By: Grant Yang Gmail, a highly anticipated webmail application made by Google, has been criticized by privacy advocates for breaching wiretapping laws, even before its release from beta testing. Gmail’s large storage space and automated processes developed to scan the content of incoming messages and create advertisements based on the scanned terms have enraged privacy groups on an international level. This iBrief will compare Gmail’s practices with its peers and conclude that its practices and procedures are consistent with the standards of the webmail industry. The iBrief will then propose additional measures Gmail could institute to further protect webmail users’ and alleviate the concerns of privacy advocates. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2005 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0014
Month: May 2005
The SPS Agreement: Can It Regulate Trade in Nanotechnology?
By: James D. Thayer Recent studies have shown that nanoparticles, which are approximately 1 to 100 billionths of a meter in size, present unique health and environmental risks. Nevertheless, products enhanced by nanoparticles, such as sunscreen, golf balls, and hard drives, are shipped daily in international trade. With these unique risks in mind, would measures regulating the trade in nanotechnology be subject to the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures? If they were, would the Agreement objectively balance the unique risks and benefits of trading in nanotechnology? Whether measures regulating the trade in nanotechnology are subject to the SPS Agreement depends on the purpose of such measures. This iBrief argues that because of recent scientific evidence, many such measures are likely to be subject to the SPS Agreement. In addition, since sanitary and phytosanitary measures must be based on scientific evidence, if Members apply the Agreement appropriately, the Agreement would objectively balance the benefits and risks of trading in nanotechnology. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2005 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0015
The European Union “Software Patents” Directive: What Is It? Why Is It? Where Are We Now?
By: Robert Bray This paper has been adapted from a presentation given by the author at Duke University School of Law’s “Hot Topics in Intellectual Property Law Symposium” on April 1, 2005. It first presents an overview of the EU “Software Patents” Directive and many of the amendments that have been proposed and adopted. It then suggests a number of ways in which Europe can lead the world in developing a system that balances the interests of patent protection and open-source software. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2005 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0011
A New Paradigm for Intellectual Property Rights in Software
By: Mark H. Webbink A Winter 2004 article by Bradford L. Smith and Susan O. Mann of Microsoft published in The University of Chicago Law Review suggests that the development and growth of the software industry in the U.S. is a direct outgrowth of the implementation of intellectual property regimes, specifically copyright and patent, with respect to software in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This paper suggests that such patents were neither the sole nor the principal factor for the development of the software industry, that concerns about patents manifested prior to or soon after their application to software have proven true, and that patents are, in fact, not serving the interests of either the U.S. software industry or the consuming public. To that end, this paper advances recommendations for reforming the U.S. patent system as well as consideration of a new schema for protecting software. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2005 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0012
Regulating Indecency: The Federal Communication Commission’s Threat to the First Amendment
By: Reed Hundt This paper is adapted from a talk given by the author at Duke University School of Law on April 6, 2005. The author argues that the Federal Communication Commission’s recent crackdown on television indecency poses a significant threat to First Amendment protections by (1) limiting television viewers’ freedom of choice and (2) implying the possibility of punishment for failure to cooperate with the political objectives of the governing party. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2005 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0013