8700 research outputs found
Sort by
Good for Thee, but Not for Me: How Bisexuals are Overlooked in Title VII Sexual Orientation Arguments
Get PDF\u3cem\u3eLittle Pink Flower with a Darker Story to Tell\u3c/em\u3e: The Role of Emojis in Online Human Trafficking and Potential FOSTA-SESTA Liability
Get PDFThere seems to be an emoji for every expression, thought, and feeling – even for human traffickers. Emojis have evolved into a primary lexicon for online human trafficking. This coded language has allowed online human traffickers to evade detection and prosecution. Courts and law enforcement are confused by the seemingly innocent use of emojis in advertisements and conversations that have serious human trafficking implications. Now, the code is cracked. Researchers have studied the intersection of emojis and human trafficking to such an extent that they have caught on to the secret online language of emojis. As the use of emojis for online human trafficking is more commonly understood among the public, it could mean liability for websites that previously enjoyed protection under the law for their roles in human trafficking. This note explores the use of emojis in online human trafficking, the actual implications it has on law enforcement and the court in prosecuting human traffickers, and potential liability for website owners under The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act and The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (FOSTA-SESTA)
Equitable Defenses in Patent Law
Get PDFIn patent law, “unenforceability” can have immense consequences. At least five equitable doctrines make up the defense of “unenforceability” as it was codified into the Patent Act in 1952: laches; estoppel; unclean hands; patent misuse; and according to some, inequitable conduct. Yet in the seventy years since incorporation of equitable defenses into the patent statute, the Supreme Court has not clarified their reach. Indeed, twice in the last four years, the Supreme Court avoided giving complete guidance on the crucial questions of whether, and when, such equitable defenses are available to bar damages in cases brought at law.
Several interpretive methods have been proposed for determining the reach of generally worded statutes like the Patent Act. Under a dynamic statutory interpretation, courts would be permitted to develop such statutes in accordance with what the law ought to be. Under a traditional faithful agent approach, in contrast, courts would try to determine the scope as set forth by the legislature, piecing together context and history to frame limited words. The scope of equitable defenses in patent law is an ideal proving ground between these methods, having both historical background for use in traditional approaches and high-stakes social questions that factor into a dynamic approach—what conduct do we allow patentees to engage in before we cut off remedies for infringement on innovations that support our health and modern lifestyle?
Setting the stage of the statutory interpretive battle, this Article examines the historical and statutory bases of equitable limits on patent law, with a particular focus on the substantive equitable defenses of unclean hands and patent misuse. It contrasts the history of equitable defenses such as estoppel, which crossed fully into courts of law well before the merger of law and equity and the Patent Act, with equitable defenses such as laches, unclean hands, and misuse. This Article walks through these defenses’ pre-codification roots and potential statutory interpretations and presents normative and constitutional considerations under the competing interpretive approaches. It also presents a surprising approach to inequitable conduct, arguing that it is not an equitable defense and should no longer result in infectious invalidity. This Article is the first to provide a comprehensive framework for the analysis of equitable defenses in patent law
Labor Redemption in Work Law
Get PDFPeople with criminal records are not a protected class under Title VII, and many employers fear that hiring people with criminal records invites negligent hiring liability. Ban the Box privacy laws delay but may not deter overbroad criminal background checks. This Article challenges this standard account by shifting focus to the state in imposing arbitrary barriers to work. I expose a dignity interest in the removal of these unnecessary barriers, or labor redemption. I find foundations of labor redemption in successful constitutional challenges to denials of public employment and occupational licenses. Labor redemption is also, increasingly, a statutory right, in the automated sealing and expungement of old and minor criminal records, and issuance of state certifications of individuals as rehabilitated. This Article\u27s assessment offers lessons for other areas in which private decision-makers exclude candidates because of state-imposed stigmas, especially the close analogy of housing discrimination