for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
help
  Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1418 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (37 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (49 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (88 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (24 journals)
    - CRIMINOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (147 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (22 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (186 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (22 journals)
    - LAW (834 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (9 journals)

LAW (834 journals)                  1 2 3 4 5 | Last

Showing 1 - 200 of 354 Journals sorted alphabetically
(En)clave Comahue. Revista Patagónica de Estudios Sociales     Open Access  
ABA Journal Magazine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 25)
Acta Juridica     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Acta Politica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
Acta Universitatis Danubius. Juridica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Actualidad Jurídica Ambiental     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review     Open Access  
Adelaide Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 23)
Administrative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 44)
Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
African Journal of Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
African Journal on Conflict Resolution     Open Access   (Followers: 21)
Afrilex     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Ahkam : Jurnal Hukum Islam     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Ahkam : Jurnal Ilmu Syariah     Open Access  
Air and Space Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Akron Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Al 'Adalah : Jurnal Hukum Islam     Open Access  
Al-Ahkam     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Alaska Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Albany Law Review     Free   (Followers: 6)
Alberta Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Alternative Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Alternatives : Global, Local, Political     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Amazon's Research and Environmental Law     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
American Journal of Comparative Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 58)
American Journal of Jurisprudence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
American Journal of Law & Medicine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11)
American Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
American Journal of Trial Advocacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
American University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
American University National Security Law Brief     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Amicus Curiae     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Amsterdam Law Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez     Open Access  
Annales Canonici     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Annales de droit     Open Access  
Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul     Open Access  
Annals of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade - Belgrade Law Review     Open Access  
Anuario da Facultade de Dereito da Universidade da Coruña     Open Access  
Anuario de Psicología Jurídica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ANZSLA Commentator, The     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Appeal : Review of Current Law and Law Reform     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arbitration Law Monthly     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Arbitration Law Reports and Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Arctic Review on Law and Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arena Hukum     Open Access  
Argumenta Journal Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arizona Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Arizona State Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 3)
Arkansas Law Review     Free   (Followers: 6)
Ars Aequi Maandblad     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Art + Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
Article 40     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Artificial Intelligence and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
ASAS : Jurnal Hukum dan Ekonomi Islam     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy     Hybrid Journal  
Asian American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Asian Journal of Law and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Asian Journal of Legal Education     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Asian Pacific American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Asy-Syir'ah : Jurnal Ilmu Syari'ah dan Hukum     Open Access  
Australasian Law Management Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Australian Feminist Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Australian Indigenous Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 22)
Australian Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 15)
Ave Maria Law Review     Free   (Followers: 3)
Badamai Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Ballot     Open Access  
Baltic Journal of Law & Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar Association     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Behavioral Sciences & the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28)
Beijing Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Berkeley Journal of Entertainment and Sports Law     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 13)
Bioethics Research Notes     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Boletín de la Asociación Internacional de Derecho Cooperativo     Open Access  
Bond Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Boston College Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 16)
Boston University Law Review     Free   (Followers: 11)
BRICS Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Brigham Young University Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
British Journal of American Legal Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Brooklyn Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Bulletin of Legal Medicine     Open Access  
Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Business and Human Rights Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
C@hiers du CRHIDI     Open Access  
Cadernos de Dereito Actual     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Cadernos de Informação Jurídica     Open Access  
Cadernos do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito - PPGDir./UFRGS     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário     Open Access  
Cahiers Droit, Sciences & Technologies     Open Access  
California Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 20)
California Lawyer     Free  
California Western Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Cambridge Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 188)
Campbell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Campus Legal Advisor     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11)
Canadian Journal of Law and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20)
Case Western Reserve Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi     Open Access  
Catalyst : A Social Justice Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Catholic University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Chicago-Kent Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Chicana/o-Latina/o Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
China : An International Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
China-EU Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Chinese Journal of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Chinese Law & Government     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Cleveland State Law Review     Free   (Followers: 2)
College Athletics and The Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Colombia Forense     Open Access  
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law     Free   (Followers: 11)
Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
Columbia Law Review (Sidebar)     Open Access   (Followers: 20)
Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Comparative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 40)
Comparative Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Comparative Legilinguistics     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Con-texto     Open Access  
Conflict Resolution Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 43)
Conflict Trends     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
Cornell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
Criterio Jurídico     Open Access  
Critical Analysis of Law : An International & Interdisciplinary Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Cuestiones Juridicas     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Current Legal Problems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29)
Danube     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
De Jure     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
De Rebus     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Deakin Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 15)
Debater a Europa     Open Access  
Defense Counsel Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Democrazia e diritto     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Denning Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
DePaul Journal of Women, Gender and the Law     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
DePaul Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Der Staat     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Derecho Animal. Forum of Animal Law Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Derecho PUCP     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Derecho y Ciencias Sociales     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Derechos en Acción     Open Access  
Deusto Journal of Human Rights     Open Access  
Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi     Open Access  
Die Verwaltung     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10)
Dikaion     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Dike     Open Access  
Dikê : Revista de Investigación en Derecho, Criminología y Consultoría Jurídica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Diké : Revista Jurídica     Open Access  
Direito e Desenvolvimento     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Diritto penale contemporaneo     Free   (Followers: 2)
Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Dixi     Open Access  
Doxa : Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho     Open Access  
Droit et Cultures     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Droit et Médecine Bucco-Dentaire     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Droit, Déontologie & Soin     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Drug Science, Policy and Law     Full-text available via subscription  
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Duke Forum for Law & Social Change     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 16)
Duke Law & Technology Review     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Duke Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 26)
DULR Online     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
East Asia Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
ECI Interdisciplinary Journal for Legal and Social Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Economics and Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Edinburgh Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
Education and the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
El Cotidiano     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Election Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Energy Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Environmental Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 22)
Environmental Policy and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
ERA-Forum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Erasmus Law Review     Open Access  
Erciyes Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi     Open Access  
Espaço Jurídico : Journal of Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ESR Review : Economic and Social Rights in South Africa     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Ethnopolitics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
EU Agrarian Law     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Europaisches Journal fur Minderheitenfragen     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
European Energy and Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
European Journal for Education Law and Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
European Journal of Law and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
European Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 170)
European Public Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 37)
European Review of Contract Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)

