Search results

Abstract
This article deals with the standard for assessing joint inventorship in German and U.S. patent law, which is of great importance given the strong legal position that is assigned to each joint inventor as co-owner of a patent issued as a result. The article explains the criteria used by German and U.S. courts to determine whether a person is to be viewed as a joint inventor. It also deals with the remedies available to affected parties who want to defend themselves against an incorrect determination of joint inventorship. Both jurisdictions have established a similar approach to determine joint inventorship by examining the quality of the respective contributions to the invention of each possible joint inventor. The German and U.S. courts have established a low bar for granting joint inventorship status that risks assigning far-reaching legal powers to a large number of persons. In contrast to the similarities in substantive law, the remedies available are rather different in the two jurisdictions. The article concludes with a proposal for limiting the excessively broad joint inventorship standard by redefining the criterion of collaboration, which is considered an essential element of joint inventorship in both jurisdictions but has received little attention in judicial practice.

"This book will examine lawyers' historical and contemporary relationship to the rule of law, one of the pillars of a liberal democracy. It does so by firstly identifying a range of rule of law issues confronting society; secondly by illustrating how lawyers interact with them; thirdly by examining how legal independent professions support are key to rule of law and finally; fourthly by exploring arguments that satisfactory support for the rule of law is available by other means."--

The five issues of Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo which are here reviewed (Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of 1954, and Nos. 1 and 2 of 1955) contain a series of articles devoted to a discussion of the basic notions of international law. This discussion is related to the preparation of a new textbook for Soviet law schools the completion of which this year has been announced by the A. Ya. Vyshinsky Institute of Law, a branch of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

Judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and awards of ad hoc arbitration tribunals carry special weight in international maritime boundary law. On its face, the international maritime boundary law codified in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea is indeterminate. For the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, the legal obligation of coastal states is to delimit the boundary "by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution." The article on the delimitation of maritime boundaries in the territorial sea is no more determinative despite the fact that it makes direct references to the equidistant line, special circumstances and historic title. In spite of this indeterminacy, if not because of it, coastal states have found that third-party dispute settlement procedures can effectively resolve maritime boundary delimitation disputes. As a consequence, there are more judgments and awards on maritime boundary disputes than on any other subject of international law, and this trend is continuing.

'The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law' provides an account & assessment of comparative law at the beginning of the 21st century. The aim of each one of the 48 chapters is to provide an account of the state of comparative law in its respective area whether geographical or topical.

This article investigates the pattern of corporate political representation in Danish law‐making. The most important finding is a large intra‐system variation in scope, level, and structure of outside involvement. There is no evidence of an emerging 'total' system of corporate political representation. The dominant pattern is still one of a diversified use of several channels of access by a large variety of groups, organizations, and institutions. While the importance of organized interests is well documented, it is questionable to what extent this indicates a pattern of societal corporatism in the political system. Interest organizations play an important role in pluralist societies as well, and Philippe Schmitter's main point about representational monopoly does not gain support. Generally, the analysis tends to support a model of pluralist corporate representation.

Argues that the sociology of law should continue its long-standing focus on law & governmentality, but also should expand its analysis to an examination of the interaction of legal & nonlegal forms of governance. The beginning of such an enterprise is provided by the work of Michel Foucault (1977), raising the question of law's role in modern forms of governmental rationality. It is suggested that Foucault's analysis ought to be revised to attend to the plurality of forms of law & governance, & to focus more explicitly on forms of state power. Using this conception, it is contended that the key link between law & modern power is that law plays the organizational & ideological role of providing temporary moments of unification within dispersed fields of social power. This approach to law & governance is favored over others because it facilitates an account that remains sensitive to variations in modes of governance & local power while remaining attentive to the role of the state in the condensation of power relations. 69 References. D. M. Smith

Islamic law in the form of legislation in Indonesia is that which is legally binding on the constitution, even its binding capacity is broader. Therefore, as an organic regulation, sometimes it is not elastic to anticipate the demands of the times and change. For example, Law Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage. The law contains Islamic law and is binding on every citizen of the Republic of Indonesia. Problems that occur such as in Jambi Province at this time the fiqh law which is very broad in its scope is worthy of being called "Islamic law" is marriage law, inheritance law and waqf law. Laws or provisions that are applied to administer and settle marriages, inheritance and endowments as material laws, are still diverse. Marriage and Wakaf cases are regulated in statutory law; marriage is regulated by Law No. 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage and waqf law regulated by Government Regulation No.28 of 1977; as executor of the Agrarian Basic Law of 1961. Whereas inheritance law has not been regulated by law and by itself is still guided by Jurisprudence.