If you’ve ever been on an Amtrak train slowly chugging from New York to Washington D.C.–or vice versa–you surely have fantasized about a faster mode of transportation. And you weren’t alone. New York’s Penn Station and D.C.’s Union Station were ranked the #1 and #2 busiest stations respectively for Amtrak in 2015. So, with all that demand, entrepreneur Elon Musk seems to think he can create a better mode of travel. He’s been dreaming about something called the Hyperloop–a seriously high-speed train that would take you from NYC to D.C. in roughly 30 minutes. Yesterday, he claimed that he received “approval” from the government to begin work. But is that actually true?

Yesterday, Musk tweeted this:

Just received verbal govt approval for The Boring Company to build an underground NY-Phil-Balt-DC Hyperloop. NY-DC in 29 mins.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2017

City center to city center in each case, with up to a dozen or more entry/exit elevators in each city

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2017

Immediately, people were excited, but they were also confused. Who, exactly, approved this project? Presumably, it’s going to cross over multiple states and take quite a bit of construction and disruption in order to be fully realized.

Then, Musk somewhat backed down, saying that he had just received “verbal” approval, and tweeted some more tempered ideas:

Still a lot of work needed to receive formal approval, but am optimistic that will occur rapidly

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2017

If you want this to happen fast, please let your local & federal elected representatives know. Makes a big difference if they hear from you.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2017

A number of news outlets dug into Musk’s claims, attempting to figure out who, exactly, gave him that “verbal approval.” While the White House didn’t deny that a conversation had taken place, a spokesperson’s answer was incredibly vague. And local officials certainly didn’t seem to know what was going on. Multiple city and state leaders commented to the Washington Post, among other outlets, that they had never heard of Musk’s plan. BBC’s Dave Lee wrote:

We’ve been trying to track down whom exactly Mr Musk might have been talking to about this. I won’t keep you in suspense: we failed.

Firstly, it is not clear where this ‘verbal government approval’ could possibly have come from, given that no government entity – even if it were the president himself – could make such an assurance given the complexity of laying out such a plan.

The idea of an incredibly fast route from New York to D.C. is very promising, and tempting. But is it really a priority? Both cities have been plagued by local transportation issues recently. While Musk’s idea sounds great, maybe we should focus on fixing what’s broken now before we delve into uncertain promises about the future.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Elon Musk Actually Get Approval for the Hyperloop? appeared first on Law Street.

This week Tesla announced that production would commence for its new midsize Model 3, a fully electric midsize sedan that can seat five and travel up to 215 miles per charge. Its advertised price is $35,000, but new fees for electric cars may have you forking over more green to go green.

Over the last year five states have introduced legislation that added fees to the purchase of an electric or hybrid vehicle. In West Virginia, a bill that was passed in June requires a $200 fee every year for an electric vehicle and a $100 yearly fee for every hybrid. Similar legislation has been enacted in 10 states since 2011, with most governors and state legislatures justifying the added fees due to backlogs in road repairs and the need to make up for money that would have otherwise come from gas taxes.

Even California, which is home to Tesla and the Zero Emission program, approved of a $100 yearly fee for electric car owners. Governor Jerry Brown cited a need for “safe and smooth roads” to support the fee.

Granted, for someone who is willing to pay $35,000 for a car, an additional $100 service fee seems like a small increase. But supporters of electric (and other environmentally friendly) vehicles believe that the fees and lack of tax incentives can stall the sales growth of eco-friendly cars in the automotive market.

Large auto companies such as Ford, Nissan, and Volvo currently have electric models and are expanding their electric programs, but electric cars only make .6 percent of the auto market and sales growth has dramatically decreased from 227 percent to five percent last year.

For example, in 2015 when Georgia ended the $5,000 tax credit for electric and hybrid vehicles and instead put a $200 fee on them, the sales of electric cars dropped by 93 percent.

