23andMe Inc.: Patent law and lifestyle genetics

The venture, 23andMe Inc., raises a host of issues in respect of patent law, policy, and practice in respect of lifestyle genetics and personalised medicine. The company observes: ‘We recognize that the availability of personal genetic information raises important issues at the nexus of ethics, law, and public policy’. 23andMe Inc. has tested the boundaries of patent law, with its patent applications, which cut across information technology, medicine, and biotechnology. The company’s research raises fundamental issues about patentability, especially in light of the litigation in Bilski v. Kappos, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc. and Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics Inc. There has been much debate and controversy over 23andMe Inc. filing patent applications – particularly in respect of its granted patent on ‘Polymorphisms associated with Parkinson’s Disease’. The direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic testing by 23andMe Inc. has also raised important questions of bioethics and human rights. It is queried whether the terms of service for 23andMe Inc. provide adequate recognition of the concepts of informed consent and benefit-sharing, especially in light of litigation in this area in the United States. Given the patent thickets surrounding genetic testing, the case study of 23andMe Inc. also highlights questions about patent infringement and patent exceptions. The future reform of patent law, policy, and practice needs to take into account new developments in lifestyle genetics and personalised medicine – as exemplified by 23andMe Inc.

Report on Legal Expenses Insurance, 239 pages; Prepared for the Access to Justice Committee Queensland Law Society Inc.; Access to Justice Committee, Australian Law Society (23 May, 2002).

A report prepared for the Access to Justice Committee Queensland Law Society Inc.

Child rearing Inc : On the perils of political paralysis Down Under

In his 2007 PESA keynote address, Paul Smeyers discussed the increasing regulation of child-rearing through government intervention and the generation of “experts,” citing particular examples from Europe where cases of childhood obesity and parental neglect have stirred public opinion and political debate. In his paper (this issue), Smeyers touches on a number of tensions before concluding that child rearing qualifies as a practice in which liberal governments should be reluctant to intervene. In response, I draw on recent experiences in Australia and argue that certain tragic events of late are the result of an ethical, moral and social vacuum in which these tensions coalesce. While I agree with Smeyers that governments should be reluctant to “intervene” in the private domain of the family, I argue that there is a difference between intervention and support. In concluding, I maintain that if certain Western liberal democracies did a more comprehensive job of supporting children and their families through active social investment in primary school education, then both families and schools would be better equipped to deal with the challenges they now face.

Breakfast at Tiffany's': eBay Inc., trade mark law, and counterfeiting

In an exploration of intellectual property and fashion, this article examines the question of the intermediary liability of online auction-houses for counterfeiting. In the United States, the illustrious jewellery store, Tiffany & Co, brought a legal action against eBay Inc, alleging direct trademark infringement, contributory trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition and trademark dilution. The luxury store depicted the online auction-house as a pirate bazaar, a flea-market and a haven for counterfeiting. During epic litigation, eBay Inc successfully defended itself against these allegations in a United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Tiffany & Co made a desperate, unsuccessful effort to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court of the United States. The matter featured a number of interventions from amicus curiae — Tiffany was supported by Coty, the Fashion Designer's Guild, and the International Anticounterfeiting Coalition, while eBay was defended by publicly-spirited civil society groups such as Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen, and Public Knowledge as well as Yahoo!, Google Inc, Amazon.com, and associations representing telecommunications carriers and internet service providers. The litigation in the United States can be counterpointed with the fusillade of legal action against eBay in the European Union. In contrast to Tiffany & Co, Louis Vuitton triumphed over eBay in the French courts — claiming its victory as vindication of the need to protect the commercial interests and cultural heritage of France. However, eBay has fared somewhat better in a dispute with L’Oréal in Great Britain and the European Court of Justice. It is argued that, in a time of flux and uncertainty, Australia should follow the position of the United States courts in Tiffany & Co v eBay Inc. The final part examines the ramifications of this litigation over online auction-houses for trade mark law reform and consumer rights; parallel disputes over intermediary liability and safe harbours in the field of copyright law and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2010. The conclusion calls for a revision of trade mark law, animated by a respect for consumers’ rights and interests in the electronic marketplace.

