By: Julian Wong The transatlantic debate over the use of genetically modified organisms (“GMO”s) as food products, with the US as a proponent on one side, and the European Union (“EU”) as an opponent on the other, is set to take center stage. The US has initiated formal legal action under the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement System, charging that the EU violates several agreements of international trade law, including Article III of GATT, an anti-protectionist measure which forbids a country from favoring its own products over imported “like products.” The US claims that GMOs and conventional crops are “like products,, and that the EU moratorium on GMOs thus violates Article III. This iBrief assesses the US “like products” claim, most notably in light of Asbestos, a recent WTO case which provides important guidance for determining likeness under four criteria. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0027
Month: October 2003
Fairplay or Greed: Mandating University Responsibility Toward Student Inventors
By: Carmen J. McCutcheon Over twenty years have passed since the enactment of The Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (Bayh-Dole Act) and universities continue to struggle with their technology transfer infrastructures. Lost in that struggle are those who could be considered the backbone of university research: the students. Graduate and undergraduate students remain baffled by the patent assignment and technology transfer processes within their various institutions. Efforts should be undertaken by universities to clarify the student’s position in the creative process. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0026
Unintended Consequences: State Merger Statutes and Nonassignable Licenses
By: Joshua G. Graubart The confused state of most state corporate merger statutes allows many intellectual property licenses to find their way into unintended hands by way of corporate merger, in spite of non-assignment clauses. Clearly a detriment to licensors, corporate licensees too should be wary of depending upon the merger statute; a court ruling may not go their way. The states must clean up their collective act and bring some much needed certainty to a highly unpredictable intersection of corporate and intellectual property law. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0025
Online Defamation: Bringing the Communications Decency Act of 1996 in Line With Sound Public Policy
By: Ryan W. King According to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a provider of an interactive computer service cannot be held liable for publishing a defamatory statement made by another party. In addition, the service provider cannot be held liable for refusing to remove the statement from its service. This article postulates that such immunity from producer and distributor liability is a suspect public policy, and argues that the statute should be amended to include a broad definition of “development” and a “take-down and put-back” provision. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0024