But what could really damage electric vehicles’ ability to break into the mainstream market is the potential that Congress will not extend the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit (for the first 200,000 vehicles produced) in the new budget.

The tax credit is important because currently the technology to produce electric cars hasn’t caught up–essentially Tesla can’t make an affordable mass produced electric car that will cost the same as a regular car because the technology hasn’t gotten there yet. The tax credit allows for producers such as Tesla to still be competitive in the automobile market and to turn a profit. By doing this the government is hoping for more innovation and expansion of the electric car market. Experts believe that if this credit is removed, then the projections for electric cars by 2025 will decrease by 250,000 vehicles. As the U.S. struggles to deal with its carbon footprint, electric cars could be a valuable tool, and priorities need to be seriously considered.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Some States Are Making it More Expensive to Buy Electric Cars appeared first on Law Street.

Self-driving cars might soon become a common part of our lives–TechCrunch recently reported a study predicting that 25 percent of driving could be done by autonomous vehicles by the year 2030.

But the new technology is far from perfect, and has recently caused a number of incidents. In late March, a Tesla in autopilot mode hit a police motorcycle in Arizona, although the officer was able to jump off of the motorcycle before he was injured. And a self-driving Volvo being used by Uber ended up in another crash in Arizona around the same time. Over the summer, a Tesla driver died in a crash while the car was on autopilot (the driver was watching a Harry Potter movie at the time).  In September, one of Google’s self-driving vehicles ran a red light and collided with the passenger’s side of another vehicle.

So, when there isn’t a human steering the wheel, who takes the fall in court for accidents like these? Many lawyers and legal experts who have weighed in on the issue believe that the automobile manufacturers should be held liable.

However, not every case involving self-driving car crashes is the same. Recently, Michael I. Krauss, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, explored how different types of accidents and malfunctions for different types of vehicles should be handled under tort law in a piece for Forbes Magazine. Tort law involves civil cases in which one party has faced injury or damages and another party has been accused of being responsible for them.

According to Krauss, if an accident occurs because of a “manufacturing defect”–meaning the car does not operate as it was designed to operate–then the company that built it should be at fault. If there was an “informational defect”–meaning the car’s owner was not properly educated about how to operate it, and used it incorrectly as a result–then, Krauss writes, the car company should be liable only if it was negligent and failed to give sufficient instructions or warnings.

However, Krauss notes that “design defects” create a legal gray area. A design defect would occur if the choices the car has been programmed to lead the driver into an accident in response to an unforeseen issue. For example, Krauss says that if a moose jumps in front of the car, it could choose to hit the moose and potentially kill the driver or swerve onto the sidewalk and endanger pedestrians. He argues that decisions about liability in these scenarios should once again be based on whether or not the manufacturers were negligent or whether they made the best possible design choice. Such decisions could be left up to juries or decided beforehand by regulators, based on what a reasonable person might conclude, Krauss writes.

The Society of Auto Engineers has established six levels of driving automation, with level zero indicating that the driver has full control and level five indicating that the car is completely autonomous. Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, told USA Today that a human driver is responsible for any crashes involving a vehicle ranked lower than level three. Smith added that because most accidents are caused by human error, which automatic vehicles aim to eliminate, a growing reliance on self-driving cars could mean fewer accidents and thus fewer legal disputes.

But the technology isn’t perfect, and can still make the same mistakes as humans–like speeding or running through red lights. Questions about who would take the blame for these violations remain unanswered.

Government regulation of self-driving cars could be changing under President Donald Trump’s White House. In September, former President Barack Obama’s administration released a set of standards for self-driving car manufacturers that would require them to conduct extensive safety assessments and provide the results to the federal government. Because legislation that addresses the vehicles varies for each state, the Department of Transportation released a centralized list of guidelines each state could adopt. But Elaine Chao, the new transportation secretary in Trump’s Administration, is now reevaluating the old administration’s rules as companies that develop the vehicles like Google and Uber push back against the amount of information they would have to report. Chao has cited safety and jobs–because the technology would eliminate the need for occupations like truck drivers–as her main concerns as she considers the issue.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Liable When a Self-Driving Car Gets into an Accident? appeared first on Law Street.