        1 2 3 4 5 | Last

Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Berkeley Technology Law Journal
Number of Followers: 13  

  Free journal Free journal
ISSN (Print) 1086-3818
Published by U of California Berkeley School of Law Homepage  [6 journals]
  • Complete Volume 33, Issue 3
    • Authors: Berkeley Technolog Law Journal
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:57:29 PDT
       
  • Inter Partes Review and the Design of Post-Grant Patent Reviews
    • Authors: Colleen Chien et al.
      Abstract: Inter partes review (IPR) is one of several mechanisms for vetting patents after they have been granted. While the purpose of IPRs is to provide a cheaper, more expert alternative to litigation for screening out bad patents, the devil is in the design details. For example, the inclusion of key procedural features in IPRs, such as fixed time frames and expanded discovery contributed to making it far more popular than its predecessors. As the United States weighs additional changes to the administration of IPRs, including expanding the basis for amendment and unifying standards of review, it is worth considering the experiences of the European Patent Office (EPO) and Germany with their parallel opposition and nullification (revocation) procedures. This Article compares and contrasts U.S. IPR, EPO opposition, and German revocation actions and explores what they suggest, collectively, about the optimal design of post-grant review systems.Despite heightened concerns in the United States about IPR invalidation rates, outcomes are comparable across the three venues: 81% of reviewed claims and 26% of claims challenged in U.S. IPR proceedings are cancelled; 68% of patents reviewed and 63% of patents challenged in EPO opposition proceedings are amended or canceled; and 73% of the patents reviewed and 28% of the patents challenged in German revocation proceedings are partially or fully invalidated. But seemingly slight differences have contributed to the distinct roles each proceeding plays in its domestic patent system. The relative slowness of German infringement actions has translated into a parallel district action stay rate of 10–15%, as compared to an 80% stay rate among U.S. district court litigations that proceed in parallel to the IPR. Patentees also have fewer rights in U.S. IPRs than they do in EPO opposition proceedings, but have substantial rights to amend and can expect consolidated challenges. Focusing on how small differences have had big impacts on procedural and substantive outcomes , this Article discusses the implications of features such as the ability to amend and pre-institution decisions on the design and efficacy of post-grant patent reviews.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:57:21 PDT
       
