美国联邦最高法院对Harper ＆ Row出版股份公司等诉Nation企业等侵犯版权案的判决

著作权(或版权)是指作者对其创作的文学、艺术和科学作品依法所享有的权利。关于著作权法或版权法为何要保护作者的这一权利的问题,学理上有不同的观点,其中以“激励说”最为引人注目。就目前世界各国著作权法的具体规定来看,“激励说”占有着相当重要的地位。依据这一学说,国家制定著作权法(或版权法)赋予作者对其独创作品在一定期限内享有垄断性或排他性的权利,其宗旨是促进本国的科技和文化事业的发展。也就是说,国家以法律保护作为手段,以期达到发展和繁荣本国文化事业之目的。因此,如何平衡作者的利益与社会的利益之间的矛盾,也就成了著作权法所无法回避的问题。毫无疑问,作者在创作过程中经过了艰苦的思维,付出了辛勤的汗水,甚至投入了大量的资金,如果其所创作的作品得不到法律的有效保护,则作者的创造性劳动就难以得到回报,作者也就缺乏创作动力。由此看来,对作品加以保护是必要的。然而,作者的所谓“独创”是在前人留下的基础上进行的,那种不依赖前人所积累的知识而进行的抽象的创作是不存在的,也是不可能的。所以,为了社会的利益,为了鼓励更多的作品的创作,并降低创作成本,从而有利于知识的学习和传播,各国著作权法在对作者的著作权施加时间上的限制的同时又规定了对作品的合理使用。     

Morgentaler v. The Queen in the Supreme Court of Canada.

In Morgentaler v. R., the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion provisions in the Criminal Code. In a five to two split, a majority of the Supreme Court judges found that section 251 offended a pregnant woman's constitutionally protected right not to be deprived of her "life, liberty, and security of the person." Sheilah Martin reviews the three majority judgments and focuses on the decision written by Madame Justice Wilson. She believes that Madame Justice Wilson's opinion merits special attention in several regards: her conclusions on the constitutional rights of pregnant women; her recognition and validation of women's perspectives on abortion; and her approach to balancing women's interests in reproductive self-determination against the state's interest in regulating reproduction. Sheilah Martin concludes that this decision will reverberate far into the future. Even though it fails to establish clear guidelines concerning governmental power to control access to abortion, its principles outline the legal framework in which future litigation will occur, and it will limit and shape the terms of any ensuing political debate. In addition, Madame Justice Wilson's judgment holds great promise for those looking to the Court to promote the rights of women and other historically disadvantaged groups.     

Preston v. Meriter Hospital in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin

When a baby is born in a hospital birthing center, the newborn has come to the "emergency department" for purposes of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Thus, the hospital must provide "an appropriate medical screening examination" to any infant born at the hospital birthing center in order to determine whether the infant has an emergency medical condition.     

Willis v. Wu. In the Supreme Court of South Carolina

South Carolina does not recognize a common law cause of action for life brought by or on behalf of a child born with congenital defect because it is impossible to prove that being terminated by elective abortion, and thus never being born, is better than being born and living a life with disabilities.     

Abela and Others v Baadarani: The Politics Within the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court deals with many political cases, where policies are at stake, while on the other hand there is the politics within the Court which can also play an important role. It is difficult to judge the current system without sound empirical and theoretical studies, so one cannot confidently assess the effectiveness of the paper appeals in the American System in the light of the long history of the UK system, of different career paths of advocates in these two countries and of different routes of appointment for judges in both jurisdictions. Nevertheless, any interviews that were conducted with senior judges in the UK were conducted a long time ago and might not be applicable to the current realities. It is true that the British system is open to moderation—the elimination of the House of Lords and its replacement with the Supreme Court is the best example—but maybe more changes are needed. It is paramount that greater diversity in the profession brings fresh perspectives. This is evident in electing practitioners with different career paths, such as Justice Kennedy and Lord Sumption. The president of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, even suggested advertising the next position in the Supreme Court to be on a part time basis, to enable the election of an academic. As stated in the introduction, since Abela and others v Baadarani is a case with important principles at stake, is there a space for political disagreement?     

