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.

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.     

试论生育权

作者对生育权的概念,地位、保护其主体的权利和义务,以及生育权与计划生育的关系等问题做了较深入的探讨,以期引起读者对生育权的重视。     

土地分层地上权的解析——关于《物权法》第136条的理解与适用

我国《物权法》第136条确认了土地分层地上权,将空间利用问题纳入到传统地上权制度中进行调整。但由于土地分层利用极为复杂,且该条款又过于简单,因而,如何理解、适用该条就成为一个亟待解决的问题。在已设立单一的土地使用权情形下,基于土地对空间的吸收,空间利用权利的设立主要是从地上权人处获得,这种权利实为"空间利用权"。在分层使用下,土地和空间既相互依存又相对独立。对于分层土地使用权,有必要基于客体对地上权进行事实上的分解。空间地上权会受到比普通地上权更多的限制。权利人通过出让取得了国有土地使用权,其包含的空间范围不应设定过大,因为土地和空间的纵向分层利用在土地上下狭窄的范围内最有必要。土地使用权的范围确定以后,国家保留了其上下的空间所有权,并可将其出让给其他主体。登记机关在确定该空间范围以后,可予以登记。在《物权法》颁布之前已经取得土地使用权的,如果不便对该土地使用权的上下空间进行限制,则该土地使用权和国家土地使用权的客体是一致的,登记机关应比照国家依出让设定空间地上权的方式,对土地使用权转让空间地上权,办理过户登记。     

续租权与铺底权之比较

本文立足比较研究,对法国法上的续租权进行了一番较为出色的分析,解码了续租权作为“成功规范模式”的若干方面,这一研究也不乏见微知著的意义,为读者洞悉现代商事法上有关权利形成和调试的秘诀提供了一条线索。作者系学界新人,然在方法运思和风格表达上颇见功夫:在方法上,以中国固有法之铺底权为参照,成熟构思了以功能为基点的比较框架,在发见和清理营业资产保护、铺底之维系这些意义的基础上,通过对适用条件和范围、效力、租金的确定等关涉制度关键构成问题的观察和解析,取得了“打通关节”的理喻功效;在风格上,呈现了时下研究中并不多见的细致特点以及能够条分缕析的能力。还值得一提的是,人们关于特定权利妥当化的探究,往往喜欢立于某种超事实的权利证成理论,而这些理论又多以政治哲学为尺寸,所以通常是恢弘而旨大,然实地观照却为不足,故难免务虚之嫌,本文却在某种意义上追随了权利“作为事实形成”的论证路线,在这一研究策略下,权利之妥当首先是一种事实上的可能和必要,即指涉某种实际生活形态的意义之花的结果。