  • The Non-Doctrine of Redundancy
    • Authors: Saurabh Vishnubhakat
      Abstract: This Article explores and evaluates a controversial practice that the Patent Office undertook beginning early in the post-AIA regime: the practice of denying otherwise meritorious requests for review because of what the Office termed “redundant” grounds. The controversy over redundancy-based rejections had several sources. One was that making such rejections required the Patent Office to decide petitions piecemeal—and, indeed, the agency claimed that power for itself—even though it was not clear that this power lay within the statute. Another source was that the Patent Office persistently declined to explain what, in the agency's view, did or did not constitute redundancy. Still another was that the Patent Office resisted Federal Circuit oversight of this practice by claiming unreviewable discretion as part of a larger campaign of self-immunization. This confluence of problematic agency choices has generated other, related controversies with AIA review as well, with a mixed record of success for the Patent Office. Yet while redundancy-based rejection now seems to be ebbing as a matter of agency policy, the underlying structural conditions that gave rise to the practice still persist and repay closer analytical and doctrinal scrutiny. This Article offers that scrutiny and discusses ways forward for AIA review.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:57:13 PDT
       
  • The Limits of Copyright Office Expertise
    • Authors: Aaron Perzanowski
      Abstract: The mismatch between the expanding administrative and regulatory obligations of the United States Copyright Office and its limited institutional expertise is an emerging problem for the copyright system. The Office’s chief responsibility—registration and recordation of copyright claims—has taken a back seat in recent years to a more ambitious set of substantive rulemakings and policy recommendations. As the triennial rulemaking under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act highlights, the Office is frequently called upon to answer technological questions far beyond its plausible claims of subject matter expertise. This Article traces the Office’s history, identifies its substantial but discrete areas of expertise, and reveals the ways in which the Office has overstepped any reasonable definition of its expert knowledge. This Article concludes with a set of recommendations to better align the Office’s agenda with its expertise by, first, reducing the current regulatory burdens on the Office, and second, building greater technological and economic competence within the Office, better equipping it to address contemporary questions of copyright policy.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:57:06 PDT
       
  • If You Build It, They Will Come: The Promises and Pitfalls of a Copyright
           Small Claims Process
    • Authors: Ben Depoorter
      Abstract: Copyright law provides fertile ground for small claims adjudication: an� abundance of straightforward infringements claims remains unpursued because the costs of litigation in federal courts outweigh the monetary value at stake in many individual disputes.This Article explains how a small claims process can infuse accountability and deterrence into copyright law by bringing to life meritorious infringement claims that otherwise remain negative value lawsuits, while discouraging dubious, opportunistic infringement allegations.Applying incentive analysis, this Article then examines Congress’s most recent proposal to institute a small claims board. It finds that the CASE Act’s statutory damage provisions are mismatched with the voluntary nature of the small claims process. The CASE Act is likely to induce opportunistic claims as well as bluff opt-outs by defendants, rendering the small claims board ineffective. Ironically, the ambitious nature of the CASE Act system inadvertently pushes out adjudication of the very small claims that it seeks to salvage.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:56:58 PDT
       
