The Wall Street Specialist: King of the Jungle

A book review essay considering The Wall Street Jungle, by Richard Ney (1970)

State Regulation of Franchising: The Washington Experience

The successful use of franchising as an adjunct to more traditional marketing techniques by business firms seeking nationwide distribution for their products, services, and ideas has stimulated many franchisor abuses. Professor Chisum comprehensively discusses a variety of remedies available to the franchisee seeking relief from franchisor abuses, including remedies provided by the common law, federal and state securities laws, and the federal antitrust laws. The article assesses the relative success and failure of these general remedies in rectifying the specific problems of franchisor abuses. The author then critically examines the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act which was enacted in 1971 for the purpose of preventing such abuses. Professor Chisum presents his evaluation of the major provisions of the Act, highlighting those areas which are likely to produce litigation and those areas in which he believes the language of the Act may frustrate its purpose

The Allocation of Jurisdiction Between State and Federal Courts in Patent Litigation

A proper jurisdictional balance between state and federal court systems has long been a goal of federal statutes granting jurisdiction over patent matters to the federal courts. Prompted by the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Koratron Co. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., Professor Chisum considers the general problem of the jurisdiction of federal and state courts over cases concerning questions of federal law and then focuses on the specific problem of jurisdiction over cases involving federal patent law. The article begins with a discussion of the history of statutes granting patent jurisdiction to federal courts and concludes with an evaluation of the present division of jurisdiction in patent matters between state and federal courts

The Supreme Court and Patent Law: Does Shallow Reasoning Lead to Thin Law

Prof. Chisum explains that the role of the Federal Circuit Court as the Supreme Court of patent law may be changing and notes the significance of recent United States Supreme Court cases addressing patent law issues. He evaluates the quality of recent landmark decisions in which the Court has examined patent issues. Prof. Chisum notes that the general attitude of the Court reflects skepticism and hostility toward the patent system. He also considers the quality of reasoning undertaken by the Supreme Court and argues that, as opposed to the Federal Circuit, it is often weak, illogical, ambiguous, and inconsistent

Reforming Patent Law Reform, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 336 (2005)

The current proposals to change the patent laws are described by proponents as patent law “reform.” In the 215 year history of the United States patent system, Congress has rarely purported to “reform” the system. Indeed, I am not sure that it has ever done so since the 1836 Act—or even since the 1793 Act. If we are to have “reform,” Congress should reform the system for the better of all concerned according to neutral principles