1412 research outputs found
Sort by
Chinese Patents as Copyrights
Get PDFAlthough harmonization efforts such as the Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the Patent Corporation Treaty regime have brought national patent systems closer, differences among them remain a continuing challenge to innovators in an interconnected global marketplace. The recent development of the Chinese patent system is of particular interest because China is the factory of the world, the most populous market, the home of the patent office that handles the most patent application filings, and the number one source of imports that violate intellectual property rights (IPR). Its patent system affects every company whose supply chain, competitor or market footprint touches China. Moreover, developing countries are increasingly looking to China for an alternative IPR model. China’s patent system may well be the basis of new norms for other emerging economies
Criminal Procedure - Warrant to Search Premises as Authorizing Search and Detention of Occupants of Premises
Get PDFThe right of citizens to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In Michigan v. Summers, the United States Supreme Court addressed the question of whether police may legally seize and detain an occupant of a house that is being searched for narcotics pursuant to a valid search warrant even though there is no probable cause to believe such occupant has committed any offense. The Court held that a warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is being conducted. This case is significant because the Court has often stressed the importance of warrant procedure, but has seldom dealt with the means by which warrants are actually executed. The Court\u27s ruling represents a serious threat to the Fourth Amendment principle which requires that all seizures be based on probable cause. A ruling by the Court that has an erosive effect on the Fourth Amendment\u27s protection against oppressive governmental intrusions should be carefully scrutinized
Screening of The Lynchburg Story
No full textThe film dissects the early history of the eugenics programs in the 1930s and 1940s by focusing on the Lynchburg colony in Virginia, where over 8,000 children were forcibly sterilized
Criminal Procedure - Waiver of Right to Counsel
Get PDFThe United States Supreme Court\u27s landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona spawned countless cases interpreting the Court\u27s construction of standards for the admissibility of criminal defendants\u27 statements made during custodial interrogations. While earlier cases addressed the issue of waiver of right to counsel in a trial context, Miranda represented the Court\u27s first consideration of waiver of right to counsel in a pretrial context. Chief Justice Warren, writing for a majority of five, explained that the Court intended to further explore some facets of the problem, thus exposed, of applying the privilege against self-incrimination to \u27incustody interrogations, and to give concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow. The continuing efforts of both bar and bench to extract concrete standards from Miranda indicate Warren may have pursued an elusive dream. Questions of what constitutes custodial interrogation, what form the Miranda warnings must take and how an accused may waive his rights presently plague state and federal courts. Prior to North Carolina v. Butler, the North Carolina Supreme Court had prescribed a rigid rule for waiver based on a close and literal reading of Miranda: an explicit statement of waiver, either oral or written, was necessary to support a finding that defendant effectively waived his right to counsel. The United States Supreme Court rejected that rigid rule and adopted a more flexible approach which takes into account the realities of criminal investigations. Now, in at least some cases, waiver may be inferred from the defendant\u27s words and actions
Advisory Rulings by Administrative Agencies
Get PDFIn an age of omnipresent government, state and federal, seeking guidance from an administrative agency before acting has often come to be unavoidable. This article will explore some of the benefits and risks of seeking such guidance, with particular reference to the law of North Carolina
Constitutional Law - An Indigent\u27s Right to a Blood Test in a Paternity Suit
Get PDFModern courts frequently allow the use of blood grouping tests in paternity cases. There is now . . . practically universal and unanimous judicial willingness to give decisive and controlling evidentiary weight to a blood test exclusion of paternity. A 1976 report developed jointly by the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association confirmed the ability of blood grouping tests to exonerate innocent putative fathers. Many states have developed statutes relating to the use of blood grouping tests in paternity cases. The State of Connecticut has such a statute which provides that a court, on motion of any party, may order the parties to submit to blood grouping tests. The statute further provides that the cost of making such tests shall be chargeable against the party making the motion. The United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of this Connecticut provision in Little v. Streater. The Court held that the Connecticut statute, denying a defendant blood grouping tests because of his lack of financial resources, violated the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a unanimous decision, the Court concluded the statute, requiring the party requesting blood grouping tests to pay for such tests, was a denial of an indigent\u27s opportunity to be heard