Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Science and Technology Law

Institution
Keyword
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type
File Type

Articles 6901 - 6930 of 8855

Full-Text Articles in Law

Internet Voting With Initiatives And Referendums: Stumbling Towards Direct Democracy, Rebekah K. Browder Jan 2005

Internet Voting With Initiatives And Referendums: Stumbling Towards Direct Democracy, Rebekah K. Browder

Seattle University Law Review

Imagine that it is Tuesday, November 4, 2008, and you realize that you have not yet voted for the candidate that you want to be President of the United States. The polls close at 7 p.m., and it is already 6:45 p.m. Instead of rushing off to the nearest polling place, you simply go to your computer, log in, fill out a ballot, and email your ballot to your designated polling website. The whole process takes fewer than ten minutes, and you have done your civic duty. Leading proponents of Internet voting point to five possible benefits of electronic voting: …

Go to article

Campaign Finance Reform, Electioneering Communications, And The First Amendment: Resuscitating The Third Exception, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1315 (2005), Daniel B. Roth Jan 2005

Campaign Finance Reform, Electioneering Communications, And The First Amendment: Resuscitating The Third Exception, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1315 (2005), Daniel B. Roth

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Optrex And The Attorney-Client Privilege: Implications And Potential Significance, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (2005), Sandra Liss Friedman, Helena D. Sullivan Jan 2005

Optrex And The Attorney-Client Privilege: Implications And Potential Significance, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (2005), Sandra Liss Friedman, Helena D. Sullivan

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Patients Beware: Preemption Of Common Law Claims Under The Medical Device Amendments, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 75 (2005), Michael P. Dinatale Jan 2005

Patients Beware: Preemption Of Common Law Claims Under The Medical Device Amendments, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 75 (2005), Michael P. Dinatale

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

American Courts Are Drowning In The "Gene Pool": Excavating The Slippery Slope Mechanisms Behind Judicial Endorsement Of Dna Databases, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 115 (2005), Meghan Riley Jan 2005

American Courts Are Drowning In The "Gene Pool": Excavating The Slippery Slope Mechanisms Behind Judicial Endorsement Of Dna Databases, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 115 (2005), Meghan Riley

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Public Use Or Experimental Use: Are Clinical Trials Susceptible To Another Attack Similar To That In Smithkline Beecham Corp. V. Apotex Corp., 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 149 (2005), Nimalka Wickramasekera Jan 2005

Public Use Or Experimental Use: Are Clinical Trials Susceptible To Another Attack Similar To That In Smithkline Beecham Corp. V. Apotex Corp., 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 149 (2005), Nimalka Wickramasekera

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Lawrence Summers At The Nber Conference: The Real Deal, Taunya Lovell Banks Jan 2005

Lawrence Summers At The Nber Conference: The Real Deal, Taunya Lovell Banks

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Introduction, Melanie Santiago Jan 2005

Introduction, Melanie Santiago

Journal of Health Care Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Go to article

The 800 Pound Gorilla Sleeps: The Federal Government's Lackadaisical Liability And Compensation Policies In The Context Of Pre-Event Vaccine Immunization Programs, Michael Greenberger Jan 2005

The 800 Pound Gorilla Sleeps: The Federal Government's Lackadaisical Liability And Compensation Policies In The Context Of Pre-Event Vaccine Immunization Programs, Michael Greenberger

Journal of Health Care Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Old Legacies And New Paradigms: Confusing "Research" And "Treatment" And Its Consequences In Responding To Emergent Health Threats, Gail H. Javitt Jan 2005

Old Legacies And New Paradigms: Confusing "Research" And "Treatment" And Its Consequences In Responding To Emergent Health Threats, Gail H. Javitt

Journal of Health Care Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Inoculation Inventions: The Interplay Of Infringement And Immunity In The Development Of Biodefense Vaccines, Cynthia M. Ho Jan 2005

Inoculation Inventions: The Interplay Of Infringement And Immunity In The Development Of Biodefense Vaccines, Cynthia M. Ho

Journal of Health Care Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Some Right Jabs And Back In The Ring: Lessons Learned From The Phase I Civilian Smallpox Program, Elin Gursky, Avani Parikh Jan 2005