The US Supreme Court Affirms the Filartiga Paradigm

In 2004, for the first time in history, the United States SupremeCourt addressed the meaning and scope of the Alien Tort Statute(ATS) of 1789. Originally intended to provide redress for actsof piracy or offences against ambassadors, the Statute has beenused since the 1980 watershed case of Filartiga v. Peña-Iralato award damages in civil trials in the United States to foreignvictims of, inter alia, torture, summary execution and forceddisappearance. Opponents have claimed, among other things, thatuse of the ATS shows disregard for principles of internationalcomity; is inconsistent with principles governing the use ofuniversal jurisdiction; and results in an imperialist Americanprivatization of human rights. The author argues that the SupremeCourt's decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain limits the ATS toa tool of complementary justice consistent with prevailing principlesof global accountability.     

LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories: The Supreme Court listens, but declines to speak.

In the United States, a longstanding legal rule exists against patenting natural phenomena. The Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to help define the boundaries and clarify the implications of this "natural phenomenon doctrine" in Laboratory Corporation of America v. Metabolite Labs., dismissed as improvidently granted. This article argues that the natural phenomenon doctrine renders both the patent claim at issue in LabCorp, and the patents that directly or indirectly claim biological correlations between genotypes and medical phenotypes, invalid or unenforceable under U.S. patent law.     

Knight v. Beverly Health Care Center: in the Supreme Court of Alabama

HELD: Before tube feeding may be withdrawn from a person who is unconscious, pursuant to the directives of a living will, there must be a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the patient is in a "persistent vegetative state" as defined in her living will, or in a "permanent unconscious state" as defined by state statute.     

论美国联邦最高法院宪法解释的创造性

美国联邦最高法院的宪法解释具有创造性,其主要表现在司法审查权、三重审查标准、选择性吸收理论、推翻先例和创造新的公民权利等五个方面。原旨主义和非原旨主义都会达至具有创造性的宪法解释,原旨主义具有天然的民主合法性,有时美国联邦最高法院会以原旨主义来掩饰它们具有创造性的宪法解释。宪法解释的创造性是一把双刃剑,有积极性的一面也有消极性的一面。美国联邦最高法院的宪法解释曾经也将永远具有创造性,只有如此它才能为宪法提供与时俱进的新意义。     

State Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Protection of Civil Liberties

Advocates of federalism, both in the United States and elsewhere, often cite the potential for enhanced protection of individual civil liberties as an emerging rationale for a federal system dividing governmental responsibilities between central and regional governments and central and regional judiciaries. Echoing this, some judicial officials and scholars, confronting an increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court, have called for state supreme courts to use the state constitutional grounds to preserve and increase the protections of the Bill of Rights. Using event count analysis, we examine state search-and-seizure cases for 1981 to 1993 to ascertain under what circumstances state courts would use this opportunity to eliminate Supreme Court review. We find that the relative ideological position of the state supreme courts and the U.S. Supreme Court often prevents, or does away with the need for, liberal courts to use the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine to expand the rights of criminal defendants and that state supreme court justices react more predictably in the assertion of constitutional protection law than the general consensus suggests.     

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.: Supreme Court Expands Rights of Regulated Parties to Challenge Agency Decisions

This article analyzes the potential impacts of the Supreme Court's recent decision in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Prior to this decision, federal agency action that merely provided information could not be challenged because of the Administrative Procedure Act allowed parties to challenge only “final agency action.” The Court recognized that some actions that merely provide information can be final because they have legal consequences. To understand the extent to which the Hawkes decision expands the right to challenge agency action, the article compares the Hawkes decision with the Court's decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, where the Court also discussed the issue of “final agency action.” The article concludes that the Court's reasoning regarding what type of consequences make an action “final” is the key to understanding what regulatory action can now be challenged.