I gave a lecture the other day to an undergraduate history class on the topic of 19th-century legal history, mostly before the start of the Civil War (with hints to the future, of course).
It is a law-school maxim today that the United States is a common-law country, while most of Europe uses civil law: English-derived common law has as its most basic tenet the binding nature of judicial precedent, while Roman-derived civil law privileges statutes. But the more I investigate the history and details of each, the more clear it becomes to me that the United States, at least, owes (almost?) as much of its legal system to civil law as it does to “pure” common law.
The push for “privacy” that demands an ability to allow us to restrict who sees what–enabled, for example, by new tools in Facebook and Google+–also creates and reinforces silos (filter bubbles, echo chambers) that prevent our exposure to different ideas. But this move highlights potential conflicts between a number of rights: freedom of association and freedom of speech and the press (both from the First Amendment) and rights to privacy (from the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments). What is this conflict? Is it real? How can we (begin) to resolve it?
I had always hoped that PACER–which I hear runs a surplus anyway–would trend downward in price as the cost of delivering electronic access decreases. Instead comes the news that the price will rise by 25%, from 8 to 10 cents per page.
For two weeks this July, I participated in a conference/summer session in Vienna (VISU) on the nature of scientific evidence. The program brought together students and lecturers from a number of disciplines.
My VISU presentation on reasoning in analogy in Warren and Brandeis’ famous 1890 law review article on privacy.
For the last week I’ve been a part of the Vienna Institute Summer University (VISU) at the University of Vienna, at a two-week conference on “The Nature of Scientific Evidence.” The program brings together graduate students from a variety of disciplines from around the world to discuss science-related topics.
Technology transfer offices at universities are key players in the process of putting technology to work. They facilitate the sometimes difficult translation of academic discoveries into private, saleable technology. The offices also serve as a buffer between the demands of private enterprise and the Mertonian ideals of the academic “ivory tower,” and the technology transfer process reflects this.
Madey v. Duke exposed one conflict when industry and universities work in overlapping areas. The 2002 federal court decision highlighted a problem at the intersection of university and industry goals.
According to Dr. Domonic Montisano of the UCSD’s technology transfer office, their goal is to get university research out to the public through the avenue of commercialization.
As someone who does not blog to earn money (I like to pay my hosting fees, but that’s only because I’m a poor grad student), I thought I’d run through how and why I blog, and why I find it a critical part of my “real” work of academic research and writing.
Helen A. Anderson of the University of Washington School of Law brings us “Changing Fashions in Advocacy: 100 Years of Brief-Writing Advice.”