Law Commons^™

Building A Better Bounty: Litigation-Stage Rewards For Defeating Patents, Joe Miller

Scholarly Works

A patent challenger who defeats a patent wins a prize that it must share with the whole world, including all its competitors. This forced sharing undermines an alleged infringer's reason for fighting the patent case to the finish - especially if the patent owner offers an attractive settlement. Too many settlements, and too few definitive patent challenges, are the result. A litigation-stage bounty would correct this defect in patent litigation's basic framework, for it would provide cash prizes to successful patent challengers that they alone would enjoy. After briefly describing the free rider problem with inventions that patent law attempts …

Georgia General Assembly Adopts "Manifest Disregard" As A Ground For Vacating Arbitration Awards: How Will Georgia Courts Treat The New Standard?, John W. Hinchey, Thomas V. Burch

Scholarly Works

Generally, courts may only set aside arbitration awards on the grounds listed in the Federal Arbitration Act or the applicable state arbitration code. However, all federal circuit courts and a few state courts have adopted a non-statutory exception that allows a court to overturn an arbitrator's decision if the arbitrator has exemplified a "manifest disregard" of the law.

In 2002, after several years of tentative lower court decisions, the Georgia Supreme Court, in Progressive Data Systems v. Jefferson Holding Corporation, held that manifest disregard is not a proper ground for vacatur in Georgia. The court emphasized that Georgia's Arbitration Code …

What Is Affirmative Action?, John Valery White

Scholarly Works

There is no rigorous definition of affirmative action. This Article argues that this remarkable circumstance has distorted and undercut American antidiscrimination law.

Though affirmative action is vigorously and widely debated, it has not been defined in the rigorous manner legal commentators would normally demand. Rather, commentators have deferred to policymakers' descriptions of affirmative action programs and employed those “definitions” to set the terms of policy debates over the propriety of affirmative action. Typically, commentators take for granted that affirmative action is “discriminatory” and seek to justify its use in certain contexts. This approach is also prominent in the United States …

Disparate Impact Theory In Employment Discrimination: What’S Griggs Still Good For? What Not?, Elaine W. Shoben

Scholarly Works

Is disparate impact a dead theory of employment discrimination? Definitely not. The theory itself has a more stable legal status than it did when the Supreme Court embraced it in its 1971 opinion Griggs v. Duke Power Co. But is it thriving in litigation? It appears to be neither thriving nor dead. It has become a relatively less vital tool, compared with theories of intentional discrimination. Despite the heroic effort of Congress to keep the theory from destruction by the Supreme Court through its express codification in 1991, disparate impact litigation is not making a major impact in this …