Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law and Policy (University of Pittsburgh)
Not a member yet
177 research outputs found
Sort by
When Two Worlds Collide: Ownership of Genetic Resources unde rthe Convention on Biological Diversity and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
Get PDFThe rapid growth of the biotechnology industry over the past two decades led many countries to recognize the vast economic potential of their genetic resources and indigenous knowledge. 1 Pharmaceutical companies and plant breeders increasingly rely upon these resources to engineer plantderived drugs, disease-resistant crops, and biotechnical production processes.2 With increasing demand for new biotechnological products, the global community is struggling to strike a balance between the interests of host countries, who seek remuneration for supplying genetic resources and traditional knowledge, and biotechnological inventors, who are pressing for free access, open markets, and stronger intellectual property rights protection
Doe v. Ashcroft and Its Place in the Judicial Trend: How the Courts Have Advanced Civil Liberties in Step with Advances in Technology
Get PDFAs many jurists and scholars have noted, the United States has a long-standing history of encroaching upon the civil liberties of its citizens, especially during times of war or conflict.2 For instance, during the Civil War, President Lincoln unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus in response to increased violence and the threat of Southern succession.3 During World War I, Postmaster General Albert Burleson used the Espionage Act to suspend mailing privileges for certain “non-mailable” materials, such as newspapers and other dissident publications critical of the war effort.
What\u27s in Your Bottle?: Shire US Inc. v. Barr Laboratories Inc. and Its Effect on Prescription Drug Trade Dress Protection in the Third Circuit
Get PDF The pharmaceutical industry may have lost its ability to differentiate prescription drug tablets from generic imitations in light of the Third Circuit’s decision in Shire US Inc. v. Barr Laboratories Inc.1 Traditional trade dress jurisprudence has long recognized a cause of action whereby a national brand-name manufacturer can sue to protect its product’s identity from a generically manufactured facsimile. Such an action normally arises when a generic manufacturer copies the appearance of a brand-name product, thereby gaining instant product recognition based on the brand-name manufacturer’s established marketing and accumulated goodwill.2 Trademark common law and the Lanham Act protect brand-name manufacturers from such unfair trade practices.3 Over-the-counter drugs are packaged in containers bearing manufacturers’ names and markings, enabling consumers to differentiate between, for example, Ecotrin™ aspirin and generic CVS store brand aspirin.4 When a generic manufacturer’s label is sufficiently similar to that of an established product, the Lanham Act dictates that the generic manufacturer must cease selling its product.5 Even when products, i.e., tablets, are physically identical, packaging labels serve as sufficient identification of their source
Pre Embryos: The Tiniest Spect of Potential Life Carrying the Seeds for Sweeping Change
Get PDF The Bush administration has issued two announcements over the last six months which could shape the future of stem cell research, abortion and the disposition of frozen embryos. On July 25, 2002, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that federal funds would be available to qualified applicants for the development and implementation of programs designed to promote public awareness of the option of "adopting" frozen embryos. Then, on October 1, 2002, the National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee under the Clinton Administration was reformed into the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections. Under its new charter, the Committee must provide advice concerning responsible research involving human subjects, with particular emphasis on pregnant women, embryos and fetuses.
Just When U Thought it was All Over, Gator\u27s Kin Pops Up and Slides Out of Dangerous IP Waters (for the Most Part): A Review of Two Online Pop-Up Advertisers and 4 Internet Law Decisions
Get PDFThis Article follows on the heels of an article I recently wrote that focuses on the online advertising activities of The Gator Corporation and legal implications of the preliminary injunction issued in that case.4 I previously concluded that Gator’s pop-up advertising scheme did not violate copyright law,5 but that it did violate trademark law, based in large on survey results showing significant consumer confusion at that point in time.6 To remove consumer confusion, I recommended that Gator: (1) notify Internet users more prominently about downloading Gator software; (2) remind consumers that they authorized pop-up ads to appear; (3) adequately display its trademarks in its pop-up ads; and (4) disclaim affiliation with URLs that have not authorized its ads.
High Tech Hunks of Steel: Fixed-Site Amusement Rides and Safety Under State Regulation
Get PDF Tomorrow is the big day! Little Bobby Missoula is going to turn ten tomorrow and his parents have promised to take him to Outlandish Adventures, an amusement park that Bobby has seen advertised on television. As Bobby drifts off to sleep, he begins to dream about the fun that he will have on his birthday. He dreams about the smell of cotton candy and the yells of carnies soliciting people in to play their games, but most of all, he dreams about the Lightning Bolt - the tallest, fastest, and scariest roller coaster that little Bobby has ever seen. In his dream, the Lightning Bolt whips Bobby around sharp angles, through upside down loops so close to water that Bobby’s hair and face get wet, down vertical descents at speeds over 100 miles per hour, and finally to an abrupt stop where Bobby rushes to the end of the line to do it all over again
The Fine Line between Security and Liberty: The "Secret" Court Struggle to Determine the Path of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance in the Wake of September 11th
Get PDF The structure of the United States federal court system can be considered common knowledge: the Supreme Court sits atop a pyramid of lower circuit courts and trial courts, all of which are, for the most part, open to the public. Until 2002, most Americans were unaware of the existence of a "secret" court whose sole duty is to review and approve applications authorizing foreign intelligence surveillance conducted by the Executive Branch. The year 2002 was an unprecedented year for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ("FISC"),3 and the statute that created it, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA").4 For the first time in FISA\u27s twenty-three year history, FISC denied an application for electronic surveillance and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ("Court of Review") was convened to hear its first appeal.
Drafting Intellectual Property Joint Venture Agreements with an Eye Toward Termination
Get PDFWhen joint venture ("JV") parents come together with a business idea, they expect to develop the resulting intellectual property ("IP") to the benefit of all parents. The joint venture agreement ("JVA") is crucial to the formation and operation of the IP JV. Careful drafting will account for the parties’ expectations regarding the parents’ and the JV’s IP. However, the parties should realize that the JVA is also crucial to the termination of the JV. The JV parents must accept the reality that all JVs must come to an end, and some JVs will come to an end sooner than one of the parties might have wished. Therefore, parties to the JVA should devise a plan for termination in advance
Rewarding Creativity: Transformative Use in the Jazz Idiom
Get PDFA crayon drawing from a five-year-old child likely produces a copyrighted work. Notating or recording two measures of a three year-old child depressing piano keys, while not conventionally pleasing to the ear, may nevertheless be worthy of a copyright.1 The artistic merit of a work is not a factor in determining originality. Simply stated, an author satisfies copyright formalities when she affixes an original work of authorship in a tangible medium.2 Case law indicates that the threshold requirement for the originality element of a copyright is a showing of some "minimal level of creativity."3 Few could disagree that the low threshold requirement for originality encourages creativity. An inherent unfairness exists, however, when copyright law shuns creative artists from attaining a copyright