13203 research outputs found
Sort by
The Invention Secrecy Act: The USPTO as a Gatekeeper of National Security
Get PDFThe United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has the privilege of reviewing hundreds of thousands of inventions each year before the public learns about them. Consequently, the USPTO is uniquely positioned as a funnel through which the Government can collect information about new technologies and determine which ones have implications for the safety and welfare of the nation. Under the Invention Secrecy Act, the Commissioner for Patents may order that an invention for which patent protection is sought be kept secret if disclosure of the invention might be detrimental to national security.
In order for the USPTO to review patent applications and then to do its part in protecting national security, while respecting the rights of inventors, the Invention Secrecy Act provides for the implementation of a framework with three primary components: (1) the screening phase, which applies to all patent applications; (2) the maintenance of secrecy phase, which applies to those inventions for which the Government has made a determination of risk to national security; and (3) the compensation phase, which is the phase during which a patent applicant or patentee can request compensation for either or both the loss due to being required to keep the invention secret and the government’s use of the invention prior to issuance of the patent. Failure of inventors to abide by the terms of and to follow the procedures promulgated under the Invention Secrecy Act can have dire consequences, and thus, applicants and persons who counsel them should be aware of its contours, how the USPTO implements it, and how courts interpret it
World Trade, Imperial Fantasies and Protectionism: Can You Really Have Your Cake and Eat It Too?
Get PDFPopulism is telling voters what they want to hear, knowing that it is neither true, nor feasible. Lately, trade and economic integration has seen the spread of untrue and unfeasible tenets, which have proved to be highly popular and have received a warm welcome. Fueled by imperial fantasies and nostalgia for the long-gone era of protectionism, the tectonic movements of world trade have generated a good deal of populist resistance based on the self-delusion that the Gordian knot of world trade needs not to be disentangled but can be simply cut. Unfortunately, however popular and appealing these allegations are, they are not true. Reverting to protectionism simply does not pay out and faces two major, arguably unsurmountable, hurdles: the economic realities, which show that protectionism comes at a very high price even to those it strives to protect, and the disciplines of the WTO, which very much limit unilateral measures inspired by purely protectionist desires. This paper demonstrates three points. First, the modus operandi of international trade makes frontal protectionism self-destructing. Second, the current regime of world trade law developed under the auspices of the WTO significantly limits protectionist policies and leaves no room for a comprehensive protectionist policy. Third, while taking back control is an appealing yell, catering to the deepest tribal instincts, in reality, unimpeded sovereignty and unlimited freedom of action are increasingly a wishful thinking
The resistance & The Stubborn But Unsurprising Persistence of Hate and Extremism in the United States
Get PDFThough the far right has a long history in the United States, the presidential campaign and then election of Donald Trump brought the movement out of the shadows. This article will analyze the rise in White supremacist activity in the United States-from well-publicized mass actions like the White supremacist march in Charlottesville in August 2017 to individual acts of violence happening since November 2016. This article focuses on contextualizing such incidents within this contemporary period and argues that overt expressions of racism and racist violence are nothing new. The article closes with a call to strengthen the current legal remedies used to address bias-motivated violence.
The eight-year period between 2008 and 2016 has been a fascinating time for assessments of the state of race relations in America. After the election of Barack Obama, America\u27s first Black1 president, commentators described the country as post-racial. In a dramatic turn of events for a country that had transcended race just eight years later in 2016, Donald Trump\u27s election as president was followed by a dramatic increase in the number of documented race-based hate crimes--crime motivated by bias on the basis of the target race.
The increase in reported hate crimes continued well into the Trump Administration\u27s first year. What was most compelling about the new hate activity was the rise of a new, open presence of extremists-those ideologically committed to White supremacy. For decades, racial extremists-members of organized hate groups and others ideologically attached to the tenants of White supremacy-had lived in the shadows. After Trump\u27s election, racial extremists stepped into the light.
This article grapples with the rise of racial extremist behavior both by ideologues who are part of hate groups and those who commit hate crimes seemingly randomly-in the wake of the 2016 presidential election. In this article, I explore the roots of bias-motivated activity that many found surprising in the election. I demonstrate how bias motivated behavior has been part and parcel of recent American history. The article addresses not only the origins of such activity but also resistance to it and the capacity of American institutions created to address bias-motivated behavior. In the end, I argue that to effectively address extremist behavior, we must examine the seriousness of our societal commitment to racial separation
To Secede or Not Secede? Is It Even Possible?
