13203 research outputs found
Sort by
A Hot Spit-Take: Why the Supreme Court Will Hold That There Is No Privacy Interest in Commercial DNA Data
Get PDFJury-Related Errors in Copyright
Get PDFCopyright law is surprisingly hard. Copyright does not do what laypeople think it does, nor do its terms mean what laypeople expect. Copyright also possesses systemic indeterminacy about what it protects and the extent of that protection. For laypeople, copyright law is decidedly “user-unfriendly.” Nonetheless, copyright law reserves for lay jurors its most-litigated, most difficult, and most consequential question at trial: whether works are “substantially similar” and thus infringing. Many have criticized this allocation because in the context of copyright law, juries effectively have the power to expand or contract owners’ rights with little oversight or correction. But blaming the jury obscures other systemic factors and overlooks mistakes made by judges and litigants (as well as juries). In short, don’t blame the jurors, blame the game. To evaluate and improve the jury’s role in copyright litigation, we must look at—but also beyond—the jury and consider systemic sources of error, starting with complexities built into copyright itself. This Article focuses on copyright’s jury per se and begins to bridge the gap between copyright scholarship and the methodologically diverse generalist jury literature. Numerous high-profile jury trials underscore the jury’s importance for copyright policy, yet scholars have neglected to consider the jury’s role in light of existing generalist scholarship. Jury-Related Errors in Copyright profiles copyright’s user-unfriendliness and explores its impact by examining cases involving jury-related errors. It proposes a framework for considering reforms, arguing that copyright law must be attuned to what juries need to accomplish their tasks (via a “jury-centric” approach) as well as heeding how juries’ verdicts effectuate—or distort—copyright’s policy aims (using a “system-centric” approach). More scholarship is needed to develop future reforms but this Article provides a necessary starting point by acknowledging copyright law’s current user-unfriendliness and highlighting the significant impact of jury-related errors
Class of 2021 Alumna Earns National Legal Writing Award
Get PDFMorgan York was in her third and final year at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law when she published an article in the Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. Two years later, she’s being recognized as one of the country’s top law school writers.
York published “I Just Took a DNA Test—Turns Out, I’m 100% Breaching my Donor Anonymity Contract: Direct-to-Consumer DNA Testing and Parental Medical Decision-Making” in 2021. On June 12, she’ll be one of 25 recipients of a “Law360 Distinguished Legal Writing Award” at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C. The awards are run by Burton Awards in association with the Library of Congress, presented by Law360, and co-sponsored by the American Bar Association
Solving Contemporary Issues in Conservation Through a Market-Based International Park System
Get PDFIn 2016, the United States National Park Service celebrated its centennial, which caused a flurry of calls for reflection and recommendations for improvements for national parks.1 People began urging the national parks to reaffirm their commitment to conservation and recreation, along with encouraging more research.2 It seemed to be a natural time to revisit the original “justification for both Yosemite and Yellowstone park [that] was the protection of unique scenery in the national interest.”3 That being said, in light of developments in national parks over the last one hundred years, it is important to challenge or at least qualify that statement by revisiting a remark that James Bryce, the British Ambassador to the United States, made a century ago. Regarding national parks, he stated that “[w]e are . . . for the future.”4 Explicitly, he was emphasizing that the interest that national parks promote includes not only safeguarding the parks for the enjoyment of people alive now, but also being the stewards of these treasures for future generations, a sentiment that the American public agrees with today.5 Implicit in this statement from a British ambassador is the international component that was inherent in the national parks since the beginning. The history and development of the national park concept over the last one hundred years have confirmed that international aspect. Following the establishment of national parks in the United States, the rest of the world began to follow suit, as parks were developed all over the world.6 By the early twenty-first century, “over 100,000 [protected areas] covered more than 2 million km, or 12 per cent of the earth’s land surface . . . [and] [s]ystems of [protected areas] existed in every country.”7 Furthermore, it is time to recognize and capitalize upon the international nature of parks. With climate change and its associated damages, it is now more important than ever for parks to recognize that “national” parks are part of a global system.8 With this idea in mind, this paper argues for the creation of an international park system with a market-based model. This system would hopefully link some of the world’s greatest ecological treasures in a framework that would increase funding and collaboration among the nations to combat problems that the national parks are currently facing in regard to a change in climate, an increase in visitors, and a lack of funding.9 Part II of this paper outlines a history of the development of the national park idea around the world while highlighting examples of parks in different nations and the contemporary issues the parks are facing. Part III outlines different examples of international collaboration, including efforts concerning climate change and conservation. This part demonstrates the feasibility of the creation of an international park system by emphasizing that there are already systems in place from which nations can draw ideas. It also shows that many nations recognize that certain issues require an international solution. Part IV describes cap-and-trade systems as an example of using marketbased principles to confront environmental issues. Finally, Part V outlines the proposed international park system by stating its potential benefits as well as addressing potential concerns
Rusk Named an American Constitution Society Next Generation Leader
Get PDFThe American Constitution Society has selected nearly two-dozen young legal professionals—including a second-year Indiana University Maurer School of Law student—for its prestigious 2023 Next Generation Leaders Program. Laura J. Rusk, an Evansville, Ind. native, is one of 23 law students from across the country selected for their exceptional leadership in work with their respective ACS chapters. The program offers various opportunities that empower the students to further develop their leadership skills and make a long-lasting impact on their communities
Committee Chaired by Maurer Professor to Complete its Analytical Review of Hanford Nuclear Reservation Waste Options
Get PDFA committee chaired by an Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor will complete next week its five-year charge to review the analysis performed by a team investigating how best to treat and dispose of low-level waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington.
