Protecting U.S. Intellectual Property Rights and the Challenges of Digital Piracy

According to U.S. industry and government officials, intellectual property rights (IPR) infringement has reached critical levels in the United States as well as abroad. The speed and ease with which the duplication of products protected by IPR can occur has created an urgent need for industries and governments alike to address the protection of IPR in order to keep markets open to trade in the affected goods. Copyrighted products such as software, movies, music and video recordings, and other media products have been particularly affected by inadequate IPR protection. New tools, such as writable compact discs (CDs) and, of course, the Internet have made duplication not only effortless and low-cost, but anonymous as well. This paper discusses the merits of IPR protection and its importance to the U.S. economy. It then provides background on various technical, legal, and trade policy methods that have been employed to control the infringement of IPR domestically and internationally. This is followed by an analysis of current and future challenges facing U.S. industry with regard to IPR protection, particularly the challenges presented by the Internet and digital piracy.Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

Regulating Aesthetics Of Coastal Maine: Kroeger v. Department Of Environmental Protection

In Kroeger v. Department of Environmental Protection, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had appropriately denied a private landowner a permit to build a dock. Out of nine permitting criteria enforced by the DEP, the court held that the structure would violate one criterion: the unreasonable interference with the scenic uses of Somes Sound. The majority cited the enjoyment of the Sound by boaters and recreationalists, as well as the nearby tourist attraction of Acadia National Park as factors supporting the area’s scenic use. The majority found that the DEP had not arbitrarily denied the permit and that the plaintiff had practicable alternatives to building the proposed dock, including utilizing a local marina and making boat launches from the shore. The dissenting opinion, however, argued the plaintiff’s application satisfied the DEP’s wetland permitting criteria and that no perceptible visual impairment would occur by constructing the plaintiff’s proposed dock. The dissent maintained that the plaintiff had no practicable alternatives by which to reasonably access and utilize the waterfront. In addition, the dissent criticized the majority for overlooking the plaintiff’s property rights as a landowner and instead deferring too readily to the DEP’s decision regarding scenic uses. The Kroeger decision highlights the ongoing debate over the use of aesthetics as a legitimate basis for regulations protecting visual resources. The subject of aesthetics is by its nature controversial: at its heart are questions and subjective assessments pertaining to beauty - its value, importance, and whether it should or should not be afforded protection in particular situations. Nonetheless, aesthetic regulations have existed throughout this country’s history, gaining traction in the early 20th century. The United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue of aesthetic regulations, first via zoning cases, and then by way of dicta forceful enough to inspire the growth of aesthetic regulations by state governments. Aesthetic regulations have been and continue to be utilized in Maine, as demonstrated by Kroeger. Indeed, much of the case law surrounding aesthetics in Maine involves the DEP’s scenic uses provision, and often focuses on coastal locales. However, Kroeger offers a new dimension because it involves the issue of tourism along Maine’s coast. The question now arises: given the important role tourism plays in this state’s economy, how should the Law Court weigh the competing interests of preserving both aesthetic value and land owners’ rights when the protected area is near a coastal tourist destination? This Note considers where Maine generally stands in the national debate regarding aesthetic regulation after Kroeger, and where it may be headed in terms of coastal aesthetic regulation. First, this Note chronicles how aesthetic regulations slowly developed from the general laws of nuisance into the legitimate exercise of the police powers. It then describes the two different approaches taken by various jurisdictions in this country for validating aesthetic regulations. The first approach is premised on the belief that aesthetic regulations on their face fit securely within the general welfare prong of the police powers. The other approach relegates aesthetics to a secondary role, not allowing them to stand alone, but rather to play an ancillary role in the government interests of health, safety, moral, or general welfare. This Note then chronicles how Maine specifically has interpreted aesthetic regulations, analyzing the approaches in Kroeger that the Law Court’s majority and dissent utilized, and criticizing both sides for not more fully explaining their rationales. In conclusion, this Note contends that in its next relevant case the Law Court should more fully detail the preferred basis for aesthetic regulations in Maine, potentially creating a litmus test for cases involving popular coastal scenic areas. In addition, this Note suggests that the Maine Legislature could include the promotion of the economy, which would encompass tourism, as a legitimate category within the state’s police powers. Such a specific governmental directive would decidedly aid the Law Court in future coastal aesthetic regulations cases

Regulating Aesthetics Of Coastal Maine: Kroeger v. Department Of Environmental Protection