  • Scholarly Concerns About a Proposed Copyright Small Claims Tribunal
    • Authors: Pamela Samuelson et al.
      Abstract: Because federal court litigation is very costly, many small claims for copyright infringement do not currently get litigated.
      Authors and artists, in effect, have legal rights, but not legal remedies when others trespass on those rights. Responding to a sense of unfairness of this situation, Congress has been considering legislation to establish a small claims tribunal within the U.S. Copyright Office. This tribunal would be empowered to adjudicate copyright infringement claims. To bring a claim, authors would have to send a statement articulating the basis for the infringement claim, which would then be reviewed by tribunal staff. Once vetted by that staff, the claim could be served on the alleged infringer who would have a short period of time within which to opt-out of the proceedings. Unless opt-outs were filed in a timely manner, tribunal hearing officers would proceed to decide the claims and could award up to $30,000 per claim. Claimants could be awarded statutory damages of up to $15,000 per infringed work for authors who had registered copyright claims pre-infringement and up to $7,500 per work infringed for late-registrants. If necessary to persuade infringers to pay the amount awarded and/or to cease infringing activities, successful claimants could seek enforcement of the award in federal court.Recognizing that this legislation would have important implications for enforcement of copyrights and perhaps for copyright trolls, the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology and UC Hastings Law School organized a workshop of intellectual property, economics, and civil procedure scholars to consider specific aspects of the proposed small claims regime. Although sympathetic to the impetus behind the proposal, participants in the day-long workshop articulated a large number of reservations about the proposed regime, which this Article organizes into six categories. Serious questions were raised about, among other things, its constitutionality, procedural fairness, potential for abuses, and the lack of a cost-benefit analysis to support it.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:56:51 PDT
       
  • Beware the Trademark Echo Chamber: Why Federal Courts Should Not Defer to
           USPTO Decisions
    • Authors: Deborah R. Gerhardt
      Abstract: This Article explains why federal courts should not defer to United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) trademark decisions. Under United States trademark law, actual use of a mark on specific goods or services is required to support federal trademark registration. The USPTO processes a tremendous volume of applications to register trademarks. In order to do so expeditiously, trademark examiners use heuristics drawn from past USPTO registration data. While markets continually change, each trademark registration is updated at five or ten-year renewal intervals. Accordingly, much of the data does not reflect current market use. A recent audit established that many federal trademark registrations would be cancelled if their factual foundations were challenged. In stark contrast, courts examine market evidence in evaluating the core trademark issues of use, validity, and availability. Examining the factual context of each mark is especially important because, unlike other forms of intellectual property, trademarks have no fixed duration. They are functions of market use. Over time, trademark rights may shrink, be forfeited or expand and last indefinitely as use and public perceptions change. If courts apply de novo review to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decisions, they will ensure that a forum remains for trademark decisions to be adjudicated based on facts, instead of shortcuts, and current, not past, understandings. While the USPTO does have significant trademark expertise, it does not have the authority to consider Constitutional limits on trademark protection. As seen in the administrative history of the “SLANTS” mark, the USPTO does not adjudicate whether trademark registration decisions violate constitutional rights. Too much deference to the USPTO could result in a trademark echo chamber where litigants never have the opportunity for a court to examine the entire factual record or consider how trademark decisions impact expressive speech. For all of these reasons, federal courts should review USPTO trademark decisions de novo to preserve the opportunity for adjudication based on genuine fact-finding and an openness to modes of inquiry in addition to trademark law.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:56:43 PDT
       
  • Copyright Rulemaking: Past as Prologue
    • Authors: Joseph P. Liu
      Abstract: In deciding what rulemaking authority the Copyright Office should have, it may be helpful to take a close and careful look at how the Office has historically exercised its rulemaking powers. This article undertakes this task and makes a number of observations: (1) the Office’s rulemaking activity increased dramatically after passage of the 1976 Act; (2) the rules issued fall into a number of identifiable categories; (3) by far the largest category consists of rules administering statutory licenses set forth in the Act; and (4) the smallest category consists of precisely the kinds of substantive rules that some commentators propose the Copyright Office issue in the future. While Congress may, of course, change the balance of copyright regulation in the future, this Article argues that any future delegations of substantive rulemaking authority must take into account the fact that the Office’s regulatory efforts to date have largely involved a very particular and unique kind of rulemaking, one that focuses on administering legislative compromises between large industries rather than on furthering specific copyright policies. Care must be taken to ensure that this unusual regulatory perspective does not unduly influence or affect future substantive rulemaking.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:56:35 PDT
       
  • Is Design Patent Examination Too Lax'
    • Authors: Sarah Burnstein
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:56:25 PDT
       
  • Complete Volume 30, Issue 3
    • Authors: Berkeley Technolog Law Journal
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:42:10 PDT
       