Some Right Jabs And Back In The Ring: Lessons Learned From The Phase I Civilian Smallpox Program, Elin Gursky, Avani Parikh

Journal of Health Care Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Voice Over Internet Protocol And The Wiretap Act: Is Your Conversation Protected?, Daniel B. Garrie, Matthew J. Armstrong, Donald P. Harris Jan 2005

Voice Over Internet Protocol And The Wiretap Act: Is Your Conversation Protected?, Daniel B. Garrie, Matthew J. Armstrong, Donald P. Harris

Seattle University Law Review

10101101: Is this sequence of digits voice or data? To a computer, voice is a sequence of digits and data is a sequence of digits. The law has defined 10101101 to be data, and 10101001 to be voice communications. Courts have constructed a distinction between data, 10101101, and voice, 10101001. However, that distinction is blurred when voice and data are simultaneously transmitted through the same medium. The courts forbid third parties to tap or monitor voice communications, yet permit data packets to be tracked, stored, and sold by third parties with the implied consent of either party engaged in the …

Go to article

Liberty Or Death: Maryland Improves Upon The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, Franklin H. Alden Jr. Jan 2005

Liberty Or Death: Maryland Improves Upon The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, Franklin H. Alden Jr.

Journal of Health Care Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Informed Consent And Public Health: Are They Compatible When It Comes To Vaccines?, Wendy E. Parmet Jan 2005

Informed Consent And Public Health: Are They Compatible When It Comes To Vaccines?, Wendy E. Parmet

Journal of Health Care Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Legal Protection Of Technological Measures Protecting Works Of Authorship: International Obligations And The Us Experience, Jane C. Ginsburg Jan 2005

Legal Protection Of Technological Measures Protecting Works Of Authorship: International Obligations And The Us Experience, Jane C. Ginsburg

Faculty Scholarship

The ongoing transposition of the EU Information Society Directive's requirement that member States adopt of legal prohibitions of the circumvention of technological protections of works of authorship occasions this review of international obligations and their implementation in the US. This article addresses the scope of international obligations the WIPO Copyright Treaties impose on member States to protect against circumvention, as well as the US experience with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's prohibitions on circumvention of access and copy controls. It examines the text of the statute, codified at sec. 1201 of the 1976 Copyright Act, the five years of judicial …

Go to article

Copyright & Privacy - Through The Legislative Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 266 (2005), Marybeth Peters Jan 2005

Copyright & Privacy - Through The Legislative Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 266 (2005), Marybeth Peters

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

The Honorable Marybeth Peters, who has served since 1994 as the Register of Copyrights for the United States Copyright Office of the Library of Congress, presented a post-election report on the legislative agenda in Washington, D.C. regarding rejected, pending and future amendments to the copyright law of the United States. Register Peters also discussed the current policy role of the United States Copyright Office and several court actions that contest the constitutionality of various provisions of the copyright law.

Go to article

Copyright & Privacy - Through The Technology Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 242 (2005), Michael A. Geist, Doris E. Long, Leslie Ann Reis, David E. Sorkin, Fred Von Lohmann Jan 2005

Copyright & Privacy - Through The Technology Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 242 (2005), Michael A. Geist, Doris E. Long, Leslie Ann Reis, David E. Sorkin, Fred Von Lohmann

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

How is new technology impacting on the more general question of privacy in cyberspace? Is the original notion of an expectation of anonymity on the internet still viable? Can technology pierce through the expectation of privacy even without judicial interference? Do individuals need protection from such technology? Is there technology available to protect the individual? Should these technological tools be regulated? Should the law differentiate between various types of alleged “illegal” behavior; e.g., IP infringement, defamation, possession of pornography and terrorism? Are there international standards that can assist in regulating the intersection between technology and privacy in cyberspace?

Go to article

Copyright & Privacy - Through The Political Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 306 (2005), William W. Fisher Iii, Hugh C. Hansen, Christopher Jay Hoofnagle, Howard P. Knopf, Declan Mccullagh, Ralph Oman, Matthew J. Oppenheim Jan 2005

Copyright & Privacy - Through The Political Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 306 (2005), William W. Fisher Iii, Hugh C. Hansen, Christopher Jay Hoofnagle, Howard P. Knopf, Declan Mccullagh, Ralph Oman, Matthew J. Oppenheim

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Veteran beltway players discuss the politics of P2P technology and Privacy. How far can or should Congress go? Can the United States export its values or its laws in this area? Are content owners in a losing Luddite struggle? What is the role of litigators, lobbyists and legislators in this war?

