7078 research outputs found
Sort by
Setting Up Dates With Death? The Law and Economics of Extreme Sports Sponsoring in a Comparative Perspective
Get PDFNon
The Trademark Dilution Revision Act\u27s Nullifying Effect on Famous Mark Holder\u27s Dilution Claims
Get PDFThis comment will address how the TDRA has left famous mark holders, particularly high-end fashion house Louis Vuitton, with little in its arsenal to prevent others from mocking and devaluing its marks despite its worthy efforts. Part II addresses the relationship between trademark infringement, dilution, and parody. Part III takes a closer look at fashion giant Louis Vuitton’s strides to protect its famous marks and the courts’ differing approaches to assessing whether a parody exists. Part III also addresses the relationship between parody when it does and does not operate as a designation of source. Part IV offers a discussion of the future implications due to the court’s treatment of the parody exception
Can “IMFcoin” be Scaruffi\u27s \u3ci\u3eMoneta Immaginaria\u3c/i\u3e?
Get PDFCryptocurrencies have taken the world by storm. But these decentralized and unregulated digital fiat currencies have more in common with the currencies of ages past than many believe. These commonalities may result in the incorporation of new cryptocurrencies into older institutions. One such institution is the International Monetary Fund\u27s Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), which has bene relegated to an afterthought in the international monetary system since the Nixon Shock in 1971. The Fund\u27s Managing Director recently made comments that indicated that the Fund is exploring the incorporation of a cryptocurrency into the framework of the SDR, a change which China and other emerging economies are bound to encourage because it would likely move the international monetary system away from the use of the powerful U.S. dollar as a reserve currency. Because the U.S. dollar remains the most important currency within the international monetary system, this Article first explores the legal status of U.S. currency and the creation of Bretton Woods after World War II and its implosion after the Nixon Shock. It then discusses the basic functions of SDRs and their past uses. Finally, this Article explores two options that the Fund may have in incorporating cryptocurrencies into SDRs: (1) redefining the SDR as its own unique cryptocurrency; and (2) incorporating a specific cryptocurrency within the SDR\u27s basket of currencies
OK, Google, Will Artificial Intelligence Replace Human Lawyering?
Get PDFWill Artificial Intelligence (AI) replace human lawyering? The answer is no. Despite worries that AI is getting so sophisticated that it could take over the profession, there is little cause for concern. Indeed, the surge of AI in the legal field has crystalized the real essence of effective lawyering. The lawyer’s craft goes beyond what AI can do because we listen with empathy to clients’ stories, strategize to find the story that might not be obvious, thoughtfully use our imagination and judgment to decide which story will appeal to an audience, and creatively tell those winning stories.
This Article reviews the current state of AI in legal practice and contrasts that with the essence of exclusively human lawyering skills—empathy, imagination, and creativity. As examples, we use three Supreme Court cases to illustrate these skills
Autonomous Vehicles, Technological Progress, and the Scope Problem in Products Liability
Get PDFAutonomous vehicles are widely expected to save tens of thousands of lives each year by making car crashes attributable to human error – currently the overwhelming majority of fatal crashes – a thing of the past. How the legal system should attribute responsibility for the (hopefully few) crashes autonomous vehicles cause is an open and hotly debated question.
Most tort scholars approach this question by asking what liability rule is most likely to achieve the desired policy outcome: promoting the adoption of this lifesaving technology without destroying manufacturers’ incentives to optimize it. This approach has led to a wide range of proposals, many of which suggest replacing standard rules of products liability with some new system crafted specifically for autonomous vehicles and creating immunity or absolute liability or something in between.
But, I argue, the relative safety of autonomous vehicles should not be relevant in determining whether and in what ways manufacturers are held liable for their crashes. The history of products liability litigation over motor vehicle design shows that the tort system has been hesitant to indulge in such comparisons, as it generally declines both to impose liability on older, more dangerous cars simply because they lack the latest safety features and to grant immunity to newer, safer cars simply because of their superior aggregate performance. These are instances in which products liability law fails to promote efficient outcomes and instead provides redress for those who have been wronged by defective products.
Applying these ideas to the four fatalities that have so far been caused by autonomous vehicles suggests that just as conventional vehicles should not be considered defective in relying on a human driver, autonomous vehicles should not be immune when their defects cause injury
Securing the Nation or Entrenching the Board? The Evolution of CFIUS Review of Corporate Acquisitions
Get PDFThe Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviews transactions based on national security concerns, has recently become critical to the operation of the U.S. economy. In March of 2018, CFIUS review led to the prohibition of Broadcom Limited’s acquisition of Qualcomm Corp., which would have been the largest technology merger in history. In August of 2018, CFIUS was dramatically expanded with the enactment of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA). Major transactions must now reckon with the uncertainties of CFIUS review.
