American Immigration Council. Bashyam Spiro LLP Immigration and Nationality Law. The Empty Idea of Authority by Laurence Claus. University of San Diego School of LawOctober 7, 2009 University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2009, No. 5, 2009 Abstract: The idea of authority is a fabrication. Claims of moral right to be obeyed owe their historic salience to the self-interest of claimants. When Enlightenment scholars demolished the divine right of kings, they should have disabused us of the right, not just of the notions that it came from the divine and belonged to kings.
Claims of moral right to be obeyed have their origins in creationist accounts of law and government. No theory of moral right to be obeyed illuminates the nature of law. Conventionalist analyses of H.L.A. Understanding law as an autopoietic signaling system frees us to discard the idea of authority. Number of Pages in PDF File: 58 JEL Classification: K00 Accepted Paper Series Suggested Citation Claus, Laurence, The Empty Idea of Authority (October 7, 2009). Patent Law Blog (Patently-O): Rethinking the USPTO Examiner Coun. The USPTO uses a count system as one way to measure patent examiner productivity.
Examiners receive one count for sending out an initial office action and a second count when the case is “disposed.” As you might guess, a case is disposed of when it either issues as a patent or is abandoned by the applicant. However, many folks are surprised that the applicant’s filing of a request for continued examination (RCE) also counts as a disposal. As the chart shows below, this count incentive may well be driving a flood of RCE filings. The system also provides some incentive for aggressive restriction practice that forces the applicant to divide a single application into multiple applications. One of the initial missions of new PTO director David Kappos is to rethink the count system and to figure out a way to ensure that examiners have “the time they need to do their job properly” and which also “incentivizes compact prosecution.”
Add your proposal below: Patent Law Blog (Patently-O): Bilski Briefs. The question of patentable subject matter has returned to the Supreme Court — this time with a focus on business methods.
In January 2009, an en banc Federal Circuit implemented the “machine or transformation test” as the exclusive test for determining whether a claimed process qualifies as patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Now, the case is pending before the Supreme Court with two focused questions: QUESTIONS PRESENTED1. Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing (“machine-or-transformation” test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101, despite this Court’s precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for “any” new and useful process beyond excluding patents for “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.”2. Yahoo (Bilski – Yahoo! Update: More Briefs Professor Collins (08-964 Prof.
Lawyer, Lawyers, Attorney, Attorneys, Law, TEDTalks: Four Ways to Fix a Broken Legal System.