Photo by telmo32

Spring is finally here and, at Fastcase, we eagerly anticipate the explosion of color that will soon follow. While being outside might offer some of the best views (we are in the middle of the National Cherry Blossom Festival here) there are some great views indoors as well. This is fantastic because it means that we can all still work and not feel the need to have to take Claritin.

We have all heard about how social media and the internet are transforming the way we conduct our lives. Now we are witnessing the future and past collide as they transform the museum world. Speaking with Scott Billings at Museum Next Kevin Bacon, curator of photographs at the Royal Pavilion and Museums, Brighton & Hove,

“Museums have changed substantially in the last ten years or so, but I suspect that most people still perceive them as little more than a place where there are things to look at,’ he says. ‘Social media are a very good means of conveying what museums actually do and by showing what goes on behind the scenes there is much better chance of threading museums into the popular imagination. This can then provide a platform for developing new audiences, philanthropy and, perhaps most importantly at present, political support. None of that requires dialogue necessarily, but any conversations that we can hold will enormously enhance and strengthen these new relationships.”

As a repository for much of our knowledge, the ever unconventional Google, earlier this year brought us its Art Project, an interactive display of works from 17 participating galleries by using its Street View technology and a high definition camera. The highlights definitely being the high definition works where you can zoom in and see individual brush strokes on popular works like “Summer” by Claude Monet or “Wheat Field with Cypresses” by Van Gogh. You can also create your own “galleries” to be shared with your friends and family.

In a highlighted New York Times article curators and technology professionals examined how they have transformed museum web pages from merely showing operating hours and “how to get there” directions to focusing more on visitor engagement. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York offers an interesting online discussion you can view called Connections. How this engagement continues to manifest itself, whether it is visitor input on exhibits, perhaps more “behind the scenes” looks at the operations of the museum, or accessible in-depth interactive learning, each museum seems to be taking a different and exciting tack.

Being able to expose as many people as possible to the depositories within is certainly a worthwhile goal. These new tools can be enormously helpful towards these goals, but can also be used in other, non-marketing oriented ways. We can’t wait to see how “using social media for dialogue and conversation could be a step towards embedding museums more directly into everyday life.”

Google's "guide" to sample gestures

Whether you fell for this year’s widespread April Fools’ joke or not, Google’s “latest feature” Gmail Motion, someone else may be getting the last laugh, according to TechSpot. The University of Southern California’s aptly named Institute of Creative Technologies decided to pick up where Google left off by introducing a program that actually makes it possible to compose and respond to emails all with the sleight of hand. Borrowing the foundation of Gmail Motion and the capabilities of the Microsoft Kinect, known in the mainstream for allowing you to dance your way into your favorite video game, ICT demoed their version later on Friday.

Even before ICT released their response to Gmail Motion, it should have come as no surprise that in this day and age the existence of such a program is really no joke at all. Google’s day of fun played on all of our desires to have the latest and, at times, most outlandish technologies; but one could easily find a situation in which Gmail Motion, or something like it, could be more than just fun. Individuals with a handicap inhibiting them from using a keyboard or mouse could certainly benefit from a program that would allow them to create their own commands to initiate computer tasks. So thanks Google, it looks like this April Fools’ joke was worth more than a few laughs.

Photo By Etsy Ketsy

Can our genes be patented? More importantly, what consists of a change that is significantly patentable? In a follow up to last year’s blog entry regarding the case Association of Molecular Pathology, et al. v United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al we continue to look into this potentially revolutionary biotechnology case.

The case covers the patent dispute over the BRACA1 and BRACA2 genes as well as the diagnostic tools involving these genes which are held by Myriad Genetics of Utah. Mutations of these genes indicate a strong possibility of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Plaintiffs have argued that the patent was improper because the DNA was part of the human body and therefore part of nature; while the defendants have argued that the chemical was isolated and the copyright protects the work that went into their research.

The urgency behind this case is rather incredible. The earlier one can determine whether or not they are likely to develop or redevelop the cancers more treatment options become available. The patents on these genes and the test for mutations have created a monopoly as researchers, patients, and their doctors all have to go through Myriad Genetics. Testing alone, if not covered by insurance, can be $3,000 per test. Saying that billions of dollars are at stake is an understatement.

Last year a Federal Judge had struck down some of the patent, namely that the isolation of the genes was not enough to patent them. Gary Cohen of the Foundation Medicine speaking with The Atlantic pointed out that this ruling is likely a transformation of thinking resulting from the digital age:

“We’ve been accustomed to thinking of DNA as a molecule, a chemical entity (which, of course, it is). But in this more sophisticated era, we understand that DNA is not “just” a molecule; its an information-carrying molecule. Genes are better thought of as packets of information, not mere molecules, Judge Sweet reasoned. This reasoning is key to his decision — because the information encoded by a gene is the same, whether its sitting amongst its natural neighbor genes, or in isolated form. That’s why researchers want to isolate genes — because they are useful in all sorts of ways, but only because the isolated form contains the same genetic instructions as the naturally-occurring form. Using this information paradigm, the judge reasoned that “isolation” does not render a naturally-occurring gene something novel, something patentable. This part of the ruling is what makes it so interesting — its very much consistent with “information age” thinking — bits, bytes, genetic base pairs, genes: all information carriers.”

Today that decision is being appealed. As, one can imagine there are a lot of people waiting on the outcome of this case. Regardless of how the court decides, it will unlikely be the final salvo and will proceed to the Supreme Court.

A great article featured on the Social Media Today blog got us thinking about all the ways to use social media, and all the ways it can go wrong. Commentary on social media etiquette has been present far and wide for a few years now and yet the messages don’t seem to be getting through.  We can’t get through a day or even a few hours without hearing about a criminal apprehended as a result of an unintentional confession on Facebook or a high-profile figure under fire for a spontaneous, and poorly-worded, tweet. Has social media really made it that much easier for all of us to mess up? In some ways, yes, but the ever-changing realm of communication is not entirely to blame. While the playing field has seen a complete remodel, all the same rules are still intact.

The idea that Google, or the Internet more generally, is the new resume is one that has been the topic of many presentations and also one that we feel warrants repetition. A painstakingly worded resume may find its way to the top of the pile only to be at the bottom of the trash bin moments later if a certain Google hit is deemed inappropriate. It should go without saying that this same scenario can repeat itself when developing relationships with prospective clients.

Brad Friedman, President of The Friedman Group, LLC and Social Media Today contributor, outlines how an active social media presence can, when used unwisely, lead to unethical practices in “Lawyers Must Embrace Today’s Technology & Web 2.0 Part 1”. Along with the evolution of social networks we have seen an increase in venues for breach of contract, privacy, attorney-client privilege, you name it, but we’d venture a guess that it doesn’t have to be this way. There are no announcements at the top of Facebook, Twitter or any other site that reads “Please share your innermost feelings below” or, “Forget everything you’ve learned about privacy here” and yet most of us have an urge to do just that when we login. The bottom line that we have arrived at: be smart. For more details on how to avoid any of these types of errors, particularly as a legal professional, we highly recommend perusing Friedman’s tips.