HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:34:36 EST
From: <SIMCOEE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.int-property
Subject:    Patent Application Seminar Materials

I have volunteered to present a one hour seminar on the patent application
process to my patent law class.  To balance the "legal" rhetoric we receive
2 hours per week, I wish to present the "practicalities" of the patent
application process - specifically claims drafting and disclosure require-
ments.
I have a copy of John Landis' book on claims drafting and a canadian
book entitled "How to Patent Your Own Invention In Canada".  Last summer
I help draft a patent - so I have some experience.
My law school's library's holdings are hopelessly out of date on the subject.
I would like to know what sorts of materials are "out there" either in
other patent law classes or in legal practice.  How do your professors
teach the "nuts and bolts" of the patent prosecution process?

Thanks!

Elliott Simcoe
Law '94
Queen's University
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:28:00 CST
From: <U29242@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Lease terms

I would appreciate if anyone could assist me in describing lessor's responsibit
y to effectuate repairs on this apartment I am living in.  Last night, I was wo
ken up by a leak in the ceiling.  I read over the lease, the only part I could
find remotely related to this was liability of lessor to lessee's material poss
esion.  What about getting the landlord in to make the repair?  Does he have an
 obligation as well as a specified amount of time?  I live in Illinois and I am
 not completely sure of the statute on this matter and have no access to one cu
rrently.  The title of lease is Unfurnished No.L-17 June 1988.  I appreciate an
y assistance.    Ray U29242@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:15:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.113050.24209@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>I'm assuming the Justices were rational enough to consider the effects
>>of the ruling.

>Wait a minute--you're saying you want the judges to anticipate the effects
>of their interpretation of the law and use that in the decision, rather
>than simply trying to interpret the law itself and deciding the case
>accordingly?

>That is just the kind of result-oriented judicial activism that people
>like you condemn.

No, I don't think the a judge should uses the results a ruling will
have, as part of the reasoning behind an interpertation. That would
be activism (to base the ruling on a desired result). However, that
doesn't preclude considering the effects of an interpertation 
_after_ arriving at an interpertation. You have been debating a
good example of this receintly: Justice Homes "Clear and Present
Danger" test for freedom of speach. When he first proposed
it, it appeared to adaquately protect free expression of ideas.
After looking at it's effects, however, the Court deceided that
the test was not, in fact, a good interpertation since it didn't
effectively protect the right, and adopted a different test.
Both tests were not "activist" interpertations. They were an
effort to simply interpert the Constitution without basing
the resoning on some desired result. However, a consideration of
the results helped the Court choose one over the other. The 
process is essentially the same as a scientist who develops 
a theory (interpertation) and compares it to experimental
results (the effects of the ruling and the intent of the lawmakers):
If the two match, everything is fine and he can pubish (rule on 
the case); if they don't, he realizes that there is some flaw in
his logic, sits back down, and develops a new theory (interpertation).
The interpertation shouldn't be based on its results, but it's
validity can (and should) be double-checked by considering these
effects. (I.e. no matter how well reasoned, an interpertation of
the First Amendment which allowed the establishment of the 
federally-subsidized "Church of the United States", would be
a poor interpertation.)

                                        Frank Crary
                                        CU Boulder
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Summary: It's legally impermissible for men to abort.
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:46:02 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1993Jan24.011702.8392@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:

>Paul Hudson Jr writes:

>#Is it legally permissable for men to have abortions?  If not, men don't have
>#"equal rights."   [Paul Hudson Jr]

So what?  Who says that people's rights ought to be independent
of their gender?  Did someone pass the "Evil Rights Amendment" 
while I wasn't looking?

>Who would ever write a law forbidding men to have abortions?
>[Greg Hennessy]

I thought it was illegal for a man to use RU-486 to abort the
fetus he has conceived, unless the fetus's mother agrees.  That's
just about the only kind of abortion a man can perform to get
himself out of fatherhood the way a girl can use abortion to 
get herself out of motherhood.  And it's illegal.

