bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
The Legality of the FTC\u27s Noncompete Ban Is Less Certain Than Mansur and Posner Suggest
No full textGus Hurwitz replies to Jonathan Masur and Eric Posner’s May 8 article defending the Federal Trade Commission’s Congressional mandate to enforce a rule banning noncompetes. He argues that Congressional responses to FTC rulemaking in the 1970s suggest courts are unlikely to find that the FTC possesses such authority, either as a matter of statutory interpretation or under the major questions doctrine
Jennifer Binder Le Pape v. Lower Merion School District
No full textUSDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvani
Dispossession Is Nine-Tenths of the Law: Understanding How Property Law Is a Tool of Dispossession of Fundamental Human Rights
No full textThe United States government’s systemic dispossession of Native peoples’ land and resources violates international law under the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (UNDRIP). It is not a coincidence that the U.S. government has failed to adopt UNDRIP as binding domestic legislation, but a means to maintain the racist status quo upon which the country’s property laws were created. It is imperative that the United States legally recognizes the rights of Native People in order to provide justice for the millions wronged by the violence of settler colonialism. This article will begin with an introduction to the history of dispossession as it coincides with the development of Property Law in the United States. It will be followed by an analysis of critical case law that legitimized land theft of Indigenous Peoples. The impact of such case law will be further examined under a human rights framework, specifically the UN Declaration for Indigenous Rights, and how similar legislation passed in the United States is necessary to remedy the history of violence and oppression endured since the colonization of the Americas
Cardozo Law News Brief: May 10, 2024
No full textFeatured Faculty: Samuel Weinstein Saurabh Vishnubhakat Alexander Reinert Jessica Roth Edward Zelinsky Kate Levine Michel Rosenfeld Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum Young Ran (Christine) Kim Jacob Noti-Victor Gabor Rona Edward Zelinsk
Can ChatGPT Keep a Secret? An Evaluation of the Applicability and Suitability of Trade Secrecy Protection for AI-Generated Inventions
No full textThe rising popularity of generative artificial intelligence has sparked questions around whether AI-generated inventions and works can be protected under current intellectual property regimes, and if so, how. Guidance from the U.S. Copyright Office and recent court cases shed some light on the applicability of copyright and patent protection to AI-generated products; namely “authors” and “inventors” are limited to natural persons. But further developments in copyright and patent law are still lagging behind generative-AI’s rapid growth. Trade secrecy emerges as the most viable path forward to protect AI-generated works and inventions because ownership of trade secrets is not limited to natural persons. But trade secrecy has its drawbacks too, primarily inadequate protection outside of misappropriation. Further, trade secrecy precludes disclosure, which hinders greater scientific development and progress. This Note examines the suitability and applicability of copyright, patent, and trade secret protection for AI-generated outputs and proposes alternative protection schemes