John Strait Applegate, the James L. Calamaras Professor of Law, has served as chair of the 13-member National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) committee since 2018. The committee will conclude its work with a public meeting in Richland, Washington, on June 6. Applegate had previously chaired a prior review of the waste disposal issue from 2017-2020
Patenting Genetic Information
Get PDFThe U.S. biotechnology industry got its start and grew to maturity over roughly three decades, beginning in the 1980s. During this period genes were patentable, and many gene patents were granted. University researchers performed basic research— often funded by the government—and then patented the genes they discovered with the encouragement of the Bayh-Dole Act, which sought to encourage practical applications of basic research by allowing patents on federally funded inventions and discoveries. At that time, when a researcher discovered the function of a gene, she could patent it such that no one else could work with that gene in the laboratory without a license. She had no right, however, to control genes in nature, including in human bodies. Universities licensed their researchers’ patents to industry, which brought in significant revenue for further research. University researchers also used gene patents as the basis for obtaining funding for start-up enterprises spun out of university labs. It was in this environment that many of today’s biotechnology companies started. In 2013, the Supreme Court held that naturally occurring genes could no longer be patented. This followed a 2012 decision that disallowed patents on many diagnostic processes. These decisions significantly changed the intellectual property protections in the biotechnology industry. Nevertheless, the industry has continued to grow and thrive. This Article investigates two questions. First, if some form of exclusive rights still applied to genes, would the biotech industry be even more robust, with more new entrants in addition to thriving, well-established companies? Second, does the current lack of protection for gene discoveries incentivize keeping such discoveries secret for the many years that it can take to develop a therapeutic based thereon—to the detriment of patients who could benefit from knowledge of the genetic associations, even before a treatment is developed? The Article concludes by analyzing what protection for discovering genetic associations, if any, will most increase social welfare
Levels of Free Speech Scrutiny
Get PDFInconsistencies abound throughout current exacting, strict, and most exacting scrutiny doctrines. Formalism also runs throughout recent cases that have opportunistically relied on the First Amendment in matters peripherally concerned with core principles of free speech. Jurisprudence that relies on the exacting scrutiny standard remains significantly under-theorized. The uncertainty creates doctrinal flux that shifts from case-to-case. The same unexplained malleability appears in the most exacting scrutiny jurisprudence. The Court, moreover, sometimes refers to these two standards as equivalent to strict scrutiny. On the other hand, during the last decade, and most recently in 2021, various opinions have also used exacting scrutiny as a poorly defined hybrid form of intermediate scrutiny. This Article proposes to cure the existing inconsistencies through a tripartite model for noneconomic speech. Exacting scrutiny should apply to cases reviewing disclosure requirements on charities or political contributions. That standard should function as proportional scrutiny that treats secondary effects on speech differently than censorship of ideas and perspectives. As to strict scrutiny, its narrow tailoring requirement should apply in cases of content discrimination. Most exacting scrutiny is best fit for review of viewpoint discrimination that targets ideas, conjectures, and discourses. Levels of scrutiny should not be formulaic but reflective of the fundamental principles of free speech protection: self-expression, self-governance, and the search for truth. Clear distinctions between various levels of heightened scrutiny would provide a functional means for checking government censorship while retaining traditional authority to detect and punish fraud
The Challenge of Judicial Independence
No full textThe U.S. Constitution was written more than 230 years ago for a new country on the periphery of the world. Two centuries later, it governs the most powerful nation on earth, and its meaning is constantly debated.
The U.S. Constitution in Five Minutes presents fifty-nine essays on subjects central to the meaning and application of the U.S. Constitution. Written by scholars, these essays cover origins; institutions, processes, and structural features; civil rights and liberties; and modes of interpretation and address common questions and misunderstandings about the Constitution, such as: • Can the president start a war? • Does the Constitution protect hate speech? • Does the Second Amendment give everyone the right to have a gun? • Does the Constitution protect noncitizens? • How can we tell what the Constitution means? Intended for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of the underlying principles of the U.S. political system, the book will also be a valuable supplement to political science courses. As with all the “Five Minutes” books, the essays are written in lively and accessible prose and are brief enough to be read in five minutes.
Includes the chapter, The Challenge of Judicial Independence by Maurer Professor Charles G. Geyh.https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facbooks/1321/thumbnail.jp
Direct to Consumer or Direct to All: Home DNA Tests and Lack of Privacy Regulations in the United States
Get PDFAlthough the U.S. has some measures of privacy protection for genetic data, the lack of a comprehensive approach to protecting direct-to-consumer genetic testing results in privacy violations for both consumers and their relatives. This essay explores the critical need for the U.S. government to address these privacy violations and argues that the U.S. should approach the problem and strategize a solution similar to the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Part I identifies current United States law, both federal and state regulations that address DTC-GT and genetic privacy. Part II examines the lack of regulation surrounding current DTC-GT companies and the potential to abuse individuals’ privacy. Finally, Part III explores various solutions to resolve genetic privacy issues in the U.S. and advocates for the federal government to adopt a comprehensive regulatory framework like the EU or California