Vol. 8 Issue 2
|
Written by Jennifer E. Smith
|
|
Friday, 06 July 2007 |
|
Jennifer E. Smith
RFID technology is a highly effective means of tracking products and people, and it is ready to be employed on a massive scale. Without regulation, RFID will be used to track both products and people. There is currently no government oversight of the use of RFID. Instead, the Federal Trade Commission allows companies that use RFID to self-regulate. Increasingly, RFID-tagged products are entering the stream of commerce without any notice to alert consumers to their presence. Moreover, with the development of miniscule tags, detection may become impossible unless labeling is mandated. In the absence of legislation, consumers may yet find recourse via federal or state unfair and deceptive trade practices law.
Cite as 8 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 249 (2007) |
Download PDF |
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 10 July 2007 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Matthew R. Kain
|
|
Friday, 06 July 2007 |
|
Matthew R. Kain
On December 28, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released Animal Cloning: A Draft Risk Assessment (“DRA”) which concludes, based on available scientific data, that cloned beef is not biologically different from non-cloned meats currently on the market. This Comment explores the FDA's authority and jurisdiction to regulate cloned foods. First, this Comment provides background information regarding the cloning process; the FDA's jurisdiction; the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Then, this Comment discusses how domestic and international labeling requirements for genetically modified foods might apply to cloned beef. Finally, after examining the DRA and accompanying documents, this Comment attempts to justify the FDA's lack of authority to impose mandatory labeling requirements on cloned beef.
Cite as 8 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 303 (2007) |
Download PDF |
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 10 July 2007 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by David Hricik
|
|
Friday, 06 July 2007 |
|
David Hricik
Embedded data is information, including metadata, that accompanies many common word processing files, but which is ordinarily not seen on the screen. Unless a lawyer removes embedded data from a file before sending the file to opposing counsel, the embedded data accompanying the file could reveal confidential or privileged information. The authorities disagree on whether the transmission of embedded data is either “inadvertent” or “dishonest” in terms of the disciplinary rules. This Article contends that transmission of embedded data should be at least presumptively inadvertent and that it is dishonest for a lawyer to actively look for embedded data.
Cite as 8 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 231 (2007) |
Download PDF |
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 10 July 2007 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Isabel Arana DuPree
|
|
Friday, 06 July 2007 |
|
Isabel Arana DuPree
The question of whether Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act does or should apply to websites has been an issue of public interest since the advent of the Internet. In National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, the Ninth Circuit was the first to find that Title III did apply to a website. Although Target was based on a specific set of facts, the decision highlights the need for Congress to amend the Act to address websites. This Recent Development explains why it is appropriate for Congress to take action now and examines several possible approaches Congress could take in amending the Act to address its application to websites.
Cite as 8 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 273 (2007) |
Download PDF |
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 10 July 2007 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Stephen A. Brown
|
|
Friday, 06 July 2007 |
|
Stephen A. Brown
Illegal immigrants pose a serious financial risk for employers. Present federal law requires employers to make a “reasonable” determination regarding the validity of prospective employees' documentation without overreaching and subjecting the employee to hiring discrimination. Failure to correctly make the determination or overreaching when doing so could result in criminal and civil penalties for the employer. The policy's inherent difficulties have permitted some industries to become dependent on comparatively cheaper, illegal labor. Private enforcement actions and electronic verification are two proposed methods to help solve the problem. This Comment will compare these two methods and argue that electronic verification provides a more comprehensive and beneficial solution for employers while private enforcement perpetuates many negative aspects of current policy.
“We'll enforce our immigration laws at the worksite and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers, so there's no excuse left for violating the law.”
-President George W. Bush
Cite as 8 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 349 (2007) |
Download PDF
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 10 July 2007 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Deborah R. Gerhardt
|
|
Friday, 06 July 2007 |
The 2006 Trademark Dilution Revision Act Rolls Out a Luxury Claim and a Parody Exemption
Deborah R. Gerhardt*In 2006, Congress changed federal trademark dilution law when it enacted the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (“TDRA”). This Article first outlines the history of the dilution doctrine in the United States so that the changes enacted through the TDRA may be understood contextually. The TDRA's new provisions are then delineated and explained. The author argues that the TDRA narrows the scope of federal dilution protection. Although the TDRA lowered the burden of proof to a “likelihood of dilution” standard, the Act's new definition of fame creates a high bar that will exclude many marks from qualifying for federal dilution protection. Finally, through a case study, the Article illustrates how the TDRA's parody exemption will work as a defense against dilution by blurring and dilution by tarnishment claims.
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 05 November 2007 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
