百度向左还是向右

百度竞价排名的商业模式在饱受垢病之后，在中国搜索领域一枝独秀的风光将一去不返，它必须寻求改变。     

百度与谷歌差在哪!

同为搜索引擎服务商,百度深陷盗版链接和竞价排名漩涡,而谷歌却安然无恙。我们不禁要问：百度与谷歌差在哪？     

从百度“三鹿门”事件看网络媒体的社会责任感

三鹿毒奶粉事件发生后,百度被指撤掉了以前有关三鹿问题奶粉的负面新闻专题,引起了网民们的强烈不满,以致引发了对整个网络公信力的质疑。本文分析了该问题的原因,并提出了网络媒体应如何增强社会责任感的建议。     

谷歌能否让百度过时

百度从不相信谷歌会成为自己的坟墓，但这一次，百度必须全力以赴应对谷歌“音乐搜索”的挑战     

李彦宏:百度帝国的新危机

11月15日、16日两天,央视《新闻30分》节目就百度搜索结果竞价排名问题进行了连续报道,将百度CEO李彦宏再次推到风口浪尖。其实,早在9月份的三鹿毒奶事件中,百度的新闻操纵策略就被牵扯进来,百度被网友指认收受三鹿300万元为其删除负面信息网页,百度对这一消息进行了辟谣。     

百度是非：品牌价值 还是商业利益

2008年的一系列危机将百度推向了一个拐点，向左还是向右只有百度自己可以左右，我们恳请百度慎重地走好这一步，因为它关系的不只是百度自身，而是整个互联网行业。     

百度侵权门的罪与罚

近期，《三一五中国作家讨百度书》的发表，使得百度再陷“侵权门”，引起人们的极大关注。     

百度MP3搜索侵犯信息网络传播权案

[案情] 环球公司、华纳公司、索尼公司发现其享有录音制作者权的128首歌曲在百度公司的互联网百度MP3栏目中通过搜索框、榜单等模式,提供了链接以及相应的在线试听和下载服务.环球公司、华纳公司、索尼公司认为百度公司的上述行为侵犯了其对上述歌曲录音制品享有的信息网络传播权.     

360进军搜索惹恼百度搜索蛋糕引发3B大战

正用百度搜索360杀毒,搜索结果的显著位置推广的却是百度杀毒,奇虎公司以不正当竞争为由状告百度,索赔100万元。2014年伊始,奇虎与百度就以这样一个新案为旷日持久的搜索大战添加了新的注脚。2013年度,百度和奇虎360已经在北京打了5场官司,已经一审判决的两起案件中,双方分别获得一胜。人们不禁惊呼,3Q尚未尘埃落定,3B大战已经到了短兵相接,刺刀见红的高潮阶段。     

50位作家与百度的战争

今年“3·15”期间，包括贾平凹、刘心武、阎连科、韩寒、郭敬明、李承鹏等在内的近50位中国作家联合发表讨百度书，称百度文库收录了上述作家几乎全部的作品，并对用户免费开放，却没有取得任何人的授权。一时间，百度文库数字侵权所引来的议论遍布互联网江湖。     

Professor Waldron Goes to Washington

In Torture, Terror and Trade-Offs: Philosophy for the White House Jeremy Waldron asks how moral philosophy can illuminate real life political problems. He argues that moral philosophers should remind politicians of the importance of adhering to moral principle, and he also argues that some moral principles are absolute and exceptionless. Thus, he is very critical of those philosophers who, post 9/11, were willing to condone the use of torture. In this article I discuss and criticize Waldron’s absolutism. In particular, I claim that the arguments he offers in support of it are either dependent on religious conviction or support only rule utilitarianism, not absolutism. Additionally, I argue that the character of politics is such that it is both undesirable and morally irresponsible for politicians to adopt the absolutist approach favoured by Waldron. We have reason to be glad that Professor Waldron does not go to Washington.     

To Waive or Not to Waive: The Right to Trial and Plea Bargaining

Criminal defendants in many countries are faced with a dilemma: If they waive their right to trial and plead guilty, they typically receive charge or sentence reductions in exchange for having done so. If they exercise their right to trial and are found guilty, they often receive stiffer sanctions than if they had pled guilty. I characterize the former as ‘waiver rewards’ and the latter as ‘non-waiver penalties.’ After clarifying the two and considering the relation between them, I briefly explicate the grounds for a moral right to trial. I then assess the defensibility of such rewards and penalties. In addition to considering whether waiver rewards and non-waiver penalties serve the aims of legal punishment, I address the three main arguments for permitting them. The first suggests that defendants willing to plead display more remorse for their crimes and thus are deserving of lighter sentences. The second defends waiver rewards and non-waiver penalties in cases where prosecutors are alleged to know that defendants are guilty but face problems establishing their guilt at trial. The third holds that guilty defendants who are willing to plead conserve scarce state resources and should be rewarded for it, whereas those unwilling to plead squander such resources and should be penalized accordingly. I contend that none of these arguments provides persuasive grounds for waiver rewards or non-waiver penalties, even on the assumption that we can distinguish those defendants who should waive their right to trial from those who should not. This conclusion presents a fundamental challenge to contemporary plea bargaining practices.

从基本权利到宪法权利

从“是否基本”的角度来认识宪法上的权利不能满足宪法理论与实践的要求,甚至容易造成误解。相较于“基本权利”,“宪法权利”是更为规范的表述。宪法权利是表示个人与国家关系的概念。宪法权利体系基本包含两个方面：每个人都享有的各种构建和控制政府的权利与个人基于人之目的性对国家提出诉求的权利。前者表示在一个共同体中的个人与其他所有人的关系,后者表示个人与包括他在内的整个共同体的关系。     

论人格权请求权与侵权损害赔偿请求权的分离

人格权独立成编是我国民法典体例的重大创新,在独立成编的人格权法中是否应当规定人格权请求权,以及如何规定人格权请求权,是我国人格权立法需要解决的重大疑难问题。笔者认为,人格权请求权的独立性是其与侵权损害赔偿请求权分离的基础,人格权请求权的产生与发展是人格权制度重要的发展趋势;人格权请求权与侵权损害赔偿请求权的区别是其二者分离的原因;充分有效保护人格权是人格权请求权与侵权损害赔偿请求权分离的目的。笔者并对民法典草案中有关人格权请求权与侵权损害赔偿请求权分离模式的立法选择作出了探讨。     

Mr Hobbes Goes to Australia: Law,Politics and Difference

Using current conservative discourses about the nation state in Australia as an example,the paper notices how the image of the (male-sexed) body is used to enhance theauthority of the same (white ``neutral' agents of largely foreign capital)against the claims of difference (non-white refugees, women, Aboriginal people).The paper notices that far from protecting minority and difference, as liberalismleads one to expect, the law uses the same body image of itself to repeat theoppression. Legal education inscribes the masculinity of the phallus in thebodies and minds of its students. Other masculinity, the female, the``native' are identified by the law rather than self-identifiedin the law after negotiation with the law.