Commercialization Report

The University of Maine\u27s Commercialization Repor

Advancing Economic Development Through Commercialization

President Hunter charged Provost Hecker with convening a group to undertake a process of examining UMaine’s policies, processes and structures as they relate to commercializing research, with the goal of modernizing our approach and moving to an enhanced level of leadership in this area. Provost Hecker convened the Commercialization Working Group to carry out the President’s charge and guided the group through a yearlong process of discovery focused on four areas: 1.) IP Portfolio Review: External assessment of a portion of UMaine’s intellectual property (IP) assets so that action plans to advance those without a clear path to commercialization could be developed, and to evaluate the process and services available for external evaluation and marketing. 2.) Research Foundation or Other Structure: Given UMaine’s current structures, resources and opportunities, would the development of an independent entity such as a research foundation facilitate the commercialization? 3.) Experience of Partners: What are the current perceptions and experiences of university faculty vis-à-vis commercialization? What are the perceptions and experiences of recent industry partners and potential future partners? 4.) Best Practices: What can be learned from the experiences of other universities and experts in the field with respect to policies and procedures that support commercialization

You Can\u27t Handle the Truth! Trial Juries and Credibility

Every now and again, we get a look, usually no more than a glimpse, at how the justice system really works. What we see—before the sanitizing curtain is drawn abruptly down—is a process full of human fallibility and error, sometimes noble, more often unfair, rarely evil but frequently unequal. The central question, vital to our adjudicative model, is: How well can we expect a jury to determine credibility through the ordinary adversary processes of live testimony and vigorous impeachment? The answer, from all I have been able to see is: not very well

You Can\u27t Handle the Truth! Trial Juries and Credibility

Every now and again, we get a look, usually no more than a glimpse, at how the justice system really works. What we see—before the sanitizing curtain is drawn abruptly down—is a process full of human fallibility and error, sometimes noble, more often unfair, rarely evil but frequently unequal. The central question, vital to our adjudicative model, is: How well can we expect a jury to determine credibility through the ordinary adversary processes of live testimony and vigorous impeachment? The answer, from all I have been able to see is: not very well

The Corporate Privacy Proxy

This Article contributes to the First Amendment corporate privacy debate by identifying the relevance of agriculture security legislation, or ag-gag laws. Ag-gag laws restrict methods used to gather and disseminate information about commercial food cultivation, production, and distribution-potentially creating a right to control or privatize nonproprietary information about animal and agribusinesses. Yet, corporate privacy rights are unrecognized as a matter of U.S. constitutional law, which implicates the sufficiency of the justification for ag-gag laws. This Article ponders whether security acts as a proxy for an unrecognized right to corporate privacy in the ag-gag context. Part I of this Article surveys the ag-gag landscape. Part II of this Article describes the corporate privacy debate. Part III of this Article hypothesizes how ag-gag laws arguably expand corporate privacy for animal and agribusinesses to a degree that threatens the marketplace of ideas about the industry