What is Duffgate 2016?

Misappropriation or mistake? Hilary Duff and her new boyfriend Jason Walsh wandered around town this weekend to take part in Halloween festivities. But when this picture hit the stands…it kind of sucked out all the fun.

Hillary Duff made her first public appearance with boyfriend Jason Walsh, but many questioned their costume choices. https://t.co/p2HpdDGt2Z pic.twitter.com/l0msDyRKIm

— EntertainmentTonight (@etnow) October 30, 2016

What could have been an innocent costume choice is not so innocent anymore because of these implications…

why did hillary duff and her boyfriend think it was a okay to dress up as a pilgrim and a Native American

— yesica (@yfjgtr) October 30, 2016

But are people really being too harsh?

Hillary Duff joins the ranks of T Swift and Amy Schumer in the “most tone deaf to privilege and racism” competition.

— Nat 8 Days Purser (@NatPurser) October 30, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 31, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Driverless cars are all the rage in the auto industry lately, as efforts have been underway for years to move away from the outmoded, human-driven gas guzzlers of the 1990s and early 2000s. The rosy image of the future of cars took a hit recently, however, when a man was killed while riding in his Tesla while on autopilot mode. This fatality immediately raised concerns over safety and the need for regulation that had been relatively quiet in the quest to go driverless. Read on to find out more about self-driving cars, how they are being regulated, and how close we are to a society where your car does the driving for you.

The History Behind Driverless Cars

While history has seen many driverless vehicles, from boats to rockets, driverless cars are typically something that is only seen in science fiction writing. Although the idea began drawing increasing interest around World War II, the concept was still in its infancy. Some actually believed the future wasn’t in driverless cars, but in safe highways that could guide cars like trains on a track. The movement for driverless cars really began to gain momentum with artificial intelligence enthusiasts during the 1960s who dreamed of developing driverless cars by the new millennium. Several prototypes were developed starting in the late 1970s, but the main challenge of developing a vehicle that could not only drive but react to conditions in real time remained elusive.

The industry got a boost when the U.S. military became involved in 2004, initiating a competition to develop driverless cars for use on the battlefield. Since then, driverless vehicles have popped up all over, including on farms, mines, and warehouses. The late 2000s and early 2010s also saw self-driving cars become a more plausible option for the average commuter, particularly when Google began its foray into the industry. Along with Google the other big name in the driverless car industry is currently Tesla Motors, while other many car companies have autonomous car projects of their own. The accompanying video looks at the history of driverless cars and their potential future:

Impact of Driverless Cars

Many carmakers are already fretting about the future of their industry. With the rise of affordable car-sharing services like Uber and Lyft, getting around without owning a car has become much easier for people who live in cities. This has led major car companies to invest in these services. Car companies are also investing in driverless cars, which could present another possible major disruption to the status quo of their industry.

Forecasts suggest that if and when driverless cars become widespread, likely sometime in the next couple decades, families will actually own fewer vehicles. This is due to the fact that a car that can operate by itself will be able to fulfill more functions with greater efficiency than traditional cars. Many may even forego ownership and use car sharing services instead.

It’s also important to consider driverless cars’ impact on the fusion of two industries. Namely, many of the largest and most well-known names in the auto and tech industry are teaming up to create the cars of tomorrow. The idea behind these collaborations is each industry is lending what it does best. In the case of the auto industry that is large scale production of vehicles that are safety and emissions compliant. For tech companies, that is developing the software, not only to allow for driverless cars but also for functions associated with computers or smartphones today.

