April 17, 2017
In United States v. Councilman, the First Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the complex issue of when the Wiretap Act protects electronic communication. In a split decision, the First Circuit upheld the district court ruling, holding that an Internet service provider (“ISP”) does not violate criminal wiretap laws when it copies and reads customers’ email
Dorothy H. Murphy, Article, United States v. Councilman and the Scope of the Wiretap Act: Do Old Laws Cover New Technologies?, 6 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 437 (2005), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/21_6NCJLTech4372004-2005.pdf.
In an era where businesses, industry, and postsecondary institutions recognize the value of and utilize online learning, online education for North Carolina’s public schools may be inevitable. Increasingly, virtual education is seen as “a model for the development of the 21st-century learning skills of working and collaborating with others at a distance.” If North Carolina’s
Meghan N. Knight, Comment, Cyber Charter Schools: An Analysis of North Carolina’s Current Charter School Legislation, 6 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 395 (2005), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/20_6NCJLTech3952004-2005.pdf.
The rising speculation in intangible assets by patent trolls may indicate that patents are ready to evolve to the next level. Just as air space rights and carbon emissions before them, patents could be traded on stock exchanges. This evolution could take the form of a Patent Investment Trust, modeled on the popular Real Estate
Elizabeth D. Ferrill, Article, Patent Investment Trusts: Let’s Build a PIT to Catch the Patent Trolls, 6 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 367 (2005), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/19_6NCJLTech3672004-2005.pdf.
DNA Databases and Discarded Private Information: “Your License, Registration and Intimate Bodily Details, Please”
In the small town of Truro, Massachusetts, three years had passed and the police could still not find the killer of freelance fashion writer Christa Worthington. Christa was found stabbed to death with her two year old daughter “clinging to her body.” Local police found semen on Worthington’s body, providing a DNA sample, an important
James F. Van Orden, Recent Development, DNA Databases and Discarded Private Information: “Your License, Registration and Intimate Bodily Details, Please”, 6 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 343 (2005), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/18_6NCJLTech3432004-2005.pdf.
Big Brother on a Tiny Chip: Ushering in the Age of Global Surveillance Through the Use of Radio Frequency Identification Technology and the Need for Legislative Response
One of the most controversial provisions of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (“USA PATRIOT Act”) allows the government to track the books people check out of the library. The critics of this provision argue that allowing the government to monitor what books people read
Oleg S. Kobelev, Recent Development, Big Brother on a Tiny Chip: Ushering in the Age of Global Surveillance Through the Use of Radio Frequency Identification Technology and the Need for Legislative Response, 6 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 325 (2005), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/17_6NCJLTech3252004-2005.pdf.
For the past several years, controversy existed in North Carolina as to the standard for determining the admission of expert testimony. The North Carolina Supreme Court recently put this controversy to rest in Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd. In Howerton, the court flatly rejected the gatekeeping test adopted by the United States Supreme Court in
Dean P. Loven, Expert Testimony in North Carolina Criminal Trials in a Post-Howerton World, 6 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 307 (2005), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/16_6NCJLTech3072004-2005.pdf.
In June of 2004, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., which interpreted the standard for admitting expert testimony under Rule 702 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. The issue before the court was whether a North Carolina trial court’s gatekeeping responsibility under Rule 702 is the same as that
John M. Conley & Scott W. Gaylord, We Are Not a Daubert State--But What Are We? Scientific Evidence in North Carolina after Howerton, 6 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 289 (2005), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/15_6NCJLTech2892004-2005.pdf.
Burned Angels: The Coming Wave of Minority Shareholder Oppression Claims in Venture Capital Start-up Companies
This article analyzes the claims angel investors might bring against venture capitalists who took companies through insider rounds with “abusive” terms. Part II introduces the concept of close corporation law, well-established in American jurisprudence, and concludes that venture-backed start-up companies would likely be treated as close corporations in the eyes of the courts. Part III
Jeffrey M. Leavitt, Burned Angels: The Coming Wave of Minority Shareholder Oppression Claims in Venture Capital Start-up Companies, 6 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 223 (2005), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/14_6NCJLTech2232004-2005.pdf.
Grey Area: How Recent Developments in Digital Music Production Have Necessitated the Reexamination of Compulsory Licensing for Sample-Based Works
The current structure of the Copyright Act has failed to create a fair market system that is an effective vehicle for ensuring the progress of the arts. Federal District Courts have adopted inconsistent approaches to sampling law, precluding a legal consensus on business practices in a national music industry. Digital sound editing and compositional technology
Kenneth M. Achenbach, Comment, Grey Area: How Recent Developments in Digital Music Production Have Necessitated the Reexamination of Compulsory Licensing for Sample-Based Works, 6 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 187 (2004), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/12_6NCJLTech1872004-2005.pdf.
You Get What You Pay For . . . and So Does the Government: How Law Enforcement Can Use Your Personal Property to Track Your Movements
If Scott Peterson had been stuck in traffic on a congested highway in Los Angeles, driven to a local bank, or taken a transcontinental road trip to West Orange, New Jersey, police in Modesto, California would have known. Indeed, the police department’s surveillance was precise, perpetual, and nearly invisible. It was also electronic. Shortly after
Timothy J. Duva, Comment, You Get What You Pay For . . . and So Does the Government: How Law Enforcement Can Use Your Personal Property to Track Your Movements, 6 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 165 (2004), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/11_6NCJLTech1652004-2005.pdf.
The North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology has adopted the Open Access Program, a part of the Scholar’s Copyright Project created by Science Commons. Authors designate the conditions under which their articles are licensed. By downloading articles, you agree to comply with the license terms specified. Please contact NC JOLT at firstname.lastname@example.org with permissions inquiries.