Inventive machines are increasingly being used in research, and once the use of such machines becomes standard, the standard of the “person skilled in the art” used to judge “obviousness” for patentability should be a person using an inventive machine, or just an inventive machine. As inventive machines continue to improve, this will increasingly raise the bar to patentability, eventually rendering innovative activities obvious. This means the end of patents, at least as they are now.
In Print: Volume 66, Issue 1
This article explores the impending conflict between the protection of civil rights and trade secrecy in an age of big data, as exemplified by a number of recent cases involving algorithmic bias and discrimination. In a world where the activities of private corporations are raising concerns about privacy, due process, and discrimination, we must focus on the role of corporations in addressing the issue. This paper presents two potential models to ensure greater transparency, drawn from self-regulation and whistleblower protections.
This Article argues that we should take a deeper look at the applicability of federal common law defenses in immigration cases. In the rare cases where noncitizens attempt to raise common law defenses, such arguments tend to be dismissed by immigration judges because removal proceedings are civil, not criminal. Yet many common-law defenses may be raised in civil cases. This Article proposes three categories of removal cases where federal common law defenses are viable and examines some of the legal and practical challenges to prevailing with these defenses.
This article confronts a dangerous contemporary trend: the escalating political harassment of public university scholars through the use of public records requests. This phenomenon impedes academic enterprises as diverse as climate change research and biomedical experiments. The article argues that most of professors’ records should not be subject to laws that exist to promote democratic accountability, both because professors do not govern, and because open records laws conflict with the academic freedom necessary for knowledge generation.
This comment presents a new legal framework for regulation of initial coin offerings that meets the interests of the SEC, investors, and the innovative companies in the cryptocurrency industry.