(R)evolutionary aesthetics: Denis Dutton’s The art instinct: beauty, pleasure and human evolution

Denis Dutton’s ‘‘The Art Instinct’’ succeeds admirably in showing that it is possible to think about art from a biological point of view, and this is a significant achievement, given that resistance to the idea that cultural phenomena have biological underpinnings remains widespread in many academic disciplines. However, his account of the origins of our artistic impulses and the far-reaching conclusions he draws from that account are not persuasive. This article points out a number of problems: in particular, problems with Dutton’s appeal to sexual selection, with his discussion of the adaptation/by-product distinction and its significance, and with drawing normative conclusions from evolutionary hypotheses

IP round-up: Recent decisions from the courts (October 2009)

This was an unsuccessful appeal from a decision of Winkelmann J in the High Court allowing registration by the respondent, Mr Sintes, of a trade mark containing the words "family search"

Should United States antitrust law be applied to state trading enterprises in agricultural trade?

In a number of countries, State Trading Enterprises (“STEs”) control agricultural exports to the United States. For antitrust purposes, export STEs may be characterized as cartels of producers colluding to fix prices into importing country markets. This Article considers the legal and policy issues involved in applying United States antitrust law extraterritorially to STEs. In order to analyze these issues, this article uses STEs in the New Zealand dairy industry as a case study. First, the nature of STEs and their legal status in international trade law will be discussed. The Article next considers the potential liability of STEs in United States antitrust law, with particular reference to the New Zealand Dairy Board and its successor company, “Fonterra.” Because these STEs could be characterized as price-fixing cartels, depending on findings of market definition and market power, United States courts would have antitrust jurisdiction, unless this jurisdiction was excluded by considerations of comity. This Article also considers the broader issue of applying United States antitrust law to export STEs in their agricultural trade context, and the corresponding policy implications

Student Companion: Intellectual Property (March 2012)

This article discusses Intellectual Property cases(respectively): “Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly & Co.” [2011, UKSC 51] and“Fonterra Brands (Tip Top Investments) Ltd v Tip Top Restaurant Ltd” [HC Wellington CIV 2011-485-001011, 4 November 2011]

Whose International Law?: Sovereignty and Non-State Groups

This is the first of three keynote panels at this 88th Annual Meeting, under the overarching theme of The Transformation of Sovereignty

Learning and selection

Are learning processes selection processes? This paper takes a slightly modified version of the account of selection presented in Hull et al. (Behav Brain Sci 24:511–527, 2001) and asks whether it applies to learning processes. The answer is that although some learning processes are selectional, many are not. This has consequences for teleological theories of mental content. According to these theories, mental states have content in virtue of having proper functions, and they have proper functions in virtue of being the products of selection processes. For some mental states, it is plausible that the relevant selection process is natural selection, but there are many for which it is not plausible. One response to this (due to David Papineau) is to suggest that the learning processes by which we acquire non-innate mental states are selection processes and can therefore confer proper functions on mental states. This paper considers two ways in which this response could be elaborated, and argues that neither of them succeed: the teleosemanticist cannot rely on the claim that learning processes are selection processes in order to justify the attribution of proper functions to beliefs

IP round-up: Recent decisions from the courts (July 2012)

This article discusses Trade Marks, Fair Trading, Copyright & Patent Infringement cases(respectively): “Mars New Zealand Ltd v Heinz Watties Ltd” [2012, NZHC 591]; “GeoSmart Maps Ltd v GoSmart Foundation Ltd” [HC Auckland CIV 2011-404-003119, 2 September 2011], “Fisher & Paykel Financial Services Ltd v Karum Group LLC (no. 2)” [2012, NZHC 240], “Hamilton Maps Ltd v Hamilton News Operating as a division of APN News & Media Ltd” [DC Hamilton CIV 2011-019000874, 9 March 2012], “BayCity Technologies Ltd v Uttinger and DairySense LLC” [HC Auckland CIV 2006-404-7709, 21 March 2012] and “ Stewart v Franmara Inc” [2012, NZHC 548]

IP round-up: Recent decisions from the courts (February 2008)

This Supreme Court decision was an appeal from the Court of Appeal decision in Stichting Lodestar v Austin, Nichols & Co. Inc.. The decision clarifies the approach that the High Court should take on an appeal against a decision of the Commissioner of Trade Marks on registration. The case was about the registration of "WILD GEESE" as a trade mark. The Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks initially held that Stichting Lodestar could register its "WILD GEESE" trade mark and that the mark was not deceptive or too similar to Austin, Nichols & Co Inc's "WILD TURKEY" trade mark. Austin, Nichols appealed to the High Court, and Gendall J allowed the appeal and refused registration. Stichting Lodestar successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal which granted the applications for registration. Austin, Nichols appealed to the Supreme Court

IP round-up: Recent decisions from the courts (May 2009)

Oraka Technologies Ltd v Geostel Vision Ltd (HO, Hamilton CIV 2005-419-809, 18 February 2009, AllanJ) This was a copyright case about asparagus grading equipment

IP round-up: Recent decisions from the courts (March 2012)

This article discusses Trade Marks cases(respectively): “Mars New Zealand Ltd v Roby Trustees Ltd” [HC Auckland CIV 2011-404-4613, 7 December 2011], “Fonterra Brands (Tip Top Investments) Ltd v Tip Top Restaurant Ltd” [HC Wellington CIV 2011-485-1011, 4 November 2011], “Adidas AG v Forrester Hilton” [HC Auckland CIV 2011-404-2751, 9 September 2011], “AA Insurance Ltd v AMI Insurance Ltd” [HC Wellington CIV 2010-485-2427, 2 November 2011], and “N V Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co v New Zealand Milk Brands Ltd” [2011, NZSC 113]