Get PDFSecession seems like a concept of the past. In our increasingly globalizing world, nationalism was growing archaic and halting progress. But secession has seen a surge in the last ten years. Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008. The United Kingdom seceded from the European Union in the infamous Brexit. And in 2017, Catalonia\u27s grab for independence sparked the worst crisis in Spain since the days of Francisco Franco.1 Alongside these high-profile secessions, smaller movements, which until now were simply brewing and bubbling, are becoming inspired. One such movement is The South is My Country, a coalition of three southern Brazilian states that wish to secede from Brazil.
This paper will examine the Brazilian separatist movement. After introducing the movement and the history of modern Brazil in Part I, Part II will examine what Brazilian law has to say on secession with the Catalan crisis as a comparison. Part III will attempt to navigate the murky waters of international law to determine whether a group such as The South is My Country has a right to unilaterally secede
Why States Can Tax the GILTI
Get PDFA centerpiece of the 2017 federal tax legislation’s reforms to international corporate income tax rules is the new global intangible low-taxed income regime (or GILTI). In a prior essay, we argued that U.S. state governments should conform to GILTI. But might there be constitutional restrictions preventing state governments from doing so? This essay argues that state governments can constitutionally conform to the federal GILTI rules and thereby tax GILTI income as part of the states’ corporate income tax bases. However, in doing so, we explain that state governments will need to be attentive to background constitutional principles
The Sea of the Universe: How Maritime Law\u27s Limitation on Liability Gets it Right, and Why Space Law Should Follow By Example
Get PDFSpace law, much like outer space itself, still remains largely unnavigated in some aspects. Space law is a term loosely used to dictate the body of law that refers to the international rules and regulations surrounding exploration and behavior while in outer space; while it quite uniformly covers questions of general damage control, international relations, and resource exploration, some areas of this body of law remain ambiguous and only partially implemented across the globe. One of these broad areas is the role of tort law in outer space-liability stemming from spacecraft collision and the resulting damage that occurs between the countries. This paper argues that since space law shares many similarities with maritime law, the law of the seas, certain maritime law regulations should be adopted. Maritime law has traditionally implemented the practice of limitation on liability since the passage of the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 181-196--a set of statutes that limits the liability of a defendant in a tort claim when damage has occurred to a ship, cargo vessel, or other related craft while at sea. Despite best efforts and careful planning, expensive accidents can still occur on land, while at sea, and now, with more frequent travel to outer space, the skies and beyond. To continue to encourage space exploration and research, nations should follow the longstanding example set out by maritime law in following limitations on liability. Extending a codified limitation on liability to space law will help pave the way for increased space exploration in the years to come. This measure will limit liability and thus the total amount of money a defendant might owe at the outcome of a collision settlement. This defendant will be in a better financial position to increase safety measures for continued exploration. Moreover, the window would be widened for other potential spacefarers who might have been wary at any associated costs with space travel and who would no longer need to worry about full liability were something to go wrong. The Limitation of Liability Act should be incorporated into space law to increase the presence of those already utilizing channels of space for both commercial and research purposes and to encourage new voyagers to the land beyond without quite the same hefty price tag attached
Editor\u27s Note
Get PDFAs another year draws to a close, and another publishing cycle reaches completion, it is incumbent upon those of us here at the journal to recognize and thank several people
Dialogic Democracy, Feminist Theory and Women’s Participation in Constitution-Making
No full textProfessor Williams wrote Chapter 8, Dialogic Democracy, Feminist Theory and Women’s Participation in Constitution-Making.https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facbooks/1210/thumbnail.jp
Internet (Re)Search by Judges, Jurors, and Lawyers
Get PDFHow can Internet research be used properly and reliably in law? This paper analyzes several key and very different issues affecting judges, jurors, and lawyers. With respect to judges, this paper discusses the rules of judicial conduct and how they guide the appropriate use of the Internet for research; the standards for judicial notice; and whether judges can consider a third category of non-adversarially presented, non-judicially noticed factual evidence. With respect to jurors, this paper discusses causes of and deterrents to jurors conducting Internet research during trials; and the recourse available to parties who are adversely impacted by such behavior. With respect to lawyers, this paper discusses reliance on and potential pitfalls of using free Internet resources to conduct legal research; the dangers of rotten Internet links; and evidentiary considerations in citing to Internet evidence