailed them to Kirtsaeng, who resold them on eBay for a profit. In finding for Kirtsaeng, the majority attempted to reconcile a tension between the language of § 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, which gives copyright owners redress for unauthorized importation of their copyrighted work into the U.S., and the first sale doctrine (§ 109(a)), which gives owners of particular copies “lawfully made under this title” the right to sell the copy without the owner’s permission.

As author Benjamin Hamborg astutely foreshadowed in John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng: The Uncertain Future of the First Sale Doctrine (Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, Vol. 13.2), the Court reasoned that the text of 109(a) contains no geographical limitations, and that Congressional intent and historical context further require an interpretation of first sale unbound by territory. Justice Breyer’s majority opinion further acknowledges the far-reaching policy implications a geographical limitation would have on “[a]ssociations of libraries, used-book dealers, technology companies, consumer-goods retailers, and museums.” In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg criticized the Court’s “parade of horribles” as unfounded, and observed the opinion would frustrate Congress’s intent to permit international market segmentation by copyright owners. Ultimately, in reversing the Second Circuit and criticizing a “purely geographical interpretation” of 109(a), the decision represents a victory for institutions such as libraries and for consumers.

But while the Court dodged the parade of horribles that Justice Breyer adamantly sought to avoid in oral arguments, the international reach of first sale sounds alarms for U.S. companies that will be threatened by unrestricted gray market competition. A recent NYTimes article aptly identifies some of the other horribles waiting in the wings of an international exhaustion doctrine, including the undercutting of domestic software prices, de-segmentation of international publishing markets, threats to a burgeoning secondhand digital marketplace (though first sale may not apply here), and another nail in the coffin of print publications. Further, Kirtsaeng has the potential to set an example for amateur sellers to profit from gray market goods.

So what’s to be done? In “Next Moves For IP Law After SCOTUS First-Sale Ruling,” Lisa Shuchman suggests a number of options for copyright owners to numb the sting of Kirstaeng. Options include pursuing other legal remedies like contract and more expansive trademark protection, digitizing their protected content, raising domestic prices (to off-set losses from sale of imported copies), and pursuing statutory reform. Others suggest first sale is on its way to mootness in an increasingly digital economy. Raustiala and Sprigman’s solution? “Stop selling copies. Start licensing digital files.” Still others argue statutory reform is unavoidable. Andrew Albanese suggests the Court did what was best with a convoluted statute, but that Congress will need to address the outdated Copyright Act.

Though Kirstaeng undoubtedly provides much-needed clarification on the status of first sale, the story isn’t over for domestic copyright owners seeking to prevent unwanted, but now legal, importation of their works. Grab a seat on the curb . . .

by Greg Singer, UMN Law Student, MJLST Managing Editor

The healthcare system in the United States is no stranger to debate. The current president won election, and recently re-election, due in no small part to his promises of reform in the area. It is no surprise that this is the case. People literally place their lives in the hands of the healthcare system, and utilize it so often that the combined spending on it consumes nearly 18% of the entire GDP (a figure that is only expected to rise as time wears on).

Yet anchoring the system that serves almost 315 million Americans is a surprisingly small contingent of no more than 960 thousand medical doctors (of whom only about 350 thousand are considered to be primary care physicians, and many of the remainder employed in non-patient-facing positions). This is an incredible burden placed on the shoulders of so few people, a burden that is only expected to become weightier in future years, as medical schools arguably fail to produce enough new physicians to properly care for the current set of patients, let alone all of the soon-to-be-patients as universal healthcare requirements set in pursuant to Affordable Health Care for America Act.

In Mistake-Proofing Medicine: Legal Considerations and Healthcare Quality Implications, published in volume 14.1 of the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, authors John Grout, et al. argue that a significant portion of medical mistakes and errors may be attributable to a character flaw in the psyche of some physicians, specifically that they are beset with “a narcissism that blocks full acceptance of the notion that compliance rules apply to [them].” Moreover, the authors point to other character flaws, such as the performance of duties while under the influence and general substance abuse as significant causal factors for mistakes.

While these issues no doubt exist in one form or another, it is important to remember that the vast majority of doctors do try their best to help their patients. Given the unconscionable hours involved in the job, the relatively modest compensation for many, and the massive debt burdens required to enter the field, it is hard to imagine anyone, narcissistic or not, attempting it without possessing a truly real desire to help those in need. If anything, the simple exhaustion facing many doctors is a more understandable, and sympathetic, cause of error. Medical doctors are among the most overworked professionals in the United States, despite the extremely high stakes involved in their work. The high hours required is partly due to the culture surrounding the field, but the limited number of available physicians, despite the rising amount of time demanded by the growing lists of patients cannot be ignored.

Increasing enrollment in existing medical schools, or even creating new medical schools, may be a pathway to reducing medical mistakes errors, wait times, and perhaps even costs. But in the meantime, be understanding of your doctor. Do not immediately assume that his mistakes are due to arrogance or a flaw in his character. He may simply be tired.