1,281 research outputs found

    Getting the Haves to Come out Behind: Fixing the Distributive Injustices of American Health Care

    Get PDF
    Hyman criticizes an article by Havighurst and Richman regarding the distributive injustices of US health care. Hyman also offers a guide for implementing policy reforms based on the analysis by Havighurst and Richman

    Getting the Haves to Come out Behind: Fixing the Distributive Injustices of American Health Care

    Get PDF
    Hyman criticizes an article by Havighurst and Richman regarding the distributive injustices of US health care. Hyman also offers a guide for implementing policy reforms based on the analysis by Havighurst and Richman

    Attemps to Monopolize—Specific Intent as Antitrust’s Ghost in the Machine

    Get PDF

    Attempts to Monopolize-Specific intent as Antitrust’s Ghost in Machine

    Get PDF

    Facilitating Access to Justice in the Area of Economic Competition Protection

    Get PDF
    The relevance of the study is determined by the fact that all types of competitive relations should be affected in the formation of business development programs and be based on the adoption of appropriate decisions by all parties of economic relations. The novelty of the study is determined by the fact that each of the participants in economic relations in some cases cannot receive concomitant protection, which is based on equal access to the functions and organs of justice, which are provided by public authorities as carriers of justice. The practical significance of the study is determined by ensuring fair competition to form the prerequisites for the development of the social environment

    The Ghost in the Machine: Artificial Intelligence in Law Schools

    Get PDF

    Parsing the Plagiary Scandals in History and Law

    Get PDF
    [Excerpt] “In 2002 the history of History was scandal. The narrative started when a Pulitzer Prize winning professor was caught foisting bogus Vietnam War exploits as background for classroom discussion. His fantasy lapse prefaced a more serious irregularity—the author of the Bancroft Prize book award was accused of falsifying key research documents. The award was rescinded. The year reached a crescendo with two plagiarism cases “that shook the history profession to its core.” Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin were “crossover” celebrities: esteemed academics—Pulitzer winners—with careers embellished by a public intellectual reputation. The media nurtured a Greek Tragedy —two superstars entangled in the labyrinth of the worst case academic curse—accusations that they copied without attribution. Their careers dangled on the idiosyncratic slope of paraphrasing with its reefs of echoes, mirroring, recycling, borrowing, etc. As the Ambrose-Kearns Goodwin imbroglio ignited critique from the History community, a sequel engulfed Harvard Law School. Alan Dershowitz, Charles Ogletree, and Laurence Tribe were implicated in plagiarism allegations; the latter two ensnared on the paraphrase slope. The New York Times headline anticipated a new media frenzy: When Plagiarism’s Shadow Falls on Admired Scholars. Questioned after the first two incidents, the President of Harvard said: “If you had a third one then I would have said, ‘Okay, you get to say this is a special thing, a focused problem at the Law School.’” There was no follow up comment after the Tribe accusation. The occurrence of similar plagiarism packages in two disciplines within an overlapping time frame justifies an inquiry. The following case studies of six accusation narratives identify a congeries of shared issues, subsuming a crossfire of contention over definition, culpability, and sanction. While the survey connects core History-Law commonalities, each case is defined by its own distinctive cluster of signifiers. The primary source for the explication of each signifier cluster is the media of newspaper, trade journal, television, and internet. The media presence is the Article’s motif—each case study summarizes a media construct of a slice of the plagiarism debate. By author’s decree the debate is restricted to “pure” plagiarism: the appropriation of another’s text without attribution. The survey is conducted according to chronological order, beginning with History. Ward Churchill’s sui generis smutch from plagiarism continues to agitate media coverage. His argument that a dismissal by the University of Colorado for academic misconduct would constitute a cover for a First Amendment protected essay on 9/11 adds more challenge to the plagiary abyss. This Article concludes with up-to-date coverage of the Churchill narrative.

    Patents and Antitrust: Peaceful Coxeistence?

    Get PDF
    My thesis for this paper is based upon developments which appear, as of 1955, to bring into clearer focus the process by which the earned differential advantages of patent rights are being adjusted to the prohibitory dixits of antitrust law. This is part of the never-ending governmental function of balancing stability of legal rights against the desired flexibility resulting from evolutionary growth. We can only chart the directions of the current trends. Generalizations from this panorama should not be overdrawn or artificially simplified. Both the patent and antitrust spectra are arranged in degrees. The edges of certainty are blurred in areas where the law continues to adjust itself to technological economic growth. Despite these caveats, however, I do not mean to underrate the increased clarification of the appointed provinces of patent and antitrust policies. This clarification is emerging from what has occurred since the 1930\u27s when patent laws and the Patent System began to be subjected to accusations of organic deficiencies in their underlying theory and operations-criticisms that went beyond instances of misuse of patent rights. Let us begin this synthesis with some generalizations and searching questions. At the same time let us bear in mind that the patent-antitrust picture is seen through contracted vision because opinion necessarily· mixes with demonstrable facts in the value judgments any observer may make
    • 

    corecore