  • Open Data, Privacy, and Fair Information Principles: Towards a Balancing
           Framework
    • Authors: Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius et al.
      Abstract: Open data are held to contribute to a wide variety of social and political goals, including strengthening transparency, public participation and democratic accountability, promoting economic growth and innovation, and enabling greater public sector efficiency and cost savings. However, releasing government data that contain personal information may threaten privacy and related rights and interests. In this Article we ask how these privacy interests can be respected, without unduly hampering benefits from disclosing public sector information. We propose a balancing framework to help public authorities address this question in different contexts. The framework takes into account different levels of privacy risks for different types of data. It also separates decisions about access and re-use, and highlights a range of different disclosure routes. A circumstance catalogue lists factors that might be considered when assessing whether, under which conditions, and how a dataset can be released. While open data remains an important route for the publication of government information, we conclude that it is not the only route, and there must be clear and robust public interest arguments in order to justify the disclosure of personal information as open data.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:42:02 PDT
       
  • Towards a Modern Approach to Privacy-Aware Government Data Releases
    • Authors: Micah Altman et al.
      Abstract: Governments are under increasing pressure to publicly release collected data in order to promote transparency, accountability, and innovation. Because much of the data they release pertains to individuals, agencies rely on various standards and interventions to protect privacy interests while supporting a range of beneficial uses of the data. However, there are growing concerns among privacy scholars, policymakers, and the public that these approaches are incomplete, inconsistent, and difficult to navigate.To identify gaps in current practice, this Article reviews data released in response to freedom of information and Privacy Act requests, traditional public and vital records, official statistics, and e-government and open government initiatives. It finds that agencies lack formal guidance for implementing privacy interventions in specific cases. Most agencies address privacy by withholding or redacting records that contain directly or indirectly identifying information based on an ad hoc balancing of interests, and different government actors sometimes treat similar privacy risks vastly differently. These observations demonstrate the need for a more systematic approach to privacy analysis and also suggest a new way forward.In response to these concerns, this Article proposes a framework for a modern privacy analysis informed by recent advances in data privacy from disciplines such as computer science, statistics, and law. Modeled on an information security approach, this framework characterizes and distinguishes between privacy controls, threats, vulnerabilities, and utility. When developing a data release mechanism, policymakers should specify the desired data uses and expected benefits, examine each stage of the data lifecycle to identify privacy threats and vulnerabilities, and select controls for each lifecycle stage that are consistent with the uses, threats, and vulnerabilities at that stage. This Article sketches the contours of this analytical framework, populates selected portions of its contents, and illustrates how it can inform the selection of privacy controls by discussing its application to two real-world examples of government data releases.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:41:55 PDT
       
  • Push, Pull, and Spill: A Transdisciplinary Case Study in Municipal Open
           Government
    • Authors: Jan Whittington et al.
      Abstract: Municipal open data raises hopes and concerns. The activities of cities produce a wide array of data, data that is vastly enriched by ubiquitous computing. Municipal data is opened as it is pushed to, pulled by, and spilled to the public through online portals, requests for public records, and releases by cities and their vendors, contractors, and partners. By opening data, cities hope to raise public trust and prompt innovation. Municipal data, however, is often about the people who live, work, and travel in the city. By opening data, cities raise concern for privacy and social justice.This article presents the results of a broad empirical exploration of municipal data release in the City of Seattle. In this research, parties affected by municipal practices expressed their hopes and concerns for open data. City personnel from eight prominent departments described the reasoning, procedures, and controversies that have accompanied their release of data. All of the existing data from the online portal for the city were joined to assess the risk to privacy inherent in open data. Contracts with third parties involving sensitive or confidential data about residents of the city were examined for safeguards against the unauthorized release of data.Results suggest the need for more comprehensive measures to manage the risk latent in opening city data. Cities should maintain inventories of data assets, produce data management plans pertaining to the activities of departments, and develop governance structures to deal with issues as they arise—centrally and amongst the various departments—with ex ante and ex post protocols to govern the push, pull, and spill of data. In addition, cities should consider conditioned access to pushed data, conduct audits and training around public records requests, and develop standardized model contracts to protect against the spill of data by third parties.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:41:46 PDT
       