In Kroeger v. Department of Environmental Protection, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had appropriately denied a private landowner a permit to build a dock. Out of nine permitting criteria enforced by the DEP, the court held that the structure would violate one criterion: the unreasonable interference with the scenic uses of Somes Sound. The majority cited the enjoyment of the Sound by boaters and recreationalists, as well as the nearby tourist attraction of Acadia National Park as factors supporting the area’s scenic use. The majority found that the DEP had not arbitrarily denied the permit and that the plaintiff had practicable alternatives to building the proposed dock, including utilizing a local marina and making boat launches from the shore. The dissenting opinion, however, argued the plaintiff’s application satisfied the DEP’s wetland permitting criteria and that no perceptible visual impairment would occur by constructing the plaintiff’s proposed dock. The dissent maintained that the plaintiff had no practicable alternatives by which to reasonably access and utilize the waterfront. In addition, the dissent criticized the majority for overlooking the plaintiff’s property rights as a landowner and instead deferring too readily to the DEP’s decision regarding scenic uses. The Kroeger decision highlights the ongoing debate over the use of aesthetics as a legitimate basis for regulations protecting visual resources. The subject of aesthetics is by its nature controversial: at its heart are questions and subjective assessments pertaining to beauty - its value, importance, and whether it should or should not be afforded protection in particular situations. Nonetheless, aesthetic regulations have existed throughout this country’s history, gaining traction in the early 20th century. The United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue of aesthetic regulations, first via zoning cases, and then by way of dicta forceful enough to inspire the growth of aesthetic regulations by state governments. Aesthetic regulations have been and continue to be utilized in Maine, as demonstrated by Kroeger. Indeed, much of the case law surrounding aesthetics in Maine involves the DEP’s scenic uses provision, and often focuses on coastal locales. However, Kroeger offers a new dimension because it involves the issue of tourism along Maine’s coast. The question now arises: given the important role tourism plays in this state’s economy, how should the Law Court weigh the competing interests of preserving both aesthetic value and land owners’ rights when the protected area is near a coastal tourist destination? This Note considers where Maine generally stands in the national debate regarding aesthetic regulation after Kroeger, and where it may be headed in terms of coastal aesthetic regulation. First, this Note chronicles how aesthetic regulations slowly developed from the general laws of nuisance into the legitimate exercise of the police powers. It then describes the two different approaches taken by various jurisdictions in this country for validating aesthetic regulations. The first approach is premised on the belief that aesthetic regulations on their face fit securely within the general welfare prong of the police powers. The other approach relegates aesthetics to a secondary role, not allowing them to stand alone, but rather to play an ancillary role in the government interests of health, safety, moral, or general welfare. This Note then chronicles how Maine specifically has interpreted aesthetic regulations, analyzing the approaches in Kroeger that the Law Court’s majority and dissent utilized, and criticizing both sides for not more fully explaining their rationales. In conclusion, this Note contends that in its next relevant case the Law Court should more fully detail the preferred basis for aesthetic regulations in Maine, potentially creating a litmus test for cases involving popular coastal scenic areas. In addition, this Note suggests that the Maine Legislature could include the promotion of the economy, which would encompass tourism, as a legitimate category within the state’s police powers. Such a specific governmental directive would decidedly aid the Law Court in future coastal aesthetic regulations cases

Effects of Potassium Source and Secondary Nutrients on Potato Yield and Quality in Southcentral Alaska.

Calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and sulfur (S) are required for the growth and development of all higher plants. They are commonly referred to as secondary nutrients because they are less often limiting to plant growth than the primary nutrients nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), although secondary nutrients are as critical for crop growth and development as the primary nutrients. There is limited information available concerning secondary nutrient requirements of potatoes grown in southcentral Alaska. Laughlin (1966) conducted studies between 1961 and 1963 comparing potassium chloride (KCl) and potassium sulfate (K2SO4) as potassium sources for Green Mountain potatoes, and determined the effects of varying rates of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) and K2SO4 on Kennebec potatoes. Since these studies were conducted without irrigation and at production levels about one-half those obtained by top producers in the Matanuska Valley today, it was considered appropriate to expand upon the previous work using current production practices. Potassium was supplied as KCl and K2 SO4 to explore the need for additional S under local potato production conditions and to determine the effects of the chloride (Cl) and sulfate (SO4) anions on production and quality of potato tubers. In addition, Mg and Ca were added to determine whether the background levels of these nutrients were adequate for optimum production

Engaged Buddhism & Women in Black: Our Grief Is Not a Cry for War

This paper explores principles, practices, and manifestations of engaged Busshism in the United States. It includes a personal narrative based on the author\u27s participation in Women in Black (a silent, symbolic protest against war) and classroom stories based on the author\u27s experience teaching at a Buddhist-inspired university

Rates and Methods of Application of Nitrogen and Phosphorus for Commercial Field Production of Head Lettuce in Southcentral Alaska

Head lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) is one of the major agricultural crops grown in Alaska. In 1992, its wholesale value was approximately $314,000, second only to potatoes among Alaska’s commercially field grown vegetables (Brown et al., 1992). The quality of head lettuce is as important as yield, as lettuce heads that do not meet minimum size and weight standards are unmarketable. Head size and weight are strongly influenced by management practices, dictating a high level of management for successful commercial production. Among manageable cultural variables, rate of fertilizer application and the method of fertilizer placement are two of the most critical. Despite the value of the head lettuce crop to Alaska vegetable growers and the importance of fertilization as a management practice, little research has been published on rates of application and method of applying nitrogen and phosphorus to commercially grown head lettuce

Circular 111

In 1995, 27 head lettuce varieties were evaluated in a replicated study at the Palmer Research Center, and two growers’ fields in the Matanuska Valley. The 15 varieties that performed best in 1995 were selected for evaluation in 1996 and 1997. The performance of those 15 varieties in 1997 is summarized in this report. Results from the 1995 and 1996 trials may be found in UAF circulars 106 and 108 respectively