The Trilateral cooperation

Legal context: The relatively informal agreements setting up the TrilateralCooperation (TC) among the world's three most important patentoffices are contrasted with formal multinational treaties suchas the Patent Law Treaty and the abortive Substantive PatentLaw Treaty. Key points: After its inception in 1983, the TC concentrated initially ondeveloping and implementing standards for electronic storageand retrieval of prior art documents, and facilitation of searching.This was later extended to electronic sharing of priority documentsand to standardization and searching of DNA sequence databases.More recently emphasis has been placed on harmonization of searchingand examination procedures, and working groups have comparedthe approaches of the Trilateral Offices (TOs) to the patentabilityof claims in areas of new technology. Encouragingly, the resultsare usually the same, although the specific objections raisedmay differ. The ultimate goal is to reach a situation in whicha claim allowed by one TO would be accepted by the others withoutfurther examination. Practical significance: The TC has already facilitated search and examination, leadingto lower costs and shorter pendency times than would otherwisebe the case. Further progress depends on harmonization of substantivepatent law, which in turn depends on the willingness of theUSA to accept a first-to-file system.     

The ECJ eases the way for comparative advertisers

The ECJ reiterates its support for the comparative advertiserby indicating that common sense is needed to comply with theMisleading Advertising and Comparative Advertising Directive(Directive 97/55).     

Failed States After 9/11: What Did We Know and What Have We Learned?

This paper addresses the relationship between accumulated knowledge and U.S. policy dealing with failed states and terrorism. The central thesis is threefold: (1) that more was known about the possible linkages between failing states and terrorism than appears in pre-9/11 U.S. policies; (2) that since 9/11 some important realignment of knowledge and practice has occurred, but it remains partial and incomplete; and (3) that new knowledge, especially about the policies to sustain and promote legitimate governance, needs to be generated in order to support an effective grand strategy for addressing the threats and challenges of the twenty-first century. The paper recommends such a grand strategy and, in addition to the required new knowledge, a significant reorganization of the U.S. national security policy-making apparatus. International studies curricula appear well suited for contributing to that new knowledge and the practitioners we require.     

Bingo! Cheating and legally suspect practices in one of North Carolina’s only forms of legalized gambling

Bingo is one of two legalized forms of gambling in the state of North Carolina. This paper is largely a product of information gleaned from an undercover police operation conducted by a special state task force constructed by the State Attorney General in 1983. The investigation concerned violation of state law designed to regulate bingo activity. This report provides the reader with the development of state law associated with bingo operations, and concentrates on the illegitimate methods used by professional operators to cheat bingo patrons. Legislation designed to crack-down on bingo abuse is discussed as well Gambling is one of the most controversial social activities yet one of the least studied forms of social behavior (King, 1985). Bingo is a specific form of legalized gambling which has received very little attention by social scientists. There have been, however, a few studies which address the characteristics and motivations of bingo players. For example, it has been suggested that bingo is primarily a female activity (Dixie, 1987). However, it has been found that motivations among male and female players differ. Females are motivated more by social contact with other players, whereas men are motivated more by a need for economic advancement (King, 1985). Although some studies exist on the characteristics of bingo players, there is a dearth of research on the operators of bingo games, particularly those operators who ply their trade in a legally suspect fashion. This paper focuses upon the legally suspect mechanisms utilized by some professionals who run bingo gambling operations. The controversy over gambling often extends to state legislatures where lawmakers must wrestle with the question of whether or not to allow legalized gambling within their borders. On the one hand, advocates of legalized gambling cite potential advantages such as the creation of employment opportunities, its potential for enhancement of state revenues, the recreational value of such activity for consumers and the general enhancement of tourism within states having legalized gambling. On the other hand, critics of legalized gambling proclaim its evils such as the perceived relationship of gambling to organized crime, the belief that gambling breeds other social ills (e.g. theft or other crimes of economic desperation) and the belief that gambling can become a psychologically addictive disease which can contribute to individual and family impoverishment as well as community disorganization. North Carolina is one state in which the legislature has demonstrated strong resistance to the allowance of legalized gambling operations. Two exceptions exist, however. North Carolina allows two forms of legalized gambling, bingo games and raffles. This paper focuses upon bingo gambling operations. The central thesis of this paper is bingo was originally legalized to provide tax-exempt, charitable organizations a means of revenue enhancement which would help fund their socially worthwhile endeavors. The legislative changes allowing this form of gambling, however, have created opportunities for professional game operators whose major motivation is personal economic enrichment (versus economic enhancement of charitable organizations). The personal economic enrichment motive is offered to account for the various forms of cheating which were observed in a special investigation of a sample of bingo operations. In a review of theoretical explanations of gambling behavior Kim King (1985) suggests an extension of the functional approach which he labels an “Economic/Status” explanation. This explanation stresses the positive functions of gambling for society and the individual. According to the economic/status explanation, the positive functions of gambling (for the individual) include an innovative opportunity for economic enrichment, success, and status (King, 1985). We would like to suggest that such reasons explain why a number of legally suspect bingo operations have emerged in North Carolina. The same reasons appear to explain the use of various schemes by some bingo operators to cheat their patrons. In short, bingo profits appear to be the primary reason for the massive increase in the number of bingo operations. Other theoretical factors are suggested to account for the attraction of patrons to bingo games. According to King (1985), the “functionalist” explanation of the recent popularity of bingo gambling is due to the tension-release afforded to players of bingo; bingo offers an exciting and innovative way to attain economic success. A concurrent Marxian explanation sees bingo gambling as an opiate of the oppressed, providing a false sense of control and success (King, 1985). Other theoretical factors suggested by King include the symbolic interactionist idea that gambling is a way to display one’s self to others in order to gain character (Goffman, 1967) and the idea that gambling for some people is a means of conspicuous consumption (Veblen, 1899). These factors may account for the popularity of bingo operations, however the focus of this paper is not upon an explanation of why bingo has become so popular. This paper will outline some of the legally suspect methods used by unscrupulous bingo game operators. The information for this report is based upon an undercover police investigation of illegal bingo activity in North Carolina. The investigation was to explore the nature of illegal bingo gambling within the state. Bingo gambling has a unique history in North Carolina; its recent legal history will be discussed in this treatise as well as the various legitimate and illegitimate methods of bingo game operators, state law designed to regulate bingo gambling and measures taken by “professional” (versus “charitable”) operators to protect their lucrative but legally suspect trade.     

