Search for: "Jonathan Barnett"
Results 21 - 40
of 244
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Oct 2022, 3:00 am
Jonathan M. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:00 am
Daniel Sokol Jonathan Barnett, USC Law School asks Do Patents Matter? [read post]
27 Jul 2024, 6:15 am
—Jonathan Turley, author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage The tale of Randy Barnett's colorful career offers vital insight into nearly every major legal drama in recent memory. [read post]
1 Apr 2012, 7:46 pm
., Ilya Somin, Jonathan Adler, David Bernstein, David Kopel and Randy Barnett are engaging in victory lap devoted to the proposition “We were right and you were wrong, and the fact that you didn’t predict our being right demonstrates that you are particularly close-minded. [read post]
9 Jan 2025, 11:22 am
Barnett, reveals the deepening failure of IP rights to retain their property status and the weaknesses – seen and unseen – that have accompanied it. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 6:34 am
(Jonathan H. [read post]
9 Jan 2025, 11:22 am
Barnett, reveals the deepening failure of IP rights to retain their property status and the weaknesses – seen and unseen – that have accompanied it. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 11:03 am
(Jonathan H. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 3:18 pm
(Orin Kerr) I appreciate Jonathan Adler’s response on the nature of Randy Barnett’s proposed act/omission distinction on the scope of federal power. [read post]
2 Apr 2017, 5:54 am
And, while I’m on the topic of originalism, here is my Georgetown Law colleague Randy Barnett’s response to Jonathan Gienapp’s blog post, Constitutional Originalism and History, and here is an additional observation by another Georgetown Law colleague, Lawrence Solum. [read post]
10 Apr 2025, 4:15 am
On the current episode of Understanding IP Matters (UIPM), Jonathan Barnett, a legal scholar focusing on the weaknesses and strengths of the U.S. intellectual property (IP) system, discusses potential ways to repair it. [read post]
10 Apr 2025, 4:15 am
On the current episode of Understanding IP Matters (UIPM), Jonathan Barnett, a legal scholar focusing on the weaknesses and strengths of the U.S. intellectual property (IP) system, discusses potential ways to repair it. [read post]
24 May 2011, 4:49 pm
(Jonathan H. [read post]
19 Feb 2010, 8:42 am
This week’s Law and Economics Workshop featured Professor Jonathan Barnett and his paper, entitled, “Intellectual Property as a Law of Organization,” available at http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/barnettdraftfeb1.pdf. [read post]
3 Oct 2016, 3:17 am
Randy Barnett and Josh Blackman: yes, the confirmation process had gone wrong, but not necessarily in the way we’re told [National Affairs] A case against judicial restraint [Ilya Shapiro, same, related Cato] “Business and the Roberts Court without Scalia” [Jonathan Adler, related on supposed “pro-business” Court] SCOTUS should (again) step in to reject Obama end-run around advice/consent on appointment power [Ilya Shapiro and Thomas Berry,… [read post]
7 Jan 2025, 6:14 am
Barnett ends by underscoring what we lose by weakening IP rules. [read post]
5 Dec 2022, 9:15 am
Elsewhere, the Hudson Institute pushes back on misguided claims that patent licensing will prevent innovation in the Internet of Things, while the Center for Strategic & International Studies invites USC Gould School of Law Professor Jonathan Barnett for a discussion on patent licensing and enforcement policies in the People’s Republic of China. [read post]
5 Dec 2022, 9:15 am
Elsewhere, the Hudson Institute pushes back on misguided claims that patent licensing will prevent innovation in the Internet of Things, while the Center for Strategic & International Studies invites USC Gould School of Law Professor Jonathan Barnett for a discussion on patent licensing and enforcement policies in the People’s Republic of China. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 8:59 pm
I noted several of them in my post, including Richard Epstein and co-bloggers Jonathan Adler and Randy Barnett. [read post]
12 May 2011, 11:23 am
(Orin Kerr) In their posts below, both Jonathan Adler and Randy Barnett suggest that it’s okay for the proposed activity/inactivity distinction to be unclear because the “actus reus” distinction has been unclear for a long time and the world hasn’t ended. [read post]
