Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Compromise (2)
- Infringement (2)
- Law reform (2)
- Patent trolls (2)
- Patents (2)
-
- Settlements (2)
- Atrocities (1)
- Bans (1)
- Bias (1)
- Burden of proof (1)
- Circassians (1)
- Confidentiality agreements (1)
- Cost effectiveness (1)
- Crimes against humanity (1)
- Data (1)
- Defense (1)
- Expert evidence (1)
- Filing (1)
- Independent inventions (1)
- Injunctive relief (1)
- Inventions (1)
- Juries (1)
- Lemley (Mark) (1)
- Libel (1)
- Malpractice (1)
- Markets (1)
- Medical personnel (1)
- Medical uncertainty (1)
- Nazis (1)
- Nonbviousness (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Should Patent Infringement Require Proof Of Copying?, Mark A. Lemley
Should Patent Infringement Require Proof Of Copying?, Mark A. Lemley
Michigan Law Review
Patent infringement is a strict liability offense. Patent law gives patent owners not just the right to prevent others from copying their ideas, but the power to control the use of their idea--even by those who independently develop a technology with no knowledge of the patent or the patentee. This is a power that exists nowhere else in intellectual property (IP) or real property law, but it is a one that patentees have had, with rare exceptions, since the inception of the Republic. In an important paper in the Michigan Law Review, Samson Vermont seeks to change this, arguing …
Settler's Remorse, Floyd Abrams
Settler's Remorse, Floyd Abrams
Michigan Law Review
Who can quarrel with the notion that settling civil cases is generally a good thing? Litigation is expensive, time-consuming, preoccupying, and often personally destructive. Our courts are overburdened and, in any event, imperfect decision-making entities. It may even be true that, more often than not, "the absolute result of a trial is not as high a quality of justice as is the freely negotiated, give a little, take a little settlement." But not every case should be settled. Many are worthless. The settlement of others could too easily lead to a torrent of unwarranted litigation. Sometimes, as Professor Owen Fiss …
Illuminating Secrecy: A New Economic Analysis Of Confidential Settlements, Scott A. Moss
Illuminating Secrecy: A New Economic Analysis Of Confidential Settlements, Scott A. Moss
Michigan Law Review
Even the most hotly contested lawsuits typically end in a confidential settlement forbidding the parties from disclosing their allegations, evidence, or settlement amount. Confidentiality draws fierce criticism for harming third parties by concealing serious misdeeds like discrimination, pollution, defective manufacturing, and sexual abuse. Others defend confidentiality as a mutually beneficial pay-for-silence bargain that facilitates settlement, serves judicial economy, and prevents frivolous copycat lawsuits. This debate is based in economic logic, yet most analyses have been surprisingly shallow as to how confidentiality affects incentives to settle. Depicting a more nuanced, complex reality of litigation and settlement, this Article reaches several conclusions …
Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Michigan Law Review
Physicians widely believe that jury verdicts are unfair. This Article tests that assumption by synthesizing three decades of jury research. Contrary to popular belief the data show that juries consistently sympathize more with doctors who are sued than with patients who sue them. Physicians win roughly half of the cases that expert reviewers believe physicians should lose and nearly all of the cases that experts feel physicians should win. Defendants and their hired experts, it turns out, are more successful than plaintiffs and their hired experts at persuading juries to reach verdicts contrary to the opinions of independent reviewers.
The Angel Is In The Big Picture: A Response To Lemley, Samson Vermont
The Angel Is In The Big Picture: A Response To Lemley, Samson Vermont
Michigan Law Review
An invention within close reach of multiple inventors differs from an invention within distant reach of a lone inventor. The differences between these two archetypes of invention -"reinventables" and "singletons"- remain unexploited under current U.S. law. Should we reform the law to exploit the differences? Mark Lemley and I agree that we should. To date, those economists who have closely examined the issue concur. What are the differences between reinventables and singletons? First, reinventables can be brought into existence with incentives of lower magnitude. This suggests that we can obtain reinventables at a lower price than we currently pay-i.e., with …