Law Commons^™

Children Of Choice: Whose Children? At What Cost?, Laura M. Purdy

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Children Of Choice: A Doctor's Perspective, Howard W. Jones, Jr.

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

U.S. Government Control Over The Export Of Scientific Research And Other Technical Data: Holes In The Sieve, Robert Greenspoon

Michigan Journal of International Law

In Part I, I establish the backdrop for answering the question by describing the kinds of scientific data that might be subject to security classification and export licensing. In Part II, I outline briefly who chooses what should be restricted and who enforces these restrictions. In Part III, I describe several situations in which the federal government has vigorously enforced controls over the dissemination of scientific information. I also analyze two recent cases involving computer software that I believe analogize directly to the scientific endeavor. Finally, in Part IV, I explain why First Amendment barriers, the growth of the Internet …

Migration: A Natural Growth Process For Libraries (Part Two Of Two), Georgia Briscoe

Publications

No abstract provided.

Regulating Choice: A Constitutional Law Response To Professor John A. Robertson's Children Of Choice, Ann Maclean Massie

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Opinion Letter As To The Patentability Of Certain Inventions Associated With The Identification Of Partial Cdna Sequences, Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Robert P. Merges

Articles

You have asked for our legal opinion on the patentability of inventions claimed in U.S. patent applications 07/716,831, filed June 21, 1991 (the '831 application, or .'831"), 07/837,195, filed September 25, 1992 ("'195"), and 07/952,911, filed February 12, 1993 (."911"), all filed in the name of Craig Venter and others and assigned to the National Institutes of Health "(NIH)." We understand that NIH has abandoned these patent applications and has no present intention of filing similar applications in the future, but that NIH remains interested in the patenting of human DNA sequences from a broader public policy perspective. We have …

Migration: A Natural Growth Process For Libraries (Part One Of Two), Georgia Briscoe

Publications

No abstract provided.

A Puzzle Even The Codebreakers Have Trouble Solving: A Clash Of Interests Over The Electronic Encryption Standard, Sean Flynn

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Reverse Engineering And The Rise Of Electronic Vigilantism: Intellectual Property Implications Of "Lock-Out" Programs, Julie E. Cohen

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Over the past few years, there has been an abundance of scholarship dealing with the appropriate scope of copyright and patent protection for computer programs. This Article approaches those problems from a slightly different perspective, focusing on the discrete problem of lock-out programs. The choice of lock-out as a paradigm for exploring the interoperability question and the contours of copyright and patent protection of computer programs is informed by two considerations. First, for purposes of the interoperability inquiry, lock-out programs represent an extreme; they are discrete, self-contained modules that are highly innovative in design, yet that serve no purpose other …

Celebrating Communications Technology For Everyone, Peter David Blanck

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Market For Loyalties: Electronic Media And The Global Competition For Allegiances, Monroe E. Price

Articles

The article critiques the traditional "marketplace of ideas" metaphor in First Amendment jurisprudence and proposes a more accurate framework: the "market for loyalties." This model highlights how powerful entities, including governments and private actors, use communication regulation to shape identities and allegiances. The First Amendment, under this interpretation, functions as a regulatory allocation among these entities rather than a guarantee of unfettered speech. The rise of global communication technologies and competing loyalties challenges the nation-state's ability to control this market, reshaping the role of law and governance in identity formation.

Between Advocacy And Responsibility: The Challenge Of Biotechnology For International Law, James Buchanan

Buffalo Journal of International Law

No abstract provided.

Technology Comes To The Courtroom, And . . ., Fredric I. Lederer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: Pushing The Limits Of Scientific Reliability--The Questionable Wisdom Of Abandoning The Peer Review Standard For Admitting Expert Testimony, Alan W. Tamarelli, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

Historically, trial courts have been cautious about allowing juries to hear testimony from scientific experts. When a testifying expert professes to have knowledge in a specialized field, juries often find sorting out issues of credibility and relevance difficult and confusing.' Therefore, federal courts traditionally have attempted to exclude expert testimony if its basis has not yet gained a requisite degree of acceptance within a relevant community of experts. The justification for this limitation is that those people who are in the best position to understand and evaluate this evidence-other experts-should make judgments about the reliability of scientific evidence. This contingent …

The Wright Enabling Disclosure For Biotechnology Patents, Karen S. Canady

Washington Law Review

The disclosure in a patent specification must enable others to make and use the claimed invention. In the competitive biotechnology industry, companies often seek broad claims to protect contemplated embodiments of their inventions that have not yet been reduced to practice. In In re Wright, the Federal Circuit recently challenged this approach when it upheld the rejection, for lack of enablement, of all but the narrowest claims to a vaccine genetically engineered to protect against retroviruses. This decision unreasonably elevates the established standard for enablement by limiting biotechnological patent protection to only those embodiments of a claimed invention whose success …

Is Care Enough? Proceed With Care: Final Report Of The Royal Commission On New Reproductive Technologies, Diana Majury

Dalhousie Law Journal

Having just finished reading Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, I find that the questions I am left with pertain less to the technologies themselves, although I certainly do have those, and more to the role and effectiveness of royal commissions generally, and this Royal Commission specifically. I am left wondering, Was it worth it? What really was the point of it all? How could we expect any group of seven-or was it nine? well, ultimately five people-to respond with depth and substance to a mandate that required them to "inquire into and …

Table Of Contents - Cardozo Law Review, Volume 15, Issues 6-7

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

On The Relevance Of The Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence: Tort System Outcomes Are Principally Determined By Lawyers’ Rates Of Return, Lester Brickman

Cardozo Law Review

The attention generated by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reflects the perceived importance of the issue of the admissibility of scientific evidence in tort litigation. In products liability litigation, whether claimants prevail often depends upon expert testimony presented on the issue of causation. Unless a claimant is able to have the expert's testimony admitted, there will be little or no chance of prevailing. Thus, though it is disputed whether Daubert will extend or contract tort liability, it is undisputed that its importance lies in its impact on the scope of tort liability.

