7078 research outputs found
Sort by
Tribal Sovereign Immunity as a Defense at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board? Or a Violation of U.S. Antitrust Laws?
Get PDFThis Comment will address two primary issues. First, it will analyze the basis of sovereign immunity rights of tribes, with a focus on the relationship between intellectual property rights and sovereignty. Second, it will discuss whether this arrangement violates the antitrust laws of the United States. This Comment concludes that even if a claim of tribal sovereign immunity is legitimate, it is likely that such an arrangement still violates the relevant antitrust claims
Questions of Trust, Betrayal, and Authorial Control in the Avant-Garde: the Case of Julius Eastman and John Cage
Get PDFThis article explores how the idea of trust-based dialogue can give us an alternative understanding about the nature of authorial control and inter-pretation across identity-based differences. Part One will discuss the respective personal stories, philosophies, and competing historical understandings that influenced Cage’s creation of Solo and Eastman’s interpretation thereof. Part Two will offer definitions of trust and communication from the fields of feminist relational psychology, philosophy, and law. Throughout Part Two, I will reflect on the extent to which a trust-based dialogue could have taken place between Cage and Eastman. My general sense is that the answer is “no.” Both men had fairly fixed views about the trajectory their art should take, and talking about it probably would not have changed that. Nevertheless, with my conclusion later, I suggest that contemporary composers/authors should still try to create the conditions under which honest, self-aware dialogue about control and trust can arise. Who knows what kind of joint innovative and thought-provoking work could be developed as a result
Protecting Wisconsinites from Trolls: The Federal Circuit\u27s Bad Faith Preemption and its Restrictive Effect
Get PDFIn this comment, I use Wis. Stat. Ann. § 100.197 (“Wisconsin’s anti-PAE statute”) to demonstrate the significant degree to which the Federal Circuit’s current preemption regime restricts states’ abilities to regulate the behavior of PAEs. In Part II, I summarize Wisconsin’s legislative response to PAEs. In Part III, I contrast the Federal Circuit’s preemption doctrine and the Supreme Court’s doctrine as it relates to state laws similar to anti-PAE statutes. Paying particular attention to Wisconsin’s patent notification statute, I provide a brief preemption analysis in Part IV. Finally, in Part V, I conclude by arguing that the severe consequences of the Federal Circuit’s standard, as demonstrated by its likely preemptive effect on Wisconsin’s anti-PAE statute, highlight the need for the emergence of the Supreme Court’s preemption analysis in the context of state laws touching on patents
One Chuck, Two Chuck: Analyzing Whether Federally Registered Trademarks Should be Distinguished From Unregistered, Common-Law Trademarks in the Context of \u3ci\u3eConverse, Inc. v. International Trade Commission\u3c/i\u3e
Get PDFThis Comment analyzes which trademark model (the pyramid model or the box model) is a better representation and characterization of trademarks and trademark rights. Under the pyramid model, there is one trademark: both common law rights and federal registration rights attach to this single trademark. For the pyramid model, trademark rights resemble a pyramid because federal registration rights build upon the foundation created by common law rights. Common law rights and federal registration rights are interdependent. Under the box model, there is a common-law trademark and a federal trademark: common law rights attach to the common-law trademark, and federal registration rights attach to the federal trademark. For the box model, trademark rights resemble two separate boxes because the first box contains common law rights, and the second box contains federal registration rights. Common law rights are independent of federal registration rights. Finally, this Comment concludes that the Federal Circuit, in Converse, Inc v. International Trade Commission, got it right; trademarks should be viewed in the context of the pyramid model
Ad Hoc Diplomats
Get PDFArticle II of the Constitution grants the president power to appoint “Ambassadors” and “other public Ministers” with the advice and consent of the Senate. By all accounts, this language requires Senate confirmation for the appointment of resident ambassadors and other diplomats of similar rank and tenure. Yet these are hardly the only agents of U.S. foreign relations. Ad hoc diplomats—individuals chosen exclusively by the president to complete limited and temporary assignments—play a comparably significant role in addressing international crises, negotiating treaties, and otherwise executing foreign policy.
This Article critically examines the appointments process for such irregular agents. An orthodox view holds it permissible for the president to dispatch any ad hoc diplomat without Senate confirmation, but this view does not accord with the original meaning of Article II. Scrutinizing text and an extensive collection of original historical sources, I show that, under a formalist reading of the Constitution, the appointment of most ad hoc diplomats requires the advice and consent of the Senate because these agents are typically “public Ministers” and “Officers of the United States” under the Appointments Clause.
The analysis makes several contributions. First, it provides the first thorough account of the original meaning of “public Ministers”—a term that appears several times in the Constitution but lacks precise contours in contemporary scholarship and practice. Second, for formalists, the analysis reorients longstanding debates about the process of treaty-making and empowers the Senate to exert greater influence over a wide variety of presidential initiatives, including communications with North Korea, the renegotiation of trade agreements, the campaign to defeat ISIS, and the stabilization of Ukraine, all of which have relied on the work of ad hoc diplomats. At a time of trepidation over the nature of U.S. foreign policy, such influence might operate as a stabilizing force. Third, the analysis illuminates rhetorical and doctrinal maneuvers that have facilitated the rise of the modern presidency, including historical revisionism and the marginalization of international law as an input in constitutional interpretation. These maneuvers complicate the political valence of originalism and cast the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)—a key proponent of the orthodox view—as a motivated expositor of the separation of powers
\u3ci\u3eWhose Fault Is It Anyway?\u3c/i\u3e How Sexual Abuse Has Plagued the United States Olympic Movement and Its Athletes
Get PDFNon
The Rise of Property and Decline of Equity in Trademark Law
No full textThis lecture focuses on the relationship between trademark and unfair competition. Specifically, this lecture discusses the way trademark law has evolved over time with respect to property concepts. There has been a lot of discussion in the literature about the ways trademark law has come to treat trademarks as property. Many scholars who have written about this “propertization” have described it as a shift from consumer to producer protection