Safety Concerns

The push toward driverless cars has continued even as the potential for danger remains high. While the accident in May that resulted in the death of the driver was the first fatality related to a self-driving car, it was certainly not the first accident. In fact, driverless cars are between two and five times as likely to get into accidents as cars with drivers, although that range depends on whether unreported accidents in regular cars are included. These numbers are slightly skewed by the small number of driverless cars compared to the large number of traditional cars. Nonetheless, while driverless cars are more likely to be in accidents, until the recent fatality, all the accidents that did occur only resulted in minor injuries because the driverless vehicles were always going slow at the time of the accident.

The following video details the first fatality in a driverless car:

Although the accident rate for driverless cars is higher, nearly all accidents between driverless cars and human drivers are the human’s fault. In fact, it was not until this year when the actions of a driverless car led to a traffic accident. This begs the question, why are driverless cars getting in more accidents when they are less likely to cause them in the first place? Ironically, the problem is that driverless cars are programmed first and foremost to always obey the laws of the road. However, in a busy intersection or highway, humans often disregard the rules and drive as necessary. The conservative approach that is taken by driverless cars actually increases their accident rate.

The inability to overcome the human element has caused the two leading companies in the driverless car industry, Google and Tesla, to pursue different approaches to the same goal. Based on observations made by Google engineers during an initial test phase–where drivers quickly trusted self-driving cars and stopped paying attention–Google decided to take a slower approach with the goal of creating a car that is 100 percent driverless. Conversely, Tesla embraces a notably different method. Tesla’s cars actually have many autonomous features already; however, the company instructs its drivers to keep their hands on the wheel while riding. Telsa argues that this approach will allow the company to collect enough data in order to improve its technology in a shorter timespan.

Perhaps the most significant safety issue, though, could affect cars with drivers and driverless models alike. This issue is the threat of hacking. With the amount of technology in modern cars and the many ways that they can connect to the internet, hackers are now able to take over a person’s vehicle.

The video below looks at the threat of car hacking:

Debate and Regulation

The high rate of accidents and the recent fatality has naturally intensified the debate over whether driverless cars are safe enough to traverse American roads. While autonomous features are commonly found in cars already, fully driverless cars are a work in progress. Getting driverless cars to the point where they are significantly safer than normal cars, however, could take hundreds of years of test driving. It becomes a question of how safe is safe enough and whether a crash in a driverless car is worse than a crash in a normal car.

While regulators are trying to step in and set up a framework for driverless cars, they too are uncertain about how to best regulate the industry. California, home to Google and most major tech companies, is currently the epicenter of the driverless car industry. In California, it is still illegal for driverless cars to operate on public roads without a licensed driver able to take the wheel at any moment. The main problem with these regulations, at least for the carmakers, is the requirement for cars have pedals and a steering wheel–features that driverless car makers like Google want to get rid of. California was actually the second state to authorize self-driving cars for testing and public use. The first state was Nevada, which has much looser regulations. Michigan has also authorized the use of driverless cars.

However, to avoid the varying state standards that have already popped up, many carmakers are anxious for national rules. Such rules may come sooner rather than later, as the Department of Transportation aimed to have a nationwide standard for regulations outlined within six months of its January announcement. In July, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced some progress on rulemaking and outlined steps going forward. However, many questions about regulation remain unanswered.

Conclusion

Driverless cars are a relatively new and exciting technology. Like any new advancement before them, there is an inherent risk involved, especially at the early stages. However, that risk has to be controlled in order to ensure driver safety.

While driverless cars excite the imagination, they still have a long way to go before they are adequately safe and regulated. This will not be an easy transition as it means people will have to embrace giving up control at 70 plus miles per hour. This also comes at a time when everything, including cars, is vulnerable to online attacks. Nevertheless, driverless vehicles appear to be an important next step in transportation technology. Even if they suffer several growing pains along the way, a car where everyone rides shotgun is likely the car of the future.