Check Your Crystal Ball At The Courthouse Door, Please: Exploring The Past, Understanding The Present, And Worrying About The Future Of Scientific Evidence, David L. Faigman, Elise Porter, Michael J. Saks

Cardozo Law Review

Since the earliest days of the use of expert witnesses, judges (and more recently legislatures) have struggled to design the juridical intersection where law and science cross paths. The effort has not met with notable success. This situation could be changing, however. Last term, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court adopted a novel approach to the age-old problem of scientific evidence. The -Court determined that the Federal Rules of Evidence require scientific evidence to be scientifically valid before it enters the courtroom. The Court has served notice that experts should trade in their crystal balls …

Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Redefining The Bases For Admissibility Of Expert Scientific Testimony, Clifton T. Hutchinson, Danny S. Ashby

Cardozo Law Review

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is not only, or even primarily, a case about the viability of Frye v. United States and "general acceptance" as the criterion for evaluating expert testimony. Principally, it is a case about the preconditions of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the sole provision in the Federal Rules that authorizes the use of expert testimony. The question as framed by petitioners in the course of argument was whether trial courts may screen scientific expert testimony under any real test. The Supreme Court answered this question strongly in the affirmative.

Petitioners' recurring theme was that Rule …

Conflict Resolution In The Courts: The Role Of Science, Anthony Z. Roisman

Cardozo Law Review

This Article is a philosophical examination of an issue that now engages many lawyers and scientists-the proper role of science in courtroom litigation. More specifically, the issue is this: In cases where expert testimony is useful to lay jurors in resolving factual issues, what is the proper role of a judge in restricting what sorts of experts can testify and what they can say?

Dna And Daubert, Barry C. Scheck

Cardozo Law Review

The most intriguing aspect of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is that the Supreme Court never applied its new analytic framework for the admissibility of scientific evidence to the facts of the case. Either the deviltry, or the genius, of the Daubert decision lies in the details.

Daubert: Interpreting The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli

Cardozo Law Review

In 1992 Judge Becker and Professor Orenstein referred to the Frye issue - the admissibility of novel scientific evidence-as the "most controversial and important unresolved question" in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Indeed, during the prior decade the federal courts had battled over the issue, as had their state counterparts. Similarly, text writers and law review commentators vigorously disagreed about the proper standard for admitting scientific evidence. While one ABA report on the Federal Rules explored the Frye issue and concluded that it "is not clear that any standard would produce agreement at the moment," another report cited it as …

The Supreme Court’S View Of Science: Has Daubert Exorcised The Certainty Demon?, Bert Black

Cardozo Law Review

The Supreme Court's mandate in Daubert that experts who give testimony based on science must confine themselves to valid scientific knowledge seems tautologically obvious, and hardly an issue requiring the attention of the nation's nine highest judges. The debate that led to Daubert was generated, however, by opponents of judicial screening who argued that holding experts to scientific standards somehow imposes an undue burden of proof on plaintiffs, especially in toxic tort cases - and the Supreme Court's decision has not put the issue completely to rest. Science, according to this "relaxed standards" argument, demands certainty far beyond the law's …

The Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence After Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., David E. Bernstein

Cardozo Law Review

This past June, the Supreme Court decided Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the most important case involving the admissibility of scientific evidence in seventy years. While some analysts have argued that Daubert will encourage the trend toward more careful judicial scrutiny of scientific evidence, others have contended that the opinion will reduce the role of the courts in screening scientific evidence and permit a flood of junk science evidence into American courtrooms. The early evidence strongly suggests that the former view is correct. So far, most federal courts are interpreting Daubert as giving them wide authority to restrict …

Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Epistemiology And Legal Process, Margaret G. Farrell

Cardozo Law Review

Justice Blackmun's majority opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. acknowledges that law and science have different goals, but it fails to recognize the implications of those differences for legal process. Recent increases in the scientifically-based claims brought in the federal courts, and in the size and complexity of the litigation in which such claims are made, have raised the stakes in the debate. At the same time, scientific concepts of relativity, uncertainty, and multiple causation are at odds with simple, legal notions about fact-finding and cause and effect. This disparity between legal and scientific understandings over the admission …

After Daubert: Going Forward With Lessons From The Past, Marc S. Klein

Cardozo Law Review

Ground zero in the ongoing battle over scientific evidence in toxic tort cases has clearly shifted in light of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In that case, the Supreme Court settled at least two profound issues. One has immediate practical consequences, the other has important philosophical implications.

Solomon Meets Galileo (And Isn’T Quite Sure What To Do With Him), Brian Stuart Koukoutchos

Cardozo Law Review

Unlike most of the other panelists, I am neither a tort lawyer nor an evidence scholar. I became involved in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. because I am a Supreme Court advocate and was asked to author a brief amici curiae on behalf of an eclectic group of physicians, scientists, historians of science, and sociologists of science who were dismayed by the Ninth Circuit's opinion and wished to advise the Supreme Court on the nature of science and its uses in the courtroom. Accordingly, I am not particularly interested in engaging in the sort of spin-control about Daubert that …

The Next Step After Daubert: Developing A Similarly Epistemological Approach To Ensuring The Reliability Of Nonscientific Expert Testimony, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Cardozo Law Review

On June 28, 1993, after much fanfare, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The decision was not only preceded by intense media attention; the decision was also immediately followed by a massive-and growing-volume of commentary. As is usually true with landmark decisions, it is imperative to identify what the Court decided and what the Court left unresolved.

Video Depositions, Transcripts And Trials, Henry H. Perritt Jr.

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.