Experimental evaluation of algorithms forsolving problems with combinatorial explosion

Solving problems with combinatorial explosionplays an important role in decision-making, sincefeasible or optimal decisions often depend on anon-trivial combination of various factors. Gener-ally, an effective strategy for solving such problemsis merging different viewpoints adopted in differ-ent communities that try to solve similar prob-lems; such that algorithms developed in one re-search area are applicable to other problems, orcan be hybridised with techniques in other ar-eas. This is one of the aims of the RCRA (Ra-gionamento Automatico e Rappresentazione dellaConoscenza) group,1the interest group of the Ital-ian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AI*IA)on knowledge representation and automated rea-soning, which organises its annual meetings since1994

Reagire alla pandemia: l’arte e la ricerca che (r)esistono

This paper examines the impact of Covid-19 pandemic on the ‘situated art’ and on the geo-social methodology of research. The centralization of daily activities in the domestic spaces, caused by the pandemic, has had important repercussions on the topic of the doctoral research – the artistic use of public space – and on the ‘design’ of the research itself. So, the aims of the work are to show how a research project can change as needed and how the geo-social researcher must constantly adapt to reality and its transformations. In addition to presenting the criticalities encountered by ‘buskers’ and by the researcher, particular importance will be given to the alternative working methods introduced to overcome this collective crisis

Patent Attorney Malpractice: Case-Within-A-Case-Within-A-Case

As literary devices, a “story-within-a story” and a “play-within-a-play” have a long lineage. Shakespeare seems to have been particularly fond of these devices. The legal analog may be seen as the “case-within-a-case” (“trial-within-a-trial,” “suit-within-a-suit”) arising in legal malpractice cases. The case-within-a-case terminology seems to be the most commonly used and hence will be used herein. While it is clear that the “case” is the malpractice case, it is not so clear what the “case-within-” is, which is usually referred to as the “underlying case.” Often, it seems to be presumed that the underlying case is limited to litigation, which would have involved a trial culminating in a judgment being entered in favor of one of the parties. In many instances, litigation (real or hypothetical), indeed, is the source of the plaintiff’s injury and resulting damages as a consequence of an attorney’s malpractice. For example, if an attorney should miss a statute of limitations, thus barring the plaintiff from recovering against a party asserting the statute, the plaintiff must prove that, but for the negligence of its attorney, it would have prevailed against that party had the case been tried and gone to judgment. On the other hand, there are many situations where clients are injured due to the malpractice of attorneys that do not involve being denied a favorable judgment in litigation. An example of this in the context of patent law would be the negligent failure of a patent attorney to file a patent application on behalf of a client in a timely manner to avoid a statutory bar. This situation obviously does not involve litigation; nonetheless, the client has suffered the loss of a patent if it can be established that a patent would have been granted but for the failure of the attorney to file the application in a timely manner. If no patent would have been granted (e.g., because of prior art), the plaintiff would be unable to establish a causal connection between the attorney’s negligence and any damage suffered. On the other hand, even if the patent would have been granted, plaintiff will still have to establish in the malpractice case that it suffered damages—perhaps in the form of loss of infringement damages or license royalties. When the malpractice plaintiff has suffered injury in the form of loss of a favorable judgment as a consequence of the malpractice of its attorney, this type of case-within-a-case will be termed herein as the “judgment” model. According to this model, the malpractice plaintiff must prove that it would have received a more favorable judgment in the underlying case (litigation) but for the malpractice of the attorney. However, this model is only a species of the general class of injuries that may be suffered by clients due to the malpractice of their attorneys. When the malpractice plaintiff has suffered injury in other than the form of the loss of a favorable judgment as a consequence of the malpractice of its attorney, this type of case-within-a-case will be termed herein as the “non-judgment” model. The plaintiff, of course, bears the burden of proving it suffered actual damages of a nature other than the loss of a favorable judgment in the underlying case. To further illustrate these models, a more comprehensive definition of the “case-within-” (i.e., the underlying case) may be helpful. Indeed, “case” has a broader connotation than litigation/trial/suit. The venerable Black’s Law Dictionary gives the following definition: “case . . . [a] civil or criminal proceeding, action, suit, or controversy at law or in equity.” Thus, according to this definition, it would be appropriate to consider a “controversy” as being included within the “case-within-” (the underlying case) as well as “proceeding, action, suit” to which “trial” could be added. Courts, particularly those who are following the judgment model, often refer to “case-within-a-case” as a doctrine, rule, requirement, or element, thus giving the impression that it is mandatory that the malpractice plaintiff prove that it would have prevailed to judgment in the underlying case to recover in the malpractice case. Recognizing that “case” has a broader meaning than “litigation” to include “controversies” may help to avoid this significant limitation to the scope of legal malpractice cases (controversies). Other courts have preferred to categorize “case-within-a-case” as a methodology or analysis rather than as a doctrine/rule/requirement/element. There seems to be considerable merit in this usage because the “case-within-a-case” methodology is being used whether the malpractice plaintiff is alleging damages for the failure to obtain a favorable judgment in the underlying litigation (judgment model) or actual damages suffered as a result of malpractice in representation in the underlying controversy (nonjudgment model). In both the judgment and non-judgment models, in the context of a malpractice case based on negligence, the duty and breach elements (constituting negligence) are the same for both the malpractice case and the underlying case (controversy), where malpractice is alleged to have occurred. However, in the “judgment” model, the causation and damage elements are conflated, with the only damage recoverable by the plaintiff being the hypothetical loss of a favorable judgment had the trial been held in the underlying case. Accordingly, the only “cognizable” damage in the “judgment” model is the loss of a favorable judgment in the hypothetical underlying case-within-a-case. There is, of course, no causal relationship between the negligent conduct of the defendant attorney and any damage suffered by the malpractice plaintiff, if damage is limited to the loss of a favorable judgment in the underlying case and the plaintiff cannot establish that specific form of damage. In the “non-judgment” model, the duty-breach-causation elements are the same as in the “judgment” model; however, the damage element is determined by the nature of the damage the malpractice plaintiff pleads it has actually suffered, and such damage is not limited to prevailing in any hypothetical underlying case that would have resulted in a favorable judgment. In other words, the malpractice plaintiff in the “non-judgment” model is not required to prove it would have obtained a judgment in the underlying case, but only that it suffered actual damages causally related to defendant attorney’s negligence in the underlying transaction. These damages may be based on a variety of theories. In using the “case-within-a-case” methodology, it is important to recognize that the underlying case that precipitated the malpractice claim is not limited to litigation that would have resulted in a favorable judgment for the malpractice plaintiff, but also includes any controversy where, due to the malpractice of the attorney, plaintiff has suffered damages. The judgment and non-judgment models provide an explanatory framework. The elements of a legal malpractice case remain the same in both models, with the understanding that the damage element may be satisfied by the loss of a favorable judgment or other actual damages in the underlying case (controversy)