Resources

New York Times: Self-Driving Tesla Was Involved in Fatal Crash, U.S. Says

Computer History Museum: Where to? A History of Autonomous Vehicles

Los Angeles Times: Tesla and Google are Both Driving Toward Autonomous Vehicles. Which is Taking the Better Route?

The Economist: The driverless, Car-Sharing Road Ahead

USA Today: Study: Self-driving cars have higher accident rate

Wired: Google’s Self-Driving Car Caused Its First Crash

Bloomberg Technology: Humans Are Slamming Into Driverless Cars and Exposing a Key Flaw

Los Angeles Times: Is the World Ready for Driverless Cars? Are Driverless Cars ready for the World?

Governing: When Regulating Self-Driving Cars, Who’s at the Wheel?

Wired: The FBI Warns That Car Hacking Is a Real Risk

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Close are we to Driverless Cars? appeared first on Law Street.

Tesla, the company responsible for making super-cool, totally electric, ultra-luxurious, better-than-any-car-ever sports cars, just held a press conference that might be this generation’s iPod announcement. That sounds kind of bombastic, but there’s reason to believe that the car Tesla is making could mark the beginning of a seismic shift in transportation and energy.

Just yesterday, Tesla Motors revealed the Model 3, the product that many suspect the company has been aiming to release since its inception. During the announcement, CEO Elon Musk commemorated the success of Tesla’s earlier cars, the Model S and the Model X, but recognized that they’re far from affordable. The presentation’s exact phrasing for the two cars was “high price” and “less high price.” Now, they’re ready for the mainstream, with the five-seater Model 3, beginning at $35,000. With a series of claims that seem almost too good to be true, including ample space, a 215-mile range on a single charge, and Tesla’s autopilot features baked into the car, the Model 3 is poised to break Tesla out of the exclusive world of luxury vehicles.

That $35,000 price tag is a real sweet-spot for the non-premium market, as the average price of a new car last year was $33,560. Plus, an electric car like the Model 3 is in an enviable position: it’s eligible for federal and state-level tax incentives and rebates, which can reduce the effective price of the car substantially. These incentives are part of a larger government program designed to improve the fuel economy of cars in America. You’ll still need to pony up the initial $35,000, but you’ll be able to reduce your income tax by $7,500 for that year. Individual states have their own incentives as well, with states like Lousiana offering incentives of up to $9,000 depending on battery size. This means that depending on where you live, your totally-electric Model 3 could be less than $25,000. Thankfully, Tesla’s website has a cheat sheet where you can see if your state offers an extra bonus.

There’s one catch–these tax credits are only available until the company sells 200,000 cars. The idea is that once an environmentally friendly car brand has established itself, it will be able to handle costs better on its own. Tesla claims to be able to make 50,000 cars a year with its current robot-army factories, so that number might be reached in the time it takes you to get tired of your current vehicle. Tesla claims people have pre-ordered an estimated $7.5 billion worth of vehicles, with pre-order numbers around 198,000.

Aside from the tax advantages, there are several other pluses to owning an electric car that help keep expenses down. For one, you’ll no longer have to pay $30 to $50 at every fill-up. Tesla-provided “superchargers” will fill your car’s battery to 80 percent capacity in only 30 minutes, with no charge. Plus, you can charge your car at home for your typical electricity rate, which is about $0.10 per kilowatt-hour on average and some third party chargers have rates around $0.30 per kWh. Tesla hasn’t announced how large the battery in the Model 3 will be, but numbers around 40 or 50 kWh have been speculated. That would make a fill-up cost around $15 at the more expensive charging stations, and only about $5 in your home.

While the currently low gas prices across the country right don’t make electric cars seem like a necessity, we don’t know how long these prices will last. While it sounds like a QVC sales pitch—we really don’t know for how long these deals will last. Of course, make sure to take this announcement with a grain of salt, because although Tesla has a pretty good track record of producing amazing vehicles, a promise of this magnitude may prove difficult to follow through on.