What's the moral?  If you're an expectant parent, and you don't
want the child you've conceived to be born -- you should have
been born a girl.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:09:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.122306.19468@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>No, I don't think the a judge should uses the results a ruling will
>>have, as part of the reasoning behind an interpertation. That would
>>be activism (to base the ruling on a desired result). However, that
>>doesn't preclude considering the effects of an interpertation 
>>_after_ arriving at an interpertation. You have been debating a
>>good example of this receintly: Justice Homes "Clear and Present
>>Danger" test for freedom of speach. When he first proposed
>>it, it appeared to adaquately protect free expression of ideas.
>>After looking at it's effects, however, the Court deceided that
>>the test was not, in fact, a good interpertation since it didn't
>>effectively protect the right, and adopted a different test.
>>Both tests were not "activist" interpertations. They were an
>>effort to simply interpert the Constitution without basing
>>the resoning on some desired result. However, a consideration of
>>the results helped the Court choose one over the other.

>This passage contradicts itself.

Not at all: It distinguishes between considering evidence before,
versus after, a reasonable interpertation has been formed. If the
evidence is considered before, then it will influence (or even
control) the interpertation. If it is considered after, then 
the interpertation hasn't been influenced: The logic behind it
is still just as valid and independent of bias as if the consequences
had never been considered. Considering the interpertation's effects
is simply a way of choosing between several equally vaild, unbiased 
interpertations. I hope you understand the difference between
considering evidence a priori and a posteriori (sp?).

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 28 Jan 93 13:50:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1993Jan27.021827.7448@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (K
evin Darcy) writes:

>. . . the biggest problem facing gays today (IMO) is STILL people
>like you with Dark Ages attitudes towards homosexuality. AIDS and its
>effects can be medically treated, and, maybe soon, even vaccinated 
>against.   [Kevin Darcy]

If the predisposition towards homosexuality is indeed a matter of
genetically-based physiological structure or neuroendocrinological
balance, it may well be that the same medical science which has
discovered this matter will be able to find a medical way for those
homosexual people who are sick and tired of coping daily with the
majority's homophobia and who wish to become heterosexual to realize
their wish.  There is discrimination against obese people, even those
who are obese through no fault of their own.  There are also medical
ways for people who want to be thin to become thin, although no one
is forcing any fat man to become thin if he prefers remaining fat.
Someday, homosexual people will be in the same situation as obese
people.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus"
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Still Light On History????
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:34:06 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.191146.29958@doug.cae.wisc.edu> bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh) writes:
>>Many arguments made for pro-choice are utilitarian arguments.  One of
>>the most emotiional is the picture of a woman being mutilated by a doctor
>>performing an illegal abortion.  Abortion should remain legal so it remains
>>safe for all women, say the pro-choice advocates.  However, utilitarian 
>>arguments fail when considering such fundamental rights as the right to
>>life and the right to personal liberty.  Turning this argument around,
>>let's assume that abortion is a fundamental right.  Should the right
>>to choose abortion be usurped if many pro-life activists are injured
>>while chained to abortion doors?
>This is not really a contradiction. The way I would phrase the argument
>is: "Abortion is a fundamental right, but even if you don't believe
>that abortion is a fundamental right, it should be legal for
>the following reasons." It does not follow from believing that
>abortion is not a fundamental right that the fetus has a fundamental
>right to live. It is conceivable that neither is a fundamental right.

>>The problem with utilitiarian arguments is that a fundamental right
>>(be it choice or life) can never be usurped simply to benefit
>>a large section of society.  That concept is at the crux of our
>>Constitution.
>Ratshit. Try reading Supreme Court decisions sometime.
>A Fundamental Right can be removed when the State has a compelling
>interest. Example: Clear and present danger.

>-Ekr

Rat-doodoo.  Try reading Supreme Court decisions sometime (most notably
Webster and Casey).  Abortion is not a fundamental right, it is a
special liberty.  Thank Sandra Day O'Connor for that distinction.
Liberties may be limited for less compelling reasons than fundamental
rights.



>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
>                        Don't believe anything you hear.

Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Subject: Re: Can I make my own cheques?
Reply-To: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: misc
Date: 28 Jan 93 09:10:35 EST


 joe@bulldog.sybase.com (Joseph Weinstein) asks:
 > Can I use cheques I've made myself by photocopying cheques issued
 > from the bank or cheque printing firm?

