UW School of Law > LTA Journal > Back Issues

Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts Issues

Volumes 1 - 5 were published under the journal name "Shidler Journal of Law, Commerce + Technology".

Volume 4

Issue 4 Spring 2008

Article	Title	Author
11	Liability for Consumer Information Security Breaches: Deconstructing FTC Complaints against Businesses Victimized by Consumer Information Security Breaches abstract full article	Joel B. Hanson
12	No Harm No Foul: Limits on Damages Awards for Individuals Subject to a Data Breach abstract full article	Derek A. Bishop
13	To Mine or Not to Mine: Recent Developments in the Legal Ethics Debate Regarding Metadata abstract full article	Boris Reznikov

Issue 3 Winter 2008

Article	Title	Author
8	Copyright Liability for Those Who Provide the Means of Infringement: In light of the RIAA lawsuits, who is at risk for the infringing acts of others? abstract full article	Karen Horowitz
9	Data Privacy and Breach Reporting: Compliance with Varying State Laws abstract full article	G. Martin Bingisser
10	Applying the Americans with Disabilities Act to Private Websites after National Federation of the Blind v. Target abstract full article	Jeffrey Bashaw

Issue 2 Autumn 2007

Article	Title	Author
5	"Can I See Some ID?" Age Verification Requirements for the Online Liquor Store abstract full article	Boris Reznikov
6	*Admitting Computer Record Evidence after In Re Vinhnee: A Stricter Standard for the Future?* abstract full article	Cooper Offenbecher
7	FRCP 19: A Preferable Alternative to Traditional Judicial Rules for Determining Patent Licensee Standing In Aspex Eyewear v. Miracle Optics, a patent infringement claim was initially dismissed because the court found that the parties bringing suit, a patentee and a patent sub-licensee, lacked standing because although the patentee had given all substantial rights to a licensee, the sub-licensee’s license did not convey “all substantial rights.” Thus, neither party had “all substantial rights,” the traditional threshold test for patent licensee standing. While the Federal Circuit ultimately reversed and allowed the suit to go forward, the case demonstrates how the current patent standing rule only magnifies the expense of litigating an infringement suit by requiring additional resources for debating “all substantial rights.” This Article analyzes the current standing rules for licensees of intellectual property under the various federal intellectual property statutes. In general, exclusive licensees have standing to sue, either alone or by joining the licensor. Although the fundamental motivation for this rule is sound, the rule can be unnecessarily rigid as applied and can prevent licensing arrangements from reflecting the intent of the parties. This article will also analyze FRCP 19’s approach, which provides a more flexible and predictable rule. full article	Jeffrey Bashaw

Article

Title

Author

"Can I See Some ID?" Age Verification Requirements for the Online Liquor Store

abstract full article

Boris Reznikov

Admitting Computer Record Evidence after In Re Vinhnee: A Stricter Standard for the Future?

abstract full article

Cooper Offenbecher

FRCP 19: A Preferable Alternative to Traditional Judicial Rules for Determining Patent Licensee Standing

In Aspex Eyewear v. Miracle Optics, a patent infringement claim was initially dismissed because the court found that the parties bringing suit, a patentee and a patent sub-licensee, lacked standing because although the patentee had given all substantial rights to a licensee, the sub-licensee’s license did not convey “all substantial rights.” Thus, neither party had “all substantial rights,” the traditional threshold test for patent licensee standing. While the Federal Circuit ultimately reversed and allowed the suit to go forward, the case demonstrates how the current patent standing rule only magnifies the expense of litigating an infringement suit by requiring additional resources for debating “all substantial rights.” This Article analyzes the current standing rules for licensees of intellectual property under the various federal intellectual property statutes. In general, exclusive licensees have standing to sue, either alone or by joining the licensor. Although the fundamental motivation for this rule is sound, the rule can be unnecessarily rigid as applied and can prevent licensing arrangements from reflecting the intent of the parties. This article will also analyze FRCP 19’s approach, which provides a more flexible and predictable rule.

full article

Jeffrey Bashaw

Issue 1 Summer 2007

Article	Title	Author
1	Employee Internet Misuse: How Failing to Investigate Pornography May Lead To Tort Liability abstract full article	Jamila Johnson
2	Don't Bet on it: How Complying with Federal Internet Gambling Law is not Enough abstract full article	Jennifer W. Chiang
3	Reach Out and Text Someone: How Text Message Spam May Be a Call Under the TCPA abstract full article	Daniel L. Hadjinian
4	Patent Rights Under FOSS Licensing Schemes abstract full article	Shaobin Zhu