  • Privacy and Court Records: An Empirical Study
    • Authors: David S. Ardia et al.
      Abstract: As courts, libraries, and archives move to make court records available online, the increased ease of public access raises concerns about privacy. Little work has been done, however, to study how often sensitive information appears in court records and the context in which it appears. This Article fills this gap by analyzing a large corpus of briefs and appendices submitted to the North Carolina Supreme Court from 1984 to 2000. Based on a survey of privacy laws and privacy scholarship, we created a taxonomy of 140 types of sensitive information, grouped into thirteen categories. We then coded a stratified random sample of 504 court filings in order to determine the frequency of appearance of each sensitive information type and to identify relationships, patterns, and correlations between information types and various case and document characteristics.We present several important findings. First, although a wide variety of sensitive information appears in the court records we sampled, it is not uniformly distributed throughout the records. Most of the documents contained relatively few incidences of sensitive information while a handful of documents contained a large number of pieces of sensitive information. Second, court records vary substantially in the types and frequency of sensitive information they contain. Sensitive information in seven of the categories— “Location,” “Identity,” “Criminal Proceedings,” “Health,” “Assets,” “Financial Information,” and “Civil Proceedings”—appeared much more frequently than the other categories in our taxonomy. Third, information associated with criminal proceedings, such as witness and crime victim names, is pervasive in court records, appearing in all types of cases and records. Fourth, criminal cases have disproportionately more sensitive information than civil or juvenile cases, with death penalty cases far exceeding all other case types. Fifth, appendices are generally not quantitatively different from legal briefs in terms of the frequency and types of sensitive information they contain, a finding that goes against the intuition of many privacy advocates. Sixth, there were no overarching trends in the frequency of sensitive information during the seventeen-year period we studied.Although we found a substantial amount of sensitive information in the court records we studied, we do not take a position regarding what information, if any, courts or archivists should redact or what documents should be withheld from online access or otherwise managed for privacy protection. These largely normative questions must be answered based on a careful balancing of the competing public access and privacy interests. Nevertheless, we expect that this highly granular view of the occurrence of sensitive information in these North Carolina Supreme Court records will help policymakers and judges evaluate the potential harms to privacy interests that might arise from online access to court records. We also hope that scholars will draw on our taxonomy and empirical data to develop and ground normative arguments about the proper approach for balancing government transparency and personal privacy.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:41:38 PDT
       
  • Citizen Science: The Law and Ethics of Public Access to Medical Big Data
    • Authors: Sharona Hoffman
      Abstract: Patient-related medical information is becoming increasingly available on the Internet, spurred by government open data policies and private sector data sharing initiatives. Websites such as HealthData.gov, GenBank, and PatientsLikeMe allow members of the public to access a wealth of health information. As the medical information terrain quickly changes, the legal system must not lag behind. This Article provides a base on which to build a coherent health data policy. It canvasses emergent data troves and wrestles with their legal and ethical ramifications.Publicly accessible medical data have the potential to yield numerous benefits, including scientific discoveries, cost savings, new patient support tools, improved healthcare quality, greater government transparency, and public education. At the same time, the availability of electronic personal health information that can be mined by any Internet user raises concerns related to privacy, discrimination, erroneous research findings, and litigation. This Article analyzes the benefits and risks of health data sharing and proposes balanced legislative, regulatory, and policy modifications to guide data disclosure and use.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:41:30 PDT
       
  • Public Health as a Model for Cybersecurity Information Sharing
    • Authors: Elaine M. Sedenberg et al.
      Abstract: Policy proposals often feature information sharing as a means to improve cybersecurity, but lack specificity connecting these activities to specific goals intended to advance the state of cybersecurity. We use the Doctrine of Cybersecurity as a lens to examine existing information sharing efforts and evaluate the utility of information sharing proposals. Leaning on the analogous public good-oriented field of public health, we extract insights on how these information policies and practices evolved to promote goals while actively mediating among values. Based on our review of specific public health information sharing systems, we derive a set of four principles—expert and collaborative data governance, reporting minimization and decentralization, earliest feasible de-identification, and limitations on use—to guide the development of information sharing proposals within the cybersecurity context, and include an analysis of specific sharing mechanisms—data access modes and sharing platforms—that inform the implementation of these four principles. We conclude with a set of recommendations for consideration within the context of cybersecurity information sharing proposals.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:41:22 PDT
       
