Suchergebnisse

"This book explores the knowledge base and procedures necessary for a law enforcement leader to plan, mitigate, and respond to a crisis and the subsequent consequences. A feature of the textbook is that actual events are explored in a Lessons Learned section. This not only provides the law enforcement leader with lessons in what he or she should do, but also addresses those actions he or she should not take. The problems inherent in evacuations, emergency sheltering, sheltering in place, and access issues are discussed and problems such as interagency interfaces, Law Enforcement Incident Management System, and NIMS are addressed. Decision making is explored with legal concepts involving "who is in charge," forcible evacuations, scene access, and interagency operations. This textbook provides an overview and essential information for the law enforcement leader to identify the areas in which additional information, study, planning, and education are required"--

The use of criminal sanctions to punish or deter violations of environmental law is debated. Arguments favoring the criminalization of such laws point to their deterrent capacity & reflect the desire of some to exact moral retribution on offenders. Arguments against penalties & punishments focus on potential for overkill, procedural complexity, & high implementation costs. In weighing these arguments, a balance must be struck in evaluating the legal & organizational advantages/disadvantages against alternative measures for gaining compliance. These include publicizing the polluter's activities, economic incentives, civil sanction, equity fines, the pass-through fine, educational strategies, internal restructuring, cooperative lawmaking, external investigations, & community service orders. Adapted from the source document.

"This report describes the results of the Law Enforcement Futuring Workshop, which was held at RAND's Washington Office in Arlington, Virginia, from July 22 to 25, 2014. The objective of this workshop was to identify high-priority technology needs for law enforcement based on consideration of current and future trends in society, technology, and law enforcement over a ten- to 20-year time period. During the workshop, participants developed sets of future scenarios, constructed pathways from the present to alternative futures, and considered how law enforcement use of technology might affect these pathways. They then identified technology needs (including training and changes in policies or practice) that, if addressed, could enable pathways to desirable futures or prevent or mitigate the effects of pathways to undesirable futures. On the final days of the workshop, the technology needs were prioritized using a Delphi method. The output of this workshop described in the report included ten future scenarios and 30 technology needs. The technology needs fell into three general categories--technology-related knowledge and practice, information sharing and use, and technology research and development--and were placed into three priority tiers"--Back cover

Public sector information as open data : access, re-use and the third innovation paradigm Marco Ricolfi -- Licensing research data under open access conditions under European law Lucie Guibault -- Intellectual property in the Cathedral Dan L. Burk -- Trademark law and the public domain Martin Senftleben -- Patent eligibility : the 'sick-man' of patent law Erika Ellyne -- Exceptions, limitations and collective management of rights as vehicles for access to information Johan Axhamn -- Synergetic interaction between intellectual property and consumer protection : a pragmatic proposal to rebalance incentives and access Andrea Stazi and Maximiliano Marzetti -- Framing and explaining the politicization of intellectual property rights in the knowledge society Ingrid Schneider -- From data to wisdom : the contribution of intellectual property rights to the knowledge pyramid Roger Kampf -- The ACTA/TPP country clubs Peter K. Yu -- Rethinking the enforcement of intellectual property rights at international level Christophe Geiger

Proposes an interpretation of intercultural processes that take place in the exchange of traditional knowledge between ethnic groups and different kinds of agents in modern societies. Guidelines for a regulatory framework protecting vernacular knowledge and simultaneously providing incentives for modern scientific research are suggested. Under this scheme, communities might improve their ability to defend their rights and demand the enforcement of certain rules conditioning the use of traditional knowledge by firms, laboratories, and research institutes. (Original abstract - amended)

"Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in the EU Member States provides a timely overview and thorough analysis of intellectual property rights enforcement in the EU Member States. Taking legal action in one or several countries in the EU to enforce intellectual property rights is quite a challenge. The adoption of European Directive 2004/48/EC on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights was meant to put a halt to considerable discrepancies in national legislations which caused uncertainty and a difference in enforcement between the EU Member States. The Enforcement Directive aimed to create a level playing field and to ensure a high, equivalent and homogeneous level of intellectual property protection across the EU. Over the past decade, the Enforcement Directive has been transposed into all EU Member States, in national legislation and through its application in national and EU case law. Both are essential to understand the Enforcement Directive's actual scope of application. In order to prepare and undertake an action in different countries - potentially simultaneously - knowledge of national legislation, local custom and practice, as well as procedural law, national and EU case law is essential." -- Backside cover

Knowledge accumulated for centuries by ethnic communities about their habitat is increasingly being used for commercial purposes in fields such as pharmacy & agriculture. Transnational corporations & research laboratories use knowledge obtained from the analysis of plants & other biological samples provided by ethnic communities, or from the observation of their traditional practices. This paper proposes an interpretation of intercultural processes that take place in the exchange of traditional knowledge between ethnic groups & different kinds of agents in modern societies. The exchange between indigenous communities that possess the knowledge & researchers from universities & transnational corporations willing to develop & exploit that knowledge is marked by a deep information asymmetry. Guidelines for a regulatory framework protecting vernacular knowledge & simultaneously providing incentives for modern scientific research are suggested. Under this scheme, communities might improve their ability to defend their rights & demand the enforcement of certain rules conditioning the use of traditional knowledge by firms, laboratories, & research institutes. At the same time, investment for research in this field would be stimulated. 33 References. Adapted from the source document.