Created over thirty years ago as a reporting and monitoring committee, CFIUS has evolved into a formidable force with the power to review and investigate foreign investments in U.S. businesses, and to recommend that the President prohibit or order divestment of those investments. This Article traces the origins of CFIUS from its establishment in 1975 through the changes made by the 1988 Exon–Florio Amendment, the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007, and now FIRRMA. The Article examines the key transactions CFIUS has considered, and CFIUS’s expansive understandings of what constitute U.S. businesses and its authority over foreign investors.
In the Broadcom–Qualcomm transaction, CFIUS review was requested by target company (Qualcomm) board, and the review and resulting Presidential order operated as a powerful antitakeover defense. Turning from history to process, this Article looks closely at the ramifications of corporate boards seeking CFIUS review as a defensive measure to ward off hostile takeovers, a kind of “super poison pill.” To that end, the Article looks at mergers and acquisitions, and the longstanding conceptions of both the market for corporate control and the agency problem in corporate governance. The Article then reviews board powers and the traditional antitakeover measures, as well as the jurisprudence developed by state courts to review those defenses.
CFIUS review may be deployed by corporate boards as an antitakeover device. Given the strong global M&A market, and the significant increase in CFIUS’s jurisdiction as a result of the enactment of FIRRMA, CFIUS is expected to review more transactions, including more hostile takeovers. In assessing notifications in this context, CFIUS may benefit from the jurisprudence developed by state courts. Given the amount of global capital being invested across borders, and the intensity of global security concerns, foreign investment transactions are likely to continue, and to continue to need review, for the foreseeable future. A CFIUS review process that can assess target board motivations and measures, with an experienced perspective on blocking or allowing the transaction, will help ensure that CFIUS review achieves its national security goals without doing unnecessary societal harm
Turning Wisconn Valley into the Next Silicon Valley: Reforming Wisconsin Non-Compete Law to Attract High-Tech Employers
Get PDFThe July 2017 arrival of Taiwanese tech-giant Foxconn and the
establishment of the Wisconn Valley Science and Technology Park in Wisconsin
reflects a larger trend in the United States to reinvent the nation’s
manufacturing economy with high-tech production. High-tech employers have
substantial interests in retaining employees in order to protect their valuable
proprietary information and market share. Non-compete agreements, also
known as restrictive covenants or covenants not to compete, are often the legal
device used to secure these interests. This Comment argues that to attract and
retain employers in the tech industry, Wisconsin should reform its non-compete
law by adopting new statutory language and exercising judicial restraint that
reconciles conflicts of interest between employers, employees, and the public
How Courts in Criminal Cases Respond to Childhood Trauma
Get PDFNeurobiological and epidemiological research suggests that abuse and adverse events experienced as a child can increase an adult’s risk of brain dysfunction associated with disorders related to criminality and violence. Much of this research is predictive, based on psychological evaluations of children; few studies have focused on whether or how criminal proceedings against adult defendants consider indicators of childhood trauma. This Article analyzes a subset of criminal cases pulled from an 800-case database created as part of an original, large-scale, empirical research project known as the Neuroscience Study. The 266 relevant cases are assessed to determine the extent to which, and the methods whereby, criminal courts weigh and respond to childhood trauma evidence. This Article first creates a systematic and detailed definition of what constitutes childhood trauma evidence based on 20 factors, including physical and verbal abuse, dysfunctional upbringing, brain damage or injury, and neglect and abandonment. These factors are then examined in the context of the often life-long conditions caused by or related to such trauma, ranging from mental illness and neurological disorders to poor intellectual functioning and behavioral problems. A review of courts’ responses indicates that childhood trauma evidence is primarily used for mitigation and can play a significant and persuasive role in claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, especially in death penalty cases. At the same time, findings suggest that courts may offer attorneys a troubling degree of deference by accepting their claims of “strategic” yet empirically unfounded decisions to omit childhood trauma evidence in certain circumstances. This Article provides real-world guidance for attorneys seeking to incorporate childhood trauma evidence into their arguments, emphasizing the value of drawing a distinct nexus between defendants’ childhood traumas and their adult criminal behavior. Attorneys who understand the long-term effects of childhood trauma will be better equipped to make such connections and effectively present this evidence in court