  • Complete Volume 30, Issue 2
    • Authors: Berkeley Technolog Law Journal
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:40:30 PDT
       
  • Inventorship, Double Patenting, and the America Invents Act
    • Authors: N. Scott Pierce
      Abstract: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) defines an "inventor" as "the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention." Prior art that consists of a "disclosure ... made by the inventor or joint inventor" or "subject matter [that] had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor," when disclosure is "made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention," is excepted from the novelty requirement. However, there is nothing in the AIA or its legislative history that specifies whether the "disclosure" by the inventor or joint inventor must be the work of the inventive entity of the invention claimed, or need only be the work of an individual member or subgroup of that inventive entity. Guidelines developed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) do not clarify this issue. Early commentary on the AIA suggests that the work "disclosed" need not be that of the entire inventive entity. Such an interpretation, if confirmed by the courts, would be a radical and unnecessary departure from judicial precedent and would fundamentally change the effect of prior work by individuals on claimed joint inventions to which they contributed. The judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, which limits inventors to a single patent for each invention considered patentably indistinct in view of another, would also be implicated, as would a recently proposed statutory alternative.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:40:23 PDT
       
  • Ex Ante Versus Ex Post Approaches to Network Neutrality: A Comparative
           Assessment
    • Authors: Rob Frieden
      Abstract: This Article will compare and contrast ex ante network neutrality regulation by a sector-specific government agency and ex post review by a court or competition authority. The Article concludes that ex post enforcement should generally serve as the goal in a deregulatory glide path that links increases in facilities-based competition with incremental reductions in government oversight . However, current marketplace conditions show insufficient competition particularly for the first and last mile of lnternet access, making it possible for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to leverage market power in potentially harmful ways.Many advocates for less intrusive government oversight of telecommunications support the migration from regulation by an expert agency to the use of adjudication remedies largely guided by antitrust or competition policy principles. They believe that competition authorities, or reviewing courts, can resolve disputes after they have occurred-ex post remedies-in lieu of having sector-specific regulatory agencies available to anticipate and resolve problems before they become acute-ex ante prevention. The use of ex post safeguards risks false negatives where anticompetitive conduct has occurred without detection, or lacking an effective remedy. Using ex ante safeguards risks false positives, where a regulatory agency wrongly anticipates or detects harmful conduct and imposes unnecessary remedies that could reduce incentives for more investment. Advocates for muscular ex ante regulation in the United States believe that an expert agency remains essential, because sufficiently robust facilities-based competition does not exist.As ISPs serving end users may have both the incentive and ability to pursue anticompetitive strategies, the Article supports a limited role for an expert, national regulatory authority. However, the Article emphasizes that ex ante regulation should concentrate on procedural safeguards to ensure good faith negotiations and timely resolution of complaints in light of the immediate harm to consumers when content becomes blocked, or degraded by artificial congestion.The Article also notes that the Supreme Court has eliminated ex post remedies when the expert regulatory agency concludes that rising competition justifies streamlining, or eliminating safeguards, including the requirement that competitors cooperate by interconnecting networks on fair, cost-based terms. Additionally, the Supreme Court has substantially limited consumers ' rights to form a class of similarly harmed parties, or to object to compulsory arbitration clauses in service contracts.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:40:16 PDT
       
