To protect the rights and opportunities of trademark holders, the American government has limited the rights and opportunities of innocent domain name users. This Article argues that the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act unconstitutionally violates the commercial speech doctrine. Though the Act directly advances a substantial governmental interest, the statutory construction of the Act is more extensive than necessary. The Article therefore recommends that the Act be amended so that its scope applies only to true cybersquatters.

« Hide abstract

This paper advances the notion that procedure should be restored to the high road from which it has been diverted in the last decades. In the 1960s and 70s, the traditional approach, which subordinated procedure as ancillary to substance, was replaced by a much richer understanding of procedure's significance. But this trend was reversed largely as a result of the drive for efficiency that has dominated the courts and their alternatives. One of the side effects of this development has been the channeling of technology's impact on dispute resolution procedure to what I term the "efficiency paradigm."

While the technological revolution of the recent decades has had a far reaching impact on substantive legal arrangements and doctrines, it has had only a limited effect on procedure, where it has typically been neglected or narrowly viewed as efficiency-enhancing. In this fashion, procedure has been pushed back to its subsidiary role with regards to substance. This paper advances a more comprehensive view, which underscores the potential of new technologies to advance a wide range of procedural values (including efficiency) under a "multi-dimensional learning paradigm."

These themes are explored in the arena of digital technology in the courtroom and, specifically, by focusing on a particular case study - that of the Israeli court computerization, which is simultaneously caught up in the efficiency paradigm and creates the basis for a shift to the alternative approach that is promoted in this article.

« Hide abstract

Virtual world games are a hub for worldwide entertainment, social networking, and financial gain. They have also become a venue for criminal and tortious activities. Human players are using their in-game players, or avatars, to steal, defame, mutilate, defraud, and emotionally wreak havoc and disrupt other avatar game-play. Not only has this resulted in emotional detriment to players, but property and financial damage as well. Though such cruel acts are routinely brushed aside, critics, players, and scholars are increasingly attaching real life consequences to in-game activities. Despite the harm, victims are often unable to seek resolve, leading to a negative game-playing experience and potentially driving away business for game developers.

Though the real world is attempting to recognize in-game property rights to provide relief, it is not the viable solution some may think. As this paper demonstrates, parties face major obstacles in the real world attempting to resolve in-game disputes. Thus, I have proposed a two-tiered justice system: the In-Game Justice System (the "IGJ") and the Real World Justice System (the "RWJ") to provide a potential means of resolving in-game disputes using various real world theories of law and judicial proceedings. More importantly, real world courts would now be sought as a venue of last resort if an aggrieving player pierces the virtual veil (the "PVV"). This proposal intends to provide justice and relief to victims of virtual worlds, and hopefully a means towards understanding the interplay between the virtual world and the real world.

« Hide abstract

The technological and scientific advances of nutrigenetic testing imply the future is here, but unfortunately legal protections are not. Nutrigenetics—the newly developing science correlating diet and genotypes—promises an easier way to escape the consequences of unhealthy lifestyles. And many Americans, including cost-conscious employers and insurers, are seeking such high-tech solutions.

But enthusiasm for nutrigenetics obfuscates unusual problems surrounding protection of genetic information in a market context. Upon providing genetic material, individuals lose control over who can access results. The ramifications raise considerable liberty issues—from privacy, equal protection to perhaps property rights—and can result in widespread, irreversible damage, such as stigmatization and discrimination against tested individuals and all who share that DNA.

Current regulations and safeguards inadequately address problems, failing to sufficiently consider who may obtain the information. To improve protections, courts should recognize individuals’ rights to control personal genetic information. Congress should expand legislation to reach nutrigenetic and other lifestyle genetic testing, mandating safeguards preventing harmful disclosure but allowing authorized parties to obtain relevant information. Proposed legislation distinguishing derived from raw genetic information and regulating third-party access can be implemented through a double-masking model, allowing nutrigenetic testing to provide countless benefits to individuals and society.

« Hide abstract

The United States Supreme Court recently issued a ruling making it harder to obtain a valid patent or enforce an existing one. The Court essentially raised the bar for “obviousness” by making the criterion, whereby firms demonstrate that their sought patent is not obvious, more restrictive. There are important implications to this ruling for corporations, legal practitioners and legal scholars. This article attempts to model, in simple terms, the impact of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. on patent licensing costs and demonstrates that patent licensing costs are likely to decrease on average (or in the aggregate) as a result of the ruling.

« Hide abstract

« Hide abstract