Telecommunications and Crime: Regulatory Dilemmas

This paper examines the regulatory context of crime arising from the connectivity of computing and communications. Nine varieties of telecommunications‐related crime are considered: theft of services, communications in furtherance of criminal conspiracies, telecommunications piracy, the dissemination of offensive materials, electronic money laundering, electronic vandalism, telemarketing fraud, illegal interception, and electronic funds transfer fraud. The paper concludes that the most appropriate configuration of regulatory strategies for the control of telecommunications‐related crime entails a mixture of law enforcement, and technological and market‐based solutions. The pursuit of a strict regulatory agenda is, in most cases, not feasible because of the limited capacity of the state. Over‐regulation, moreover, may stifle commercial and technological development. It is argued that the marketplace may be able to provide more efficient solutions to the problems of telecommunications crime than state interventions.     

The DC Court of Appeals resurrects Redskins dispute

Seven American Indians petitioned to cancel trade mark registrationsfor various REDSKINS trade marks; the district court's grantof summary judgment against them for laches (unreasonable delay)was remanded by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit fora rehearing in respect of one of the petitioners on the basisthat the district court ‘started the laches clock’in 1967, when he was only 1 year old, thus contravening theequitable principle that laches runs only from the time a partyhas reached the age of majority.     

Measuring the Economic Impact of University-Based Research

University research has propelled the United States into world-class leadership, but continuing that momentum in the 21st century requires major funding. Both the public and private sector have risen to meet that financial challenge through increased support of university-based research. Since 1995, New York Governor George E. Pataki and the New York Legislature have fostered the growth of high technology and biotechnology industries by investing more than $1 billion in superlative research laboratories and academic centers. However, with this increased outlay comes the demand for greater accountability. Both public and private stakeholders expect applied research to have economic impact through a unique combination of good science plus good business producing wealth and opportunity for all citizens. However, measuring the economic impact of university research proves difficult. This paper suggests a possible method for a public funding agency to quantify and tabulate research outputs such that economic impacts are reported as a percent return on investment or ROI. With this model, multiple stakeholders can evaluate divergent research technologies using a measurement that is familiar to scientists, business leaders, elected officials, and the public.