Reverse Informed Consent: The Unreasonably Dangerous Patient

Latrogenic injuries\u27-those caused by health care professionals (HCPs) in the course of treating patients-raise significant ethical, legal, and public policy issues.\u27 With the advent of the AIDS epidemic, these issues become even more difficult when the iatrogenic injury results not from the patient\u27s having received treatment below the professional standard of care (which is the usual grist for the malpractice mill) but from an infectious condition of the HCP. Considerable public attention has been directed to patients who have been exposed to the risk of AIDS by HIV-positive HCPs.6 It is difficult to be unmoved by the tragic example of Kimberly Bergalis and five other patients who contracted AIDS after being treated by a dentist who died of AIDS shortly thereafter.\u27 The public outcry of Physician, heal thyself\u27 was immediate, as were governmental proposals for dealing with the perceived problem. Responses from various interest groups were equally swift and effective.\u27 Despite the flood of proposals and recommendations, however, there appears to be an absence of political will to address the problem; the task therefore is thrown to the legal system. In this instance, the law of torts will be asked to provide the theories of recovery for patients who are infected with HIV by HCPs.\u2

Patent Attorney Malpractice: Case-Within-A-Case-Within-A-Case

This article will first provide a brief history of the jurisdictional controversy between federal courts and between federal courts and state courts. Then, the question will be examined of how the subject matter jurisdictional question has been resolved with respect to patent attorney malpractice cases to the extent it has been to date in the federal and state courts. The manner in which the case-within-a-case doctrine or methodology has been used in deciding the jurisdictional question will also be investigated. In addition, the relevance of the use of the judgment or non-judgment model to determine patent attorney malpractice will be explored. Consideration will also be given to those decisions that have opposed a broad imposition of federal jurisdiction over malpractice cases involving patent attorneys. In conclusion, some general observations will be offered concerning the jurisdictional and substantive issues raised in patent attorney malpractice cases. A detailed discussion of all jurisdictional issues arising in patent attorney malpractice cases, however, will not be undertaken here as the focus of this article is the case-within-a-case methodology in the resolution of the basic question of whether there is federal or state jurisdiction over the case