Law Commons^™

Holding Standards For Randsome: A Remedial Perspective On Rand Licensing Commitments, Layne S. Keele

Layne S. Keele

In Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the four federal judges who considered the case—Judge Posner by designation at the trial level, and three Federal Circuit judges on appeal—all expressed differing opinions on the question of whether and to what extent extraordinary patent remedies should be available for the infringement of standard-essential patents. This article aims to simplify this muddled and confusing topic.

The article employs a teleological approach, examining the purposes behind remedies in general, the purposes of extraordinary remedies in patent law, and the purposes of RAND commitments (commitments to license standard-essential …

The Internet Is The New Public Forum: Why Riley V. California Supports Net Neutrality, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Technology has ushered civil liberties into the virtual world, and the law must adapt by providing legal protections to individuals who speak, assemble, and associate in that world. The original purposes of the First Amendment, which from time immemorial have protected civil liberties and preserved the free, open, and robust exchange of information, support net neutrality. After all, laws or practices that violate cherished freedoms in the physical world also violate those freedoms in the virtual world. The battle over net neutrality is “is absolutely the First Amendment issue of our time,” just as warrantless searches of cell phones were …

Science And Compliance In The Arctic: A Constructivist Approach To The Un Commission On The Limits Of The Continental Shelf, Sari M. Graben, Peter Harrison

Sari M Graben

The United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is expected to play an essential role in delineating the rights of the Arctic states to sea bed resources in the Arctic Ocean. Positivist theories of international law generally source Arctic state compliance to the binding effect of Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, positivist explanations fail to answer why the Arctic states, which are authorized to establish their own limits, would accept the sovereignty costs associated with the Commission’s legal and scientific interpretations. In order to better understand how the Commission …