The cheques will be perfectly legal, but your bank may charge you an
extra service fee for using non-standard cheques. Cheques from a cheque
printer have the codes on the bottom in magnetic ink that can be read by
machine, but photocopied cheques have to be processed manually.

 And even though the cheques would be perfectly legal, your bank (or the
recipient, or the recipient's bank) might refuse to handle them because
they thought someone was forging cheques using a photocopier.

As well, all the photocopied cheques would have the same serial number,
which would make it more difficult for you to reconcile your chequing
account.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 22:39:32 GMT

In article <1jqe2lINN8cf@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>> 	True.  But you won't have to look very hard at all to discover that
>>> citizens have a right to enter a legal place of business without being
>>> assaulted or having their way physically blocked.  
>>
>>This statement could also be used against most people that are out on 
>>*strike* when they are picketing their place of *employment*.
	Only if they're also physically preventing non-union workers or
other individuals from entering the building, in which case they are clearly
violating the rights of other citizens are legally in the wrong.  Surely
this is obvious.  
>
>More interesting is to ask what is the difference between the following:
>
>	1. Blocking streets and buildings to protest abortion.
>
>	2. Blocking streets and buildings to protest a war.
>
>	3. Blocking streets and buildings to protest a veto of a bill.
>
>	4. Blocking streets and buildings to protest a jury verdict that
>	you don't like.
>
	I don't see any difference, since they all (if I'm understanding you
correctly) involve violating the rights of other citizens.  And I'm the one
who made the statement you seem to believe you arguing with.
	You should try to retain attributions whenever possible, by the way.
The_Doge
Xref: sparky misc.legal:23022 talk.politics.misc:68955 alt.president.clinton:1659
From: csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: More of the House Bank "scandal"  (was Pardon stuff...)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 11:13:16 -0500
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu

In article <1993Jan21.000113.3405@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1jic1jINN7uk@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:

>>The written bank policy limits checks to a "line-of-credit" equal to a
>>month's salary. Honoring checks beyond that amount was against written
>>bank policy. So, this hypothetical event is not at all a non sequitor.

>That was written bank policy, but it wasn't bank custom.

Banks with formally written bank policy are not allowed to run on custom.

[...]

>>Not at all. The "line-of-credit" was not yet their salary. It was therefore
>>still taxpayer money, plain and simple, without caps.

>No, IT WAS OTHER CONGRESSPEOPLE'S MONEY.  NOT TAXPAYER'S.  

If I have a bank account with a line-of-credit, the money is not mine. I am
authorized to use it, but it is not mine. Same for the "line-of-credit" in
the house bank. (_Now_ who's caps lock is stuck?)

[...]

>>Again, it was a perk at taxpayer expense with taxpayer money. This is
>>call misappropriation of funds. If they are so careless (or dare I say
>>criminally negligent) in the running of their own 'bank', why does it
>>surprise us that they cannot seem to spend only what they bring in via
>>revenues?

>Because they were neither careless nor criminally negligent.  It is not
>careless or criminally negligent to write a check which you know will be
>covered.

It is, if you get a wink from the bank when you do it!

[...]

>>I am not upset about routine overdraft protection. But those whose overdrafts
>>amounted to ten of thousands, well beyond their "line-of-credit" is plainly 
>>irresponsible.

>No, voting for an budget which contains agricultural subsidies amounting
>to tens of BILLIONS which amount to welfare for the obscenely rich is 
>irresponsible.  

>Overdrafting in the tens of thousands doesn't even compare.

>Worry about the direct things, and not the side issues.

