Mast flight system beam structure and beam structural performance

An overall understanding of the beam assembly and data with which potential experimenters can begin to conduct analyses relevant to their experiments is given. Data is given on the beam structural concept, the tip remote station layout, the intermediate remote station layout with and without actuators, beam element materials, equivalent beam characteristics, beam element properties, remote station mass properties, and MAST Flight System modal characteristics

The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act at Twenty: Has Full Protection Made a Difference?

Even though our copyright statutes were silent about architecture until 1990, it was well established that plans, blueprints and models were copyrightable writings under the 1909 Act\u27s category of drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character, and then as pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works under the 1976 Act. The scope of an architect\u27s copyright protection was, however, quite limited. The unauthorized copying of plans or blueprints constituted infringement, but most authorities concluded that plans were not infringed by using them, without the architect\u27s permission, to construct the building they depicted. Moreover, the prevailing view was that an architect\u27s rights did not extend to the actual building derived from his or her plans. A building, as a useful article, could be protected by copyright only to the extent it had artistic features that could be identified separately from, and were capable of existing independently of, the structure\u27s utilitarian aspects. The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA) was passed soon after United States\u27 adherence to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works became effective. Congress, in passing this statute, recognized that expanding protection for architecture would stimulate excellence in design, thereby enriching our public environment in keeping with the constitutional goals. The AWCPA is said to confer full protection to works of architecture by establishing them as a new category of protectable subject matter in Section 102(a)(8) and defining an architectural work as: the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features. This Article discusses variations on casebook authors\u27 questions of whether the protection provided by the AWCPA is needed for mundane architectural works, and whether copyright protection is needed as an incentive for architects. Specifically, it addresses the impact of the AWCPA and considers whether that act has made a significant difference for architects and architecture

Milner S. Ball: Proof That One Professor Can Make a Difference

Milner S. Ball, the Harmon W. Caldwell Chair in Constitutional Law, is proof positive that one person can make a difference in the world. There is no doubt that he has made a substantial difference for the better during his distinguished career at the University of Georgia, as a campus minister, as a non-traditional law student who was the First Honor Graduate in the Class of 1971 and editor in chief of the Georgia Law Review, and as a highly regarded professor at the School of Law since 1978. This article is part of a symposium in tribute to Milner S. Ball

The Chevron Two-Step in Georgia\u27s Administrative Law

The Georgia Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have long accepted the General Assembly’s authority to enact legislation that establishes administrative agencies and empowers those agencies to promulgate rules and regulations to implement their enabling statutes. In addition, the Georgia Constitution provides that the General Assembly may authorize agencies to exercise quasi-judicial powers. Administrative agencies with broad powers enjoy a secure position under Georgia law. Like federal and state administrative agencies throughout the nation, Georgia’s many boards, commissions and authorities make policy when they apply their governing statutes in promulgating regulations of general applicability, and in ruling on specific matters like granting or denying an application for a permit or determining the residency of a candidate for public office. Sometimes the governing statutes are clear, but sometimes there is ambiguity. When there is ambiguity in its governing statute, the agency must interpret that legislation when it promulgates regulations or decides a particular contested matter. This article asks and answers the question of what deference, if any, must a Georgia court afford to an agency’s interpretation of its governing statute when it reviews an agency’s decision in a contested case or considers a challenge to the validity or applicability of an agency’s regulation

I am Glad I Got to Know Him

This article is part of a number of articles in tribute to L. Ray Patterson, which appear in 11 J. Intel Prop i (2003)

Warrantless Administrative Inspections After Marshall v. Barlow\u27s, Inc.

Administrative inspections are indispensable: without them there is no practical way to determine whether there is compliance with the plethora of health, sanitary, safety, and building regulations that ensure that living and working conditions remain tolerable. The need for administrative agencies to have this power does not, however, immunize inspections from the requirements of the fourth amendment. Administrative inspections are subject to the governing principle that a search of private property, in the absence of consent, is \u27unreasonable\u27 unless authorized by a valid search warrant. This article discusses the continuing vitality of the Colonnade-Bisiwell exception to the warrant requirement after Marshall v. Barlow\u27s, Inc., explains the elements of the exception, and examines the classes of cases in which a warrantless administrative search of private property is valid under the fourth amendment