Some reflections on the duality of regime for software protection in the European Union

Although the framework for protection of computer programs has been established in the European Union more than two decades ago, it has not undergone any major changes. Opinions of Advocate General Yves Bot have convinced the Court to advance the concept of the plurality of copyright regimes applicable to software: source code, object code and documentation would be protected under the Software Directive, whereas interfaces, programming languages, data formats and software manuals are dealt with as literary works under the InfoSoc Directive. In SAS Institute v WPL, the Court also ruled that copyright in a computer program cannot be infringed where the lawful acquirer of the license neither decompiled the object code nor copied the source code of the computer program, but merely studied, observed and tested that program in order to reproduce its functionality in a second program. This ruling paves the way and acknowledges the reverse engineering efforts on the Old Continent.     

全球化时代下国家转型的多样性：对新加坡经验的再反思

从全球化的推动性效应出发,先行研究强调,随着经济开放性的日益提高,“治理型相互依赖”是各国政企关系的发展趋势。正是这种特殊的关系,增强了国家面对全球化挑战的转型能力。新加坡常被认为是证实此假说的典型案例。然而,通过对新加坡政治经济的深入挖掘,本文认为,新加坡并不存在这种“治理型相互依赖”的政企关系。主要原因有三：（1）国家长期对外部威胁的感知;（2）政府与企业利益缺乏统一性;（3）私有企业长期性弱小。通过对新加坡案例的再反思,本文进一步指出,在全球化时代下,各国的转型能力与转型路径并非是“趋同”的。而这种差异性往往取决于国内工业结构与政府角色的特征。     

Needs Assessment and Services for Drug-Abusing Women Offenders

The debate over the abortion law resurfaced in Italy in 1988 after seven years of silence. Unlike the debate in 1981, in 1988 the feminist front was more diversified and abortion was discussed in ethical terms rather than in social and political terms. This paper describes and discusses the current debate on abortion by making reference mainly to the feminists' positions.     

法律冲安时的适用标准——以刘家海诉交警部门案为例

法律毕竞是人为制定的规则,法律之间的冲突从某种意义上是不可避免的.司法,作为规则之治的终结者,自然需要对冲突的法律进行选择适用.尽管立法法已经出台,但现实的司法判决表明,法律冲突时的适用标准依然存在问题.刘家海诉交警部门案就是一例.通过将该案的争论焦点渐次展开可以发现,立法法中貌似明确的适用标准起码可以进行三个方面的补充:一是原则考量的引入,二是"立法权"替代"立法机关"进行解释,三是社会效果考量的必要.     

Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital – Parliamentary Intention and Damages Caused by Maladministration of a Contractual Dismissal Procedure

In Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKSC 58 [2012] 2 W.L.R. 55 the Supreme Court addressed the following question: is an employee, who can establish that (a) if a contractual disciplinary process had been correctly administered he would have been exonerated, and (b) thereafter employed until retirement, able to sue for loss of the earnings that he would have acquired until retirement? Three members of the Supreme Court held that such a remedy was not reconcilable with the enactment, originally in the Industrial Relations Act 1971, of a statutory unfair dismissals protection regime. It was Parliament's intention that an employee should not be able to outmanoeuvre the statute's compensation limitation rules by deploying a superior common law remedy. This note considers that reading of Parliament's intention.     

Copiepresse SCRL & alii v. Google Inc. – In its decision of 5 May 2011, the Brussels Court of Appeal confirms the prohibitory injunction order banning Google News and Google’s “in cache” function

In 2003, Google made available in Belgium its online free service “Google News”, which consisted in offering Internet users a computer-generated press review. In his orders of 5 September 2006 (previously commented in [2007] 23 CLSR 82–85) and of 13 February 2007 (previously commented in [2007] 23 CLSR 290–293) the President of the High Court of Brussels found that, by offering this service, Google infringed the copyrights of Belgian press editors and authors. On 5 May 2011, the Brussels Court of Appeal upheld to a very large extent the first instance decision. The Court confirmed that Google’s “cache” function and its “Google News” service were infringing the claimants’ copyrights and that Google could not rely on any copyright limitation (such as the exceptions for quotation or for report on news events), legislation or fundamental right.     

Adolescent Refusal of MMR Inoculation: F (Mother) v F (Father)

F (Mother) v F (Father) concerned a dispute between parents as to whether or not their 15 and 11 year old children should receive the MMR inoculation. Mrs Justice Theis took into consideration the wishes of both parents and the two ‘intelligent, articulate and thoughtful’ minors and held that inoculation was in their best interests. The troubled history of the MMR vaccine and its importance to public health provided the backdrop. Whilst the court's efforts to establish the views of the minors are to be commended, the decision is problematic in its assessment of the minors' individual medical interests and capacities, and in the significance placed on their views when determining whether inoculation would be in their best interests.     

Confronting Religion: Veiled Witnesses,the Right to a Fair Trial and the Supreme Court of Canada's Judgment in R v N.S.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R v N.S. is significant because the majority seems to endorse an understanding of confrontation that assumes a defendant's right to a fair trial is imperilled by a witness who seeks to give evidence while wearing the niqab. The case is of interest because it permits reflection upon the interrelationship between the right to a fair trial and the right to confront witnesses enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Given that the European Court of Human Rights conceptualises confrontation in epistemic terms, it is argued that it would be unlikely to find that a conviction based upon evidence from a niqab‐wearing witness would infringe the right to a fair trial. This note examines the value of demeanour evidence and whether the majority in R v N.S. was correct that the abrogation of the ability to assess demeanour evidence necessarily undermines trial fairness.     

The Role of Mitigating Factors in Capital Sentencing Before and After McKoy v. North Carolina

In 1990, the United States Supreme Court ruled that capital jurors do not have to be unanimous in deciding whether or not to accept any particular mitigating circumstance presented to them by the defense during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial. This study examines whether this shift in procedure may have altered the role of mitigation in predicting capital sentencing outcomes by comparing death sentencing predictors before and after the McKoy decision with data from an extensive sample of capital cases in North Carolina tried between 1977 and 2002. The results indicate that (1) both the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances accepted by capital jurors had statistically significant and substantial effects on capital sentencing outcomes both before and after the McKoy decision; (2) the number of mitigating circumstances presented to and accepted by capital juries in North Carolina doubled during the post‐McKoy period; and (3) the influence of mitigating circumstance on capital sentencing outcomes was attenuated in the post‐McKoy period. Implications of these findings are discussed.