Go to article

Copyright & Privacy - Through The Privacy Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 273 (2005), Julie E. Cohen, David E. Sorkin, Peter P. Swire Jan 2005

Copyright & Privacy - Through The Privacy Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 273 (2005), Julie E. Cohen, David E. Sorkin, Peter P. Swire

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

What legal tools do privacy advocates have available to defend an individual’s right to privacy? How far does this right go? How should these rights be defended—or if necessary—curtailed? What is the role of Government, of the practicing bar and of academics?

Go to article

Copyright & Privacy - Through The Wide-Angle Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 285 (2005), William W. Fisher Iii, Howard P. Knopf, Fred Von Lohmann, William B.T. Mock, Marybeth Peters, R. Anthony Reese Jan 2005

Copyright & Privacy - Through The Wide-Angle Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 285 (2005), William W. Fisher Iii, Howard P. Knopf, Fred Von Lohmann, William B.T. Mock, Marybeth Peters, R. Anthony Reese

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Some have proposed “alternative compensation schemes” as a means of compensating copyright owners and creators for P2P activity while avoiding litigation. Some have proposed a streamlined dispute resolution system that would allow for enforcement in a manner analogous to the UDRP model. Others question whether private copying should necessarily be viewed as illegal and whether any alternative compensation scheme is viable. With all of these proposals, the question remains as to whether “alternative compensation” is really alternative.

Go to article

Transaction Costs And Antitrust Concerns In The Licensing Of Intellectual Property, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 325 (2005), Richard A. Posner Jan 2005

Transaction Costs And Antitrust Concerns In The Licensing Of Intellectual Property, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 325 (2005), Richard A. Posner

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

High transaction costs incurred in the licensing of intellectual property create a pressure on legal principles ranging from the fair use doctrine of copyright law to the tying doctrine in antitrust law. It appears, with some exceptions, that antitrust law is imposing excessive restrictions on the licensing of intellectual property. The effect of these restrictions, combined with the high transaction costs inherent in the licensing of intellectual property, is to prevent the maximally efficient allocation of IP resources.

Go to article

Recent Developments In Trademark Law: Confusion, Free Speech And The Question Of Use, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 387 (2005), Chad J. Doellinger Jan 2005

Recent Developments In Trademark Law: Confusion, Free Speech And The Question Of Use, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 387 (2005), Chad J. Doellinger

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

The Supreme Court’s continued trend of refining trademark rights combined with a new concern for free speech and expression brings current and unresolved trademark issues to light. The large amount of activity in the development of trademark law in 2004 has brought additional uncertainty to trademark law. This article discusses recent Supreme Court trademark jurisprudence refining trademark rights, the development of recent trademark dilution cases, the role of use in commerce as applied to internet search engines and keyword issues, and the emphasis on free speech and expression.

Go to article

Intellectual Property Implications In A Virtual Reality Environment, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 483 (2005), Timir Chheda Jan 2005

Intellectual Property Implications In A Virtual Reality Environment, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 483 (2005), Timir Chheda

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

What will become of intellectual property interests in a world where virtual reality is a fact of life? To ponder this question we must step back from the sophisticated judicially created tests built around a framework of policy suited for modern reality and first consider whether such policy is viable given a virtual reality environment. Only then may we consider if the tests appropriately further such policy, and if not, modify the tests accordingly. This comment considers the policy and tests implicated when copyright, trademark, and patent law pass through the looking-glass and enter the realm of virtual reality.

