Digital Commons Network^™

Back To The Future: The Constitution Requires Reasonableness And Particularity—Introducing The “Seize But Don’T Search” Doctrine, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean

Adam Lamparello

Issuing one-hundred or fewer opinions per year, the United States Supreme Court cannot keep pace with opinions that match technological advancement. As a result, in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, the Court needs to announce a broader principle that protects privacy in the digital age. That principle, what we call “seize but don’t search,” recognizes that the constitutional touchstone for all searches is reasonableness.

When do present-day circumstances—the evolution in the Government’s surveillance capabilities, citizens’ phone habits, and the relationship between the NSA and telecom companies—become so thoroughly unlike those considered by the Supreme Court thirty-four years …

Rebuttable Presumption Of Public Interest In Protecting The Public Health—The Necessity For Denying Injunctive Relief In Medically Related Patent Infringement Cases After Ebay V. Mercexchange, Lance E. Wyatt Jr.

Lance E Wyatt Jr.

The public’s interest in medicine and good health is substantial. However, this interest is harmed when important medical devices or pharmaceuticals, although infringing on valid patents, are suddenly taken off the market after a court grants a permanent injunction. While permanent injunctions were automatically granted by the Federal Circuit before the Supreme Court’s holding in eBay v. MercExchange, courts now have more discretion to deny injunctive relief. Now that courts have this newfound discretion after eBay, the public should no longer expect to be harmed by the sudden removal of medical supplies. Unfortunately, this has not been the course that …

“Technopanics, Threat Inflation, And The Danger Of An Information Technology Precautionary Principle”, Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer

Fear is an extremely powerful motivational force. In public policy debates, appeals to fear are often used in an attempt to sway opinion or bolster the case for action. Such appeals are used to convince citizens that threats to individual or social wellbeing may be avoided only if specific steps are taken. Often these steps take the form of anticipatory regulation based on the precautionary principle.

Such “fear appeal arguments” are frequently on display in the Internet policy arena and often take the form of a full-blown “moral panic” or “technopanic.” These panics are intense public, political, and academic responses …

Freedom Of Contract In An Augmented Reality: The Case Of Consumer Contracts, Scott Peppet

Scott Peppet

This Article argues that freedom of contract will take on different meaning in a world in which ubiquitous information about places, goods, people, firms and contract terms is available to contracting parties anywhere, any time. In particular, our increasingly “augmented reality” calls into question leading justifications for distrusting consumer contracts—and thereby strengthens traditional understandings of freedom of contract as enforcing contracts as written. This is largely a descriptive and predictive argument: the Article aims to introduce contract law to these technologies and consider their most likely effects. It certainly has normative implications, however. Given that the vast majority of consumer …