Read More: The Tax Credit Battle Over Environmentally Friendly Cars

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Government Wants You to Buy the New Tesla Right Now appeared first on Law Street.

No one has ever stopped their friend in a parking lot and said, “Quick, take a photo of me with that Prius.” But on the stage of the Fremont warehouse where Elon Musk revealed the Tesla Model X two weeks ago, every smartphone camera in the room was flashing as invitees to the event jostled each other in attempts to take the best Instagram. Tesla Motors is a brand committed to making electric energy exciting, creative and even sexy. Yet Tesla is frequently categorized as a niche product reserved for Silicon Valley that will never create significant change outside of a designated tax bracket.

This perception of Tesla is a key part of green energy’s clique mentality–only a narrow percentage of green activists are considered to be truly making impactful change and other innovators and policymakers get written off as merely jumping on the bandwagon. The stereotype of the aging hippie with a handmade sign and a tie dye shirt is not a comical caricature–it’s a key part of why green energy movements freeze out certain voices and interests. The idea of “selling out” or “going corporate” is so antithetical to the roots of the green energy movement that activists fear even being associated with luxury products. Here lies the paradox of the Tesla Model X: it is an innovative and high performing electric vehicle yet because it is priced as a luxury product, the green energy movement feels uncomfortable endorsing it. Silicon Valley, for all of its flaws, is one of the world’s greatest incubators of alternative energy and technology but in recent years, it has been labeled too elitist and narrowly-focused. Green energy leaders tend to laud the advances of American technology but then proceed to write Silicon Valley off as disconnected from the economic and political realities of energy implementation. Yet this criticism comes without any proposed reforms–Silicon Valley gets dismissed without advice on how to improve.

Take the Model X as an example. After the initial slew of articles describing the features of the Model X, newspapers picked up a second story: the potential $25,000 tax loophole for small business owners who purchase a Model X. The Model X was immediately transformed from a feather in the cap of electric energy into a symbol of corrupt capitalism. The phrase “tax cuts for the rich” is almost a curse word in the green energy world and may create significant backlash against the Model X. Why? Because being “part of the establishment” is the cardinal sin of the green energy movement (even in the case of the Model X, where Tesla is merely following the rules of the IRS tax code). However, opponents of this tax break present no other viable solution to get more drivers behind the wheel of electric vehicles. In fact, tax breaks for electric vehicles are a key part of green energy reforms across the country–so why attack one electric energy tax break while lauding another?

Green energy no longer lives on the periphery–the fact that multiple candidates in the 2016 presidential race have outlined detailed alternative energy plans that reach as far as 2050 is proof that activists have done incredible work in educating policymakers. However, green energy will never match the lobbying power of traditional energy companies if it continues to subscribe to the outdated idea that green energy can’t exist across a broad range of commercial interest–including the luxury market. Environmental activism was born out of populist desire to protect the environment, for both current and future populations, regardless of class, creed, or color. Green energy can’t fully commit to this goal unless it lets go of its own prejudices and accepts that you don’t have to rock a peace sign and long hair to care about alternative energy.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Fear and Loathing in Green Energy: Prejudice Against the Tesla Model X appeared first on Law Street.

Innovation is only imagined in the face of a problem without a solution. Take the electric car, for example. An electric car could save drivers gas money–you get Tesla. Let’s create an app that brings a car to your location on demand–you get Uber.

That’s what tech startups do: they brainstorm new innovations to help overcome challenges. Sometimes they can find homes in surprising places. In Southeast Asia, Myanmar is becoming a new and fast-growing land for tech startups.

After nearly 50 years under a military junta, Myanmar transitioned to a civilian-led government in 2011. Under President Thein Sein, the government initiated a series of political and economic reforms leading to the opening of the long-isolated country. Reforms included releasing political prisoners, reaching preliminary peace agreements with major armed ethnic groups,  providing better protections for basic human rights, and gradually reducing restrictions on the press.

