September 10, 2019
Volume 09, Issue 2
In 2006, thirteen-year-old Megan Meier met a teenage boy named Josh Evans on the social networking website MySpace. The two had an amicable relationship until Josh began making derogatory comments to Megan. The correspondence ultimately resulted in her suicide. Months later, “Josh” was revealed to be the collective creation of forty-seven-year-old Lori Drew, her teenage
Matthew C. Ruedy, Comment, Should Anti-Cyberbullying Laws Be Created?, 9 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 323 (2008), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/16_9NCJLTech3232007-2008.pdf.
Currently, Apple forces owners of the iPhone to use AT&T’s wireless network through software contained in the phone’s operating system. The practice of “unlocking” the Apple iPhone for use over any compatible wireless network raises an interesting legal question. Specifically, this Comment considers this question through analysis of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), the
Patrick J. Cleary, Article, The Apple Cat and the Fanboy Mouse: Unlocking the Apple iPhone, 9 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 295 (2008), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/15_9NCJLTech2952007-2008.pdf.
From Telegraphs to Content Protection: The Evolution of Signals as Patentable Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The patentability of communication signals under 35 U.S.C. § 101 first came before the Supreme Court in relation to Samuel Morse’s telegraph. Contrary to the Court’s ruling in O’Reilly v. Morse, however, the Federal Circuit recently held in In re Nuijten that useful, man-made signals are unpatentable because they do not fit within any of
Scott Bloebaum, Comment, From Telegraphs to Content Protection: The Evolution of Signals as Patentable Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 , 9 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 243 (2008), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/14_9NCJLTech2432007-2008.pdf.
In the wake of a long history of copyright decisions that have been sparse in terms of First Amendment analysis, the Tenth Circuit in Golan v. Gonzales clearly addresses the First Amendment. This Recent Development analyzes the decision in Golan and argues that while the First Amendment concerns were properly recognized, the ultimate resolution of
Daniel Choi, Recent Development, Golan v. Gonzalez: The Stalemate Between the First Amendment and Copyright Continues, 9 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 219 (2008), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/13_9NCJLTech2192007-2008.pdf.
Non-Medical Sex Selection by Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: Reflections on Israeli Law and Practice
While technology enabling sex selection by Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (“PGD”) is not new, the debate surrounding it has not abated. A wide variety of models exist. Some countries leave the decision to the parents, while others strictly prohibit sex selection for non-medical purposes. The Israeli system uses a unique model whereby a professional committee is
Ruth Zafran, Non-Medical Sex Selection by Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: Reflections on Israeli Law and Practice , 9 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 187 (2008), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/12_9NCJLTech1872007-2008.pdf.
The dominant view of misappropriation doctrine fits trademark law poorly. It is at odds with contemporary theory and the reasons for protecting intellectual property. A more nuanced view of the Supreme Court’s germinal misappropriation case leads to a misappropriation doctrine consistent with both externality theory and public goods theory. When viewed this way, IP theory
David W. Barnes, Misappropriation of Trademark, 9 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 171 (2008), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/11_9NCJLTech1712007-2008.pdf1.
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 email@example.com with permissions inquiries.