Go to article

Placing The Burden Back Where It Belongs: A Proposal To Eliminate The Affirmative Duty From Willful Infringement Analyses, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 509 (2005), Kevin J. Kelly Jan 2005

Placing The Burden Back Where It Belongs: A Proposal To Eliminate The Affirmative Duty From Willful Infringement Analyses, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 509 (2005), Kevin J. Kelly

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

In order to further the objective of the patent system and maximize the public’s incentive to innovate, it is imperative that the patent laws maintain a balance between the interests of patent owners in excluding others from their patents and the interests of society in the continual progress of technology. The current law in willful infringement analysis upsets this balance with the affirmative duty of due care, which shifts the burden of proof in patent infringement suits from the plaintiff to the alleged infringer. The affirmative duty places a heavy burden on the public and is inconsistent with various common …

Go to article

University Of Rochester V. G.D. Searle & Co.: Writing On The Wall, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 406 (2005), N. Scott Pierce Jan 2005

University Of Rochester V. G.D. Searle & Co.: Writing On The Wall, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 406 (2005), N. Scott Pierce

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

In patent law, the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is currently interpreted to include a written description requirement that is distinct from the requirement of enabling a person skilled in the art to make and use an invention. However, analyses of patent specifications under the “written description requirement” have relied on determinations of whether one skilled in the art would comprehend the scope of the claimed invention in view of the description provided, in effect continuing use of enablement as the statutory threshold for description purposes. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in University of Rochester …

Go to article

Congress Wants To Give The Riaa Control Of Your Ipod: How The Induce Act Chills Innovation And Abrogates Sony, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 534 (2005), Michael Raucci Jan 2005

Congress Wants To Give The Riaa Control Of Your Ipod: How The Induce Act Chills Innovation And Abrogates Sony, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 534 (2005), Michael Raucci

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

The addition of “active inducement” to the Copyright Act would compliment the doctrine of contributory liability by punishing those who actively encourage copyright infringement. Actively inducing infringement can include advertising an infringing use or other affirmative acts. Therefore, active inducement provides a technology-neutral standard that would not look to punish bad technology but rather bad actions by the technology distributor. In contrast, the reasonable person standard of the Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act of 2004 (“Induce Act”) permits an inappropriate extension of the exclusive rights given to copyright holders by lowering the threshold for litigation. Consequently, the Induce Act improperly …

Go to article

"As The Federal Circuit Turns": The Supreme Court's Consideration Of Merck V. Integra And The Safe Harbor Provision, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 368 (2005), Blair M. Jacobs, Christina A. Ondrick Jan 2005

"As The Federal Circuit Turns": The Supreme Court's Consideration Of Merck V. Integra And The Safe Harbor Provision, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 368 (2005), Blair M. Jacobs, Christina A. Ondrick

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

The Hatch-Waxman Act was enacted to balance the competing interests in the pharmaceutical marketplace between brand name and generic drug manufacturers. In the twenty years since its inception, the safe harbor provision contained in § 271(e)(1), has been interpreted to provide broad protection to those involved in research activities. However, in 2003, the Federal Circuit narrowly interpreted the safe harbor provision in a move that could potentially frustrate future research and improvements on patented technologies. Merck v. Integra is currently before the United States Supreme Court, who has the challenge of unraveling the competing interests involved. In order to encourage …

Go to article

Abuse Of Public Use? Exploring The Smithkline V. Apotex Decision And The Future Of Public Use, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 559 (2005), Artem N. Sokolov Jan 2005

Abuse Of Public Use? Exploring The Smithkline V. Apotex Decision And The Future Of Public Use, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 559 (2005), Artem N. Sokolov

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

In SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotx Corp., the court incorrectly applied the statutory public use bar and held the clinical trials did not constitute an experimental use. This ruling set the bar too high. Applying a narrow construction of the law, the CAFC invalidated a claim in a clear case of experimental use. The decision not only misapplied the precedent defining an “inherent” feature of the invention, but also essentially eliminated the need for applying the policies that underlie and define the public use bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Go to article

Is The Federal Circuit Ready To Accept Plenary Authority For Patent Appeals?, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 583 (2005), Meredith Martin Addy Jan 2005

Is The Federal Circuit Ready To Accept Plenary Authority For Patent Appeals?, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 583 (2005), Meredith Martin Addy

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Congress formed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982 in part to improve uniformity in the interpretation of patent law and to eliminate forum shopping. However, in 2002, the Federal Circuit’s ability to achieve that goal was reduced when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Holmes Group v. Vornado, held that the Federal Circuit would not have jurisdiction in cases where a federal patent law issue arises only in a responsive pleading. Many commentators have argued that the Holmes decision runs afoul of the congressional mandate in forming the Federal Circuit. With the hope of addressing this …

Go to article

First Prev Next Last