Out of all Southeast Asian countries, why Myanmar?

After such a long isolation, things are changing very quickly. When the military junta was ruling the country in the early 2000s, a SIM card could cost $2,000; today it costs $1.50. The government took a $105 million loan from Japan in order to upgrade the local telecommunication infrastructure, and it is expected that nearly everyone will be carrying smartphones and tablets by the end of 2015. There is room for competition and new products, and the tech community recognizes that.

One of the parties helping to shape the entrepreneurial ecosystem is Sydney-based Pollenizer.

Pollenizer’s “Startup Science” is a framework designed to build incubation and acceleration programs that help entrepreneurs and big companies all over the world get started with high-growth, tech-powered businesses. Part of its support is providing services such as management training or office space.

Here are some of the latest featured developments in Myanmar:

• Carmudi, the Carmax of Myanmar: an online vehicle marketplace.
• Hush, a mobile app that allows you to post anonymous messages based on location. You are then able to view what others have posted while in the same location.
• Harmoneat, Myanmar’s first food truck. Harmoneat runs cooking classes and other tourist services to finance the operations of a community food truck.
• Nexy Keyboard, “the first iOS8 keyboard in Myanmar” that allows users to type in “Myanglish.”
• SmartSales, a point-of-sale (POS) system for restaurants that runs on batter power to overcome power outages.
• Fyre, web-based software that helps businesses set up online stores and mobile apps without needing any programming knowledge.

With celebrity entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and record-breaking valuations leading the headlines, it’s easy to forget the markets that are at the beginning of their tech revolutions and ready for explosion. The Myanmar market is very big as there are many places people still use pen and paper to conduct business. This new frontier for entrepreneurs has an exciting future.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Myanmar the Next Big Destination for Startups? appeared first on Law Street.

Google has been working on developing technology for a driverless car and now rumors are swirling that Apple, too, may be working on Steve Jobs’ infamous driverless iCar.

Google introduced the first fully-functioning prototype of a self-driving car in December 2014 after several less-functioning attempts by engineers over the years, according to Time. In a post on the project’s webpage, Google wrote that engineers had now managed to successfully combine elements of self-driving technology and laser-guided steering with car parts from conventional suppliers to create the working prototype.

Tesla and Uber have also reportedly been working on driverless technology and the Wall Street Journal reported that Apple was getting into the game, with “several hundred” employees now working on a minivan-like electric car. The project is still just a rumor, but in true mystery fashion, comes with its own codename: “Titan.”

Sridhar Lakshmanan, engineering professor at the University Michigan-Dearborn, recently told Time that there are three crucial elements required to turn a regular car into an automated one:  “A GPS system,” “a system to recognize dynamic conditions on the roads,” and “a way to turn the information from the other two systems into action on your ride.”

“What the autonomous system is supposed to achieve, in its full maturity, is the best of a computer, which is able to process large reams of data, and the ability of a human being to be adaptive in a new or known environment,” Lakshmanan told Time.

But why? Have we really become so lazy that we don’t even want to drive ourselves places anymore? Personally, I use long drives as valuable “me time,” and call me paranoid, but I’m just not sure I could ever really trust a computer to drive me anywhere safely. If this driverless technology becomes a market reality, will it really be safe and will people really use it?

A Forbes article suggested self-driving could allow for more work to be done, more tweets to be sent, and more web posts to be posted during commutes. So if you are displeased with your daily tweet ratio, perhaps a driverless car is the answer to cutting out the time-consuming aspect of manual driving.

Beyond social advantages, driverless technology could also greatly diminish the number of traffic accidents, and thereby the number of traffic accident deaths, each year and improve traffic flow.

“In a world without crashes, cars wouldn’t need tons of reinforced steel, excessive airbags, and other features that make them so heavy, and by definition, lighter cars are more efficient cars,” noted Forbes.