  • Losing Their License to Libel: Revisiting §230 Immunity
    • Authors: Vanessa S. Browne-Barbour
      Abstract: Libel, an ancient tort, protects one's reputation in a community. Historically, libel damages were presumed because of the tort 's potential to cause permanent reputational harm. Today, the likelihood of such reputational harm is increased exponentially by the prevalence of the Internet, where billions of pages of information are accessible to more than two billion people. When libel occurs on the Internet, why should the law favor the interests of internet service providers (ISPs) over the interests of the libeled' In applying § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to defamation claims against ISPs arising from defamatory statements on ISP sites, the overwhelming majority of courts follow the lead of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and decline to hold ISPs accountable for the tort of libel, along with other civil and criminal claims. This overly broad interpretation of§ 230 essentially renders a well-established cause of action a nullity. Why should a statute designed to protect ISPs from liability for blocking or restricting access to pornography or other objectionable materials be construed to bar defamation claims, even when the ISPs have not engaged in conduct to limit access to offensive materials'This Article argues that courts should adopt a narrower interpretation of § 230 to allow a remedy for defamation. Alternatively, it argues that Congress should adopt the DMCA as a model in revising § 230 by incorporating notice and take-down provisions. Such notice and take-down provisions would permit state common law defamation claims against ISPs, assuming the ISPs had actual or constructive knowledge of the defamatory content and failed to remove it within a statutorily mandated time period. Distributor or secondary publisher liability based on actual or constructive knowledge is consistent with traditional defamation law.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:40:09 PDT
       
  • A Unified Framework for RAND and Other Reasonable Royalties
    • Authors: Jorge L. Contreras et al.
      Abstract: The framework for calculating "reasonable royalty" patent damages has evolved over the years to a point at which, today, it is viewed by many commentators as potentially misleading and untethered from its original purpose. We offer a proposal to modify the framework for determining reasonable patent royalties that is based on recent scholarly and judicial analyses of standard-essential patents that are subject to commitments to license on terms that are reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND). Litigated cases have applied the traditional Georgia-Pacific factors to assess RAND royalty rates with modifications to account for the circumstances of the RAND commitment and the incremental value of allegedly infringed patents to the overall product offering. We propose that the reasonable royalty analysis should be conducted in essentially the same manner for all patents, whether or not they are encumbered by RAND commitments. We find considerable support for our approach in the historical development of U.S. patent law prior to the advent of the Georgia-Pacific test.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:40:01 PDT
       
  • When Does Copyright Law Require Technology Blindness' Aiken Meets
           Aereo
    • Authors: Yvette Joy Liebesman
      Abstract: Within the Copyright Act, innovation and technological advances are the bases for the enactment or amendment of many sections. Technology is often fundamental to the language of the section, and the underlying technology matters even when it is paired with a technology-neutral section. And because technology matters, how it functions could be essential in resolving a copyright infringement dispute.One such provision , 17 U.S .C. § 110(5), allows small businesses to "publicly perform" copyrighted music via a radio, as long as certain conditions regarding the equipment used are met. Only small businesses are eligible, and the proprietors can only use systems that are commonly found in homes. In addition, the performance cannot be retransmitted to another location, and only a single receiving apparatus can be used. Known as the "Aiken" or "Homestyle" Exemption, when Congress codified the § 110(5) of the Copyright Act of 1976, these seemed like reasonable limitations. At the time, lawmakers did not contemplate or even envision the existence or commercialization of wireless speaker technology . Now, however, one can connect a cellphone, iPod, MP3 player, or other portable electronic device via Bluetooth, standard radio, or even the Internet, to a wireless speaker. When determining whether a system falls within the Homestyle Exemption, both Congress and the courts have stressed the importance of examining the underlying technology. Technology matters in the Copyright Act.The Supreme Court's recent decision in American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc. has thrown the principle of"technology matters" into flux. The majority affirmatively construed the Transmit Clause as it related to several technology-specific sections of the Act in a technology-blind manner; indeed, it held that the underlying technological architecture of an allegedly infringing system was irrelevant. This decision may have wide-reaching effects, and cannot be viewed in a vacuum. When examined in relation to other sections of the Copyright Act of 1976, it behooves us to question whether this is what Congress intended.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:39:54 PDT
       
 
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
 
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Customise
APIs
Your IP address: 54.242.115.55
 
About JournalTOCs
API
Help
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-