Digital Collections @ Suffolk
Not a member yet
8574 research outputs found
Sort by
CAS Honors Symposium Program, Fall 2018
Get PDFhttps://dc.suffolk.edu/honorssymposium/1004/thumbnail.jp
Constitutional Law/Criminal Procedure - Search and Seizures in Schools, Commonwealth v. Villagran, 81 N.E.3D 310 (Mass. 2017)
Get PDFTop Tens in 2017: Patent, Trademark, Copyright and Trade Secret Cases
Get PDFThe Supreme Court loosened the grip of patentees on their products, holding that contractual restrictions on patented product are ineffective to preserve patent rights. The Court also loosened the grip of the Eastern District of Texas on patent cases, announcing a narrower standard that will send more cases to Delaware. The Federal Circuit cases piled up on applying the Alice standard to filter nonpatentable abstract ideas from patentable inventions. Meanwhile, even as the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board pends before the Supreme Court, hundreds of PTAB decisions on the validity of patents move onward to the Federal Circuit. Other notable patent cases concerned sovereign immunity (such as transferring patents to avoid PTAB proceedings), the doctrine of assignor estoppel, the scope of prior art, and patent rights to the gene-editing tool CRISPR-Cas9. In trademark, the Court held the bar against disparaging marks was an invalid restraint on freedom of expression. Lower courts addressed a number of issues in the same area, such as the rights to use marks in titles of work and other expressive purposes. Courts also addressed whether such terms as “google,” “tequila,” and “Universal” have become generic. In copyright, the Supreme Court gave some guidance on the line between copyrightable expression and nonprotected functional matter. Other notable cases addressed the copyrightability of standards and the meaning of “noncommercial” in open source licenses, along with fair use in new settings. In trade secret, courts looked at such key issues as the scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the intersection between trade secret and international trade, and protection for data bases
2018 Suffolk University commencement program, Sawyer Business School
Get PDFSuffolk University commencement programs detail the location, date, order of exercises, academic honors, speakers, administration, graduates, and other related information.https://dc.suffolk.edu/comm/1203/thumbnail.jp
Law School Disciplinary Procedure, 2018
No full texthttps://dc.suffolk.edu/suls-catalogs/1087/thumbnail.jp
The Place of the Sharing Economy
Get PDFThe sharing economy is grounded — situated in place — in ways that many other recent technological transformations have not been. And, as we have argued in prior work, the sharing economy is a particularly urban phenomenon. Appreciating the place of the sharing economy sheds light not only on the nature of this phenomenon, but also on the regulatory landscape it has engendered.
This chapter, which will appear in the forthcoming Cambridge Handbook on the Law of the Sharing Economy, examines how the political economy of regulation and innovation in this sector has grown more complex as some sharing firms have circumvented local authorities and bargained for more favorable and uniform regulation at the state level. The result has been tensions not just between regulators and the regulated, but in some cases among regulators themselves as states and cities pursue different agendas. The tension between allowing space for local innovation — economic and regulatory — and establishing uniformity and oversight up the geographic scale is not unique to the sharing economy but is increasingly central to understanding the regulatory landscape.
The chapter surveys these tensions and argues for a (cautious) presumption in favor of retaining a strong role for local regulation. While legitimate concerns about local parochialism and capture bear consideration, the advantages of experimentation and the reflection of local preferences auger against overly aggressive state preemption
Conversation, Cooperation, or Convention? A Response to Kar and Radin
Get PDFThis is a response to Pseudo-Contract and Shared Meaning Analysis by Professors Robin Bradley Kar and Margaret Radin. Their article is a thoughtful and ambitious attempt to find a principled basis in the theory of contract formation for distinguishing what they see as the legitimate portion of the transaction – the “actual agreement” which is “cooperatively communicated” – from that which ought not to be enforced (usually the extensive unread boilerplate or click-through terms). While I am sympathetic to the policy aim, I resist the core of their thesis, which is that there is a discernible “actual agreement” arising from a “shared meaning” that is neither merely the objective manifestations of an agreement nor the individual subjective intentions of the parties. I have two objections to the thesis: (a) the authors’ exercise of looking at boilerplate or shrink wrap agreements through the lens of Paul Grice’s conversational maxims does not provide a helpful demarcation of that portion of the consumer interaction that is truly “shared”; and (b) the thesis is simply a more sophisticated version of a particular conception within contract theory, the problematic “meeting of the minds” metaphor. As a result, I caution against rushing into shared meaning analysis as a broader basis for understanding contract formation or interpretation
ZEC Oscillations in the Commerce Clause
Get PDFIn the United States, two clauses of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause, surround the way we utilize and exploit energy and sources of power. Professor Joel Eisen discussed the application of the Supremacy Clause to energy law at the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law Symposium. The Supremacy Clause constructs a “bright line” segregating which energy transactions are subject exclusively to federal jurisdiction and which are subject exclusively to state authority. This article brings us current on the other key article of the Constitution, the Commerce Clause, which limits state authority over energy
Oral History Interview with Fred Marchant (SOH-048)
Get PDFFred Marchant, a professor emeritus in Suffolk University’s English Department and founder of the Poetry Center and Creative Writing Program, discusses his poetry, teaching, and continued involvement with the university post-retirement. He describes the meaning behind specific lines of his poetry, and how he combined his love of poetry with a love of teaching at Suffolk. Marchant discusses his time serving in the military during the Vietnam War, including leaving the military as a consequence of becoming a conscientious objector. He also describes the university’s growth and changes to its culture as an undergraduate institution from the 1970s until present day. The interview concludes with a discussion of the potential of Suffolk’s emerging retirement association and the importance of preserving institutional memory.https://dc.suffolk.edu/soh/1036/thumbnail.jp