SPLIT IDENTITY AND CHILDREN OF DIVORCE

Divorce, although a statistical norm, is a developmental trauma to the children involved. This article looks at the two-camp emotional environment of a divorcing family and its effect on the formation of a child's identity. By examining developmental ages, chosen according to divorce research, the author attempts to show how the interspouse emotional cathexes negatively affect a child's sense of self in ways specific to the child's age at the divorce.     

Mass deaths by gas or chemical poisoning. A historical perspective

This review chronicles the characteristics of deliberate and accidental mass poisonings that occurred in World Wars I and II, in Bhopal, and in other historical cases up to and including modern wars. It also considers approaches to the investigation of such cases from the medicolegal as well as general standpoints.     

DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures

The DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics (ISFG) was convened at the 21st congress of the International Society for Forensic Genetics held between 13 and 17 September in the Azores, Portugal. The purpose of the group was to agree on guidelines to encourage best practice that can be universally applied to assist with mixture interpretation. In addition the commission was tasked to provide guidance on low copy number (LCN) reporting. Our discussions have highlighted a significant need for continuing education and research into this area. We have attempted to present a consensus from experts but to be practical we do not claim to have conveyed a clear vision in every respect in this difficult subject. For this reason, we propose to allow a period of time for feedback and reflection by the scientific community. Then the DNA commission will meet again to consider further recommendations.     

The sentencing reform act of 1984: A bold approach to the unwarranted sentencing disparity problem

Conclusion In 1984, after years of study and thorough debate, a bipartisan majority of the Congress enacted perhaps the most far-reaching reform of the federal criminal justice system in the history of the United States. The Sentencing Reform Act and the federal sentencing guidelines are now beginning to produce data indicating that the objectives of avoiding unwarranted disparity and invidious discrimination are being achieved.After an uncertain beginning, the guidelines are gaining acceptance by courts and criminal justice practitioners. As one appellate court observed in admonishing lower courts that the guidelines must be respected:We have embarked on a new course. Only time will tell whether the use of the guidelines will result in an improvement over the old system. But unless we follow the spirit and written directions of the guidelines, we will never know if they have been given a fair test. They at least deserve that.Indeed, the bold new approach to sentencing that is being followed today in federal courthouses throughout the United States deserves an opportunity to succeed, given its many beneficial features and the lofty goals toward which the reforms are directed. While ample work remains for the United States Sentencing Commission to monitor and improve the guidelines, indications at this still early date are that the experiment is succeeding.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the fifth conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, Parliament House, Edinburgh, Scotland, August 5–9, 1990. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Sentencing Commission.B.A., Davidson College 1964; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1967.B.A., Ohio State University 1974; M.S., Arizona State University 1980; M.A., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1983.B.S., Clemson University 1971; M.S., Clemson University 1975; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1978.