43674 research outputs found
Sort by
Enforcement Piggybacking and Multistate Actions
Get PDFCivil enforcement in the United States is uniquely “multienforcer.” Numerous public and private enforcers including federal agencies, state attorneys general (AGs), and private litigants have overlapping authority to enforce myriad federal and state laws. Ideally, enforcers would complement one another’s efforts and use their comparative enforcement advantages to broaden the scope of enforcement and act as a check on underenforcement. But in reality, enforcers are often attracted to the same targets—large, public, deep-pocketed corporations. This means that multiple enforcers may pursue essentially the same enforcement action, arising from the same series of events and against the same target. Redundant enforcement actions may be necessary to adequately deter future misconduct and compensate victims of corporate fraud. However, duplicate actions may simply be the result of enforcers “piggybacking” on one another’s efforts and “piling on” to high-profile and lucrative enforcement actions.
Scholarly conversations about enforcement often treat broad categories of enforcers as static substitutes for one another rather than considering them as dynamic actors who are intertwined together. AGs are an example of dynamic enforcers that have changed the enforcement landscape by combining together in multistate actions. In some ways, state enforcement is a microcosm of the broader multienforcer system, with multiple state enforcers who can bring duplicative actions under fifty states’ laws. AGs can piggyback in multistate actions much like other public and private enforcers routinely do in enforcement actions. However, multistate actions don’t merely mimic the dynamics that occur in a multienforcer system. Multistate actions are also an innovation that changes the enforcement environment, potentially intensifying the practices of piggybacking and piling on in a multienforcer system
HOLLY REBECCA ROSSER, Petitioner, v. Ronald Lee Rosser, Respondent. : PETITIONER\u27S REPLY BRIEF
Get PDFON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THEUTAH COURT OF APPEALSNo. 20170736-CA
Appeal from a Final Judgment of the Sixth Judicial District Court in and for Garfield County, Panguitch Department The Honorable Paul D. Lyman PresidingNo. 15460001
JACOB M. SCOTT, Plaintiff/ Appellant, v. WINGATE WILDERNESS THERAPY, LLC, Defendant/ Appellee. : Brief of Appellant
Get PDFReview of a Certified Question from theUnited States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 19-405
PATIENCE, LLC, Appellant v. UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION, Appellee : Brief of Appellee
No full textAppeal from Orders Entered by the Utah State Tax Commission
Jaryl L. Rencher, Michael J. Collins, RENCHER ANJEWIERDEN, Attorneys for Appellant
Sim Gill (6939), Timothy A. Bodily (6496), LaShel Shaw (13862), SALT LAKE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY\u27S OFFICE, Attorneys for Board of Equalization Laron J. Lind, Stanford E. Purser, UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL\u27S OFFICE, Attorneys for Utah State Tax Commissio
Owning Nothingness: Between the Legal and the Social Norms of the Art World
Get PDFAlmost $8 million—that is what the Crystal Bridges Museum paid for one work of contemporary art in November 2015. What did that museum get for that hefty sum? From a legal perspective, absolutely nothing. The work it purchased was just an idea, and ideas of this kind escape legal protection.
Despite this lack of legal protection, the social norms of the art world lead large, sophisticated, experienced, and legally represented institutes to pay millions of dollars for this type of work. This Article is one of the first in legal scholarship to examine at depth those norms in this multibilliondollar industry. It does so by, inter alia, reporting on interviews the author conducted with industry insiders concerning their practices. This Article suggests that those norms create property-like rights in all artworks, whether or not they are legally protected, as well as an ongoing right of artists to partly control the use of their works. Those social norms fill a gap between the ways in which the contemporary art world understands creativity and the ways in which our legal system actually incentivizes creative endeavors.
This Article analyzes the normative implications of these social norms and the gap they fill. First, it explains how those norms incentivize certain forms of creativity in a way that is more effective and efficient than property rights. Second, going beyond the art world, the Article shows how the social norms expose certain hidden assumptions in copyright authorship and their shortcomings. It suggests how the law can be improved to account for the richer description of creativity this Article provides. Third, the Article contributes to the ongoing debate concerning private property ownership. The art world provides sellers with significant post-sale control over their works in a way that the law commonly finds undesirable. That tension might justify rethinking the current legal rules that disincentivize post-sale control
Debunking Intellectual Property Myths: Cross Cultural Experiments on Perceptions of Property
Get PDFFor decades, the prevailing view in the United States and many Western countries has been that China does not appropriately respect intellectual property rights. These beliefs lie at the heart of President Donald Trump’s current trade war with China. Despite substantial geopolitical debate over differences between American an d Chinese attitudes towards intellectual property rights, and despite the critical effects that such attitudes have on international economic markets and the function of intellectual property systems, empirical evidence of these attitudes is largely lacking. This Article presents original experimental survey research that explores cross cross-cultural differences between American and Chinese attitudes towards intellectual property rights, personal property rights, and real property rights.
The results of the studies are somewhat counterintuitive. First, Chinese participants are found to have more consistent preferences towards different types of property rights than Americans. In a series of vignettes designed to test attitudes towards patented subject matter, copyrighted subject matter, tangible personal property, and real property, Chinese responses were more consistent and less context driven. Second, Americans do identify a preference for stronger intellectual property rights than Chinese, but only where infringement is committed by a private party for private benefit. Where infringement is conducted for public benefit, whether by a private or a governmental entity, Chinese and Americans tend to have the same attitudes towards intellectual property rights. Third , Americans display a lower regard for intellectual property rights than for tangible property rights in most contexts, a differential that is not echoed in Chinese responses. The distinctions that Americans draw based on the use to which property is put, and between intellectual property and tangible property, is not consistent with United States law.
Our experiments reveal that the ongoing debates over Chinese attitudes towards intellectual property rights miss the mark in certain regards. Chinese and American preferences for property rights are more similar than most have assumed, and the manners in which they differ are inconsistent with most proffered theories. These results provide important lessons for the future of international intellectual property rights relations, discourse, and enforcement
Clark Memorandum: Fall 2020
Get PDFA Feast of Fat Things And When He Came to Himself No Other Gods Before Me The Economics of Goodness Read on Issuuhttps://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/clarkmemorandum/1067/thumbnail.jp