Work in America Institute, Inc. – Bibliography

The Catherwood Library, which serves Cornell's School of Industrial and Labor Relations, houses a complete set of the studies either published by or produced under the auspices of the Work in America Institute, Inc. These volumes were donated to the Catherwood Library by the Institute's Board of Directors through the initiative of Jay W. Waks, ILR '68, who succeeded Mr. Rosow as Chair of the Institute and who, for many years, sat on the Institute's Executive Committee with Mr. Rosow and Thomas R. Donahue, former Secretary-Treasurer and Interim President of the AFL-CIO. Each volume bears a bookplate with this message: "This volume was donated by the Work in America Institute, Inc. in honor of its founder, Jerome M. Rosow, 1919-2002." For additional information or to check on the availability of a document, please contact the Reference Department at 607-255-2277 or email us at ilrref@cornell.edu.

Australian Property Institute Inc, Submission to the Productivity Commission on Intellectual Property Arrangements – Issues Paper

This submission responds to the document Intellectual Property Arrangements Issues Paper (Issues Paper) released by the Productivity Commission in October 2015 for public consultation and input by 30 November 2015. The API is grateful for the extension of time granted by the Commission to complete and lodge this submission. The overall need for an inquiry into intellectual property is supported by API. In particular it is noted with approval that the Commission states in its Issues Paper that it is to consider the appropriate balance between “incentives for innovation and investments, and the interests of both individuals and businesses in assessing products”.1 However, API is of the view that intellectual property in the area of real property presents a number of issues which are not fully canvassed in the abovementioned Issues Paper. Intellectual property embedded in valuation and other property-related reports of API members involves the acquisition of information which may possibly be confidential. Yet, when engaged in banks and financial institutions the intellectual property in such valuations and/ or reports is commonly required to be passed to the client bank or financial institution. In the Issues Paper it is proposed that there are seven different forms of intellectual property rights.2 It is the view of API that an eight form exists, namely private agreements. The Issues Paper, however, regards private agreements between firms as alternatives to intellectual property rights. The API considers that “secrecy or confidentiality arrangements”3 as identified in the Issues Paper form a much larger part of the manner in which intellectual property is maintained in Australia for the purposes of trade secrecy or more often, financial confidentiality...

Immigrants Mutual Aid Society, Inc. records, undated, 1938-1980.

Contains the papers of the Society founded in 1938 by recent German speaking Jewish immigrants to Boston to assist their initial adjustment to the economic, cultural, spiritual, and social life of the American community and subsequently, to provide mutual assistance to its membership and aid to other immigrants.

La fundamentación eugenésica del artículo 86, inc. 2, del Código Penal y el fallo “F., A. L. s/medida autosatisfactiva” : convalidación de una teoría aberrante

Resumen: Este artículo analiza el fallo del 13 de marzo de 2012 de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, en los autos “F., A. L. s/ medida autosatisfactiva”, en el cual el máximo tribunal argentino adoptó la interpretación amplia del Artículo 86, inciso 2, del Código Penal, a la luz de la “voluntad del legislador histórico”; teniendo en cuenta que la misma Corte la invoca en sus fundamentos para fallar a favor de la constitucionalidad del inciso referido. Se parte de entender el contexto histórico e ideológico de las primeras décadas del siglo XX, tanto a nivel nacional como internacional, del cual surge la influencia que tuvo la eugenesia en los ámbitos científicos, académicos y jurídicos. Teoría que tenía por objetivo la búsqueda del “perfeccionamiento” de la especie humana, lo que implicaba descartar a los seres humanos más débiles, imperfectos o defectuosos. Dentro de este contexto se impulsó la modificación del Código Penal, por lo que es central para entender la “voluntad del legislador histórico” el Informe de la Comisión de Códigos del Senado de la Nación, de 1920, que receptó claramente las ideas eugenésicas, siendo el Artículo 86, inc. 2, un claro ejemplo de ello. El mencionado informe demuestra que la verdadera motivación de los legisladores para incluir la no punibilidad del aborto en este inciso fue que no nacieran “seres anormales o degenerados”, no hay una sola mención a la situación de la mujer embarazada y de los perjuicios que un embarazo en estas condiciones le podrían acarrear.

Darwin Scientific Foundation, Inc. and Galapagos Darwin Trust, Europe

From a special issue: A Brief History of the Charles Darwin Foundation for the Galapagos Islands 1959-1988

Robert Heinich, Michael Molenda, James D. Russell, Sharon E. Smaldino, Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1996, ss. 446. Steven Hackbarth, The Educational Technology Handbook. A Comprehensive Guide, Educational Technology Publications Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1996, ss. 351

Recenzje i sprawozdania z książek