A driverless car may not be as passive and safe as some people might think, though. Greg Fitch, research scientist at the Center for Automated Vehicle Systems at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute told Tech Republic that to ensure safety, vehicle manufacturers are still expecting car owners to be alert while driving, with a hand on the wheel and foot ready to brake. “Believe it or not, that car could fail at any time,” Fitch said.

It seems at least some U.K. drivers share my sense of wariness on the issue of driverless cars. Some are even “horrified” by the idea. “Four in ten Britons would not trust an autonomous car to drive safely, believing it would jeopardize the welfare of drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, a survey from price comparison site uSwitch.com found,” reported the Telegraph.

I suppose it remains to be seen whether we will all be traveling around in driverless vehicles in a few years. Now we just have to wait for the pilotless commercial planes and cook-less kitchens so we can all have even more time for those tweets and web posts.

Morgan Eichensehr

The post Driverless Cars on the Horizon, But Who Actually Wants to Ride in Them? appeared first on Law Street.

The name “Tesla” can provoke various thoughts: the character played by David Bowie in The Prestige; Tesla Motors; “tesla coil” and, of course, its inventor Mr. Nikola Tesla himself. Aside from providing the car company with a catchy name, the famous inventor’s original 1882 design of an AC motor is the predecessor to the one currently used by Tesla Motors.

On June 12, 2014 the Tesla Motors company made headlines by announcing that it would make its patents publicly available. As of the end of last year, Tesla had been issued 203 patents and had more than 280 applications pending with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

According to Tesla’s official blog, “Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.”

Why did the company release this information, allowing others to access its secrets? What does the wide availability of these patents mean for the future of Tesla Motors and the entire the auto industry?

To answer the question of why Tesla Motors made its patents publicly available, one need not search any further than the company’s website, where Musk explains the company’s hope that the wide availability will lead to rapid-evolution of the electric car industry.

Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis…We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform.

-Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motor Company

Why release their patents now, though? Initially employees of Tesla Motors worried that if the technology were made public, large auto companies would copy the information and leave Tesla Motors entirely unable to compete; however, as Musk states in the blog, they quickly realized that this was not the case.

Our true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.

-Elon Musk

Will It Catch On?

Tesla expects this release to encourage other auto companies to build on the information, leading to the mass production of electric cars; however, despite the appeal of electric cars, they still have numerous drawbacks limiting marketability to the average consumer. For example, the vehicles typically only have a range of about 100 miles and take hours to recharge, whereas cars run by gasoline have a 300-plus mile range and only require a quick stop at a gas station to refuel. On the plus side, however, electric cars cost only 2 cents per mile to run. For electronic vehicle sales to really take off, the upfront costs will need to be substantially more affordable. Unfortunately, reducing carbon emissions alone is not motivation enough for the majority of car buyers to go electric.

Despite the fact that the number of electric vehicles sold each year does not even approach that of gasoline-powered vehicles, the number is increasing. In 2013, approximately 96,000 electronic vehicles were sold, almost doubling the number sold in 2012.

Time will tell if Tesla Motors’ release of its patents will provide sufficient motivation for other auto companies to beef up the production of electric vehicles and lead to the reduction in the impact of drivers on the environment. If this technology is embraced by other car manufacturers, the automaker community could work together to improve the way electric cars are made and marketed. Doing so would have a tremendous impact on the environment. According to research compiled by Sherry Boschert, author of the book, Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America, use of electronic vehicles would reduce the amount of pollution released by cars between 32 and 99 percent. Though there is discrepancy between the exact amount of reduction the switch to electric cars would cause, there is a general consensus that it would be beneficial. Although no one can be sure exactly what will happen now that Tesla Motors has made their patents public, it seems to be a step in the right direction of sharing potentially valuable information throughout the industry.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [randychiu via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tesla Releases Its Patents, But is it Enough to Jump Start Electric Vehicle Production? appeared first on Law Street.