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 BENEFITS AND RISKS OF CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATORS MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COURT:

In their article, Tippins and Wittmann articulate a strong position against custody evaluators making specific custody recommendations to the court. This response will focus on my thoughts about their concepts and my belief that recommendations can be useful and appropriate some of the time, even though there may be significant problems with certain types of recommendations and problems with some evaluators.     

THE BOOKSHELF

Books reviewed in this article:
G. Andrew Benjamin and Jackie Gollan, Family Evaluation in Custody Litigation: Reducing Risks of Ethical Infractions and Malpractice .     

Liberal Equality, Exploitation, and the Case for an Unconditional Basic Income

This paper considers whether arguments presented in Philippe Van Parijs' Real Freedom for All: What (if Anything) Can Justify Capitalism? succeed in rebutting the objection that the introduction of a substantial unconditional basic income (UBI) would allow non-working citizens to free-ride on the efforts of, and so exploit, working citizens. It considers Van Parjis' 'external assets argument' for UBI, and finds that this argument does not succeed in reconciling payment of a substantial UBI with the reciprocity principle which underpins this 'exploitation objection'. It considers and rejects Van Parijs' implicit claim that the exploitation objection must be grounded in a distributive principle which contradicts the egalitarian commitment to prevent brute luck inequality. It concludes that Van Parjis has failed, thus far, to articulate a convincing response to the exploitation objection.