So you admit that congress spends irresponsibly? (Don't make me cite welfare,
medicare/medicaid, and social security fraud examples) The house bank was
symptomatic. And believe me when I tell you that if I were to overdraw my
bank account in the amount of tens of thousands of dollars with a wink from
the bank, both I and the bank would be in *big* *big* *big* trouble.
----
"The main flaw of Creation Theory is that it depends too much on conjecture
and miracles, and the main flaw of Evolution Theory is that it depends too
much on conjecture and miracles."
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: dickw@IASTATE.EDU (Richard Wallingford)
Subject: Re: More of the House Bank "scandal"  (was Pardon stuff...)
Reply-To: dickw@IASTATE.EDU (Richard Wallingford)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:51:58 GMT

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>Craig, can you cite one posting by David Marc Nieporent in which he
>_denied_ that the congress spends irresponsibly?  If not, you're looking
>an awful lot like a desperate and/or incompetent attorney who tries to
>make the other side's expert witness look bad on the stand by asking him
>something like: "So, Doctor, you ADMIT that you've been practicing
>medicine for over twenty years and have examined literally HUNDREDS of
>people with knee injuries similar to the one my client has, isn't that
>right?  And you further ADMIT that you are on the teaching staff at
>Harvard Medical School and regularly lecture and instruct on the topic
>of knee injuries, don't you?  Don't try to deny it, Doctor -- it's all
>there in the record!"

Ok, I knew he said it somewhere, so I decided to look it up.

In article <1993Jan16.053243.29097@Princeton.EDU>,
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
...
>>They [congress] managed money fine.
...

I immediately recognized your newbee law-student tactics of bluffing
in order to win by default on an unaccepted challenge.

If you weren't just a lawyer wannabe I'd say *you* were the incompetent
attorney here. But then again, third-year law students are supposed
to be a little smarter than to issue a challenge to look something
up in a readily available public forum.  So, maybe you really are 
incompetent.   

>Free advice from a third-year law student, Craig: don't ever try to
>become a prosecutor.  At least, not unless I get to be the defense
>attorney.

Remind me never to hire Mr. Starr as counsel. (Then again, his state
Bar Association may take care of that for me) 

--
Dick Wallingford
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Please Do
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 05:44:17 GMT

bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh) writes:
] 
] You like this consistency argument, don't you?  Well, I've thought
] about the consistency of the pro-choice side.  I could show, for
] example, that the concept of abortion being a "fundamental" right
] is inconsistent with the utilitarian slogans and the coat hanger
] insignias used by the movement.  But this discussion is not about
] abortion, but about pro-choice groups interrupting Catholic masses.

p1: please do show this 'dichotomy' that presents
the 'consistency problem' of the prochoice movement.

p2: having thus done this, you might find a leg to
stand on in defending the meeting Place of a Group
Committed to being AntiAbortion, and thus the direct
Ally of OpResKrew. { Or is the Roman Catholic Church
Disassociating itself from those Priest and Nuns who
engage in Blockading, and violating the liberty of
others.... }

p3: and for free, how about resolving whether or not
we should allow Roman Catholics into Sensitive Military
Positions, Especially Given the minor Matter of the
Popes Opposition to Desert Storm... and hence the
Compromised Position of National Security that those
Active Roman Catholics in Sensitive Position.....


ciao
drieux

ps: who Was it who said:

	"If You can't stand the heat..."


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Making law (was: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:49:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.024152.29134@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.201107.16448@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>That isn't much of a definition, but you
>have to agree that even so vauge a phrase is, to some extent, 
>constrained.

Of course I agree it's constrained.  Where we differ is whether judges
are acting within those constraints.

>>>...That is, I'm objecting
>>>to "interpertations" which alter, as opposed to adding detail and
>>>specificity to, laws.
>
>>I don't think anyone here would disagree with that basic assertion.
>>You seem to be using it to implicate decisions and philosophies that
>>aren't really implicated by it.
>
>Currently, the commerce clause of Article One, Section Eight
>(perhaps the worst victim of modern interpertations), is 
>"interperted" to allow the federal government to regulate anything,
>in any way, so long as there is even the most infinitesimal 
>connection to interstate commerce (to the extent that _everything_
>falls into this catagory.) I can safely say this goes _far_
>beyond "adding detail and specificity to law."

So how do you interpret the commerce clause?  The test that's in place
now is because existing tests did not work and were completely dysfunctional,
giving far too much discretion to judges.  After all, how does one distinguish
between indirect and direct effects on interstate commerce?  Regulation
on "proper" versus "improper" grounds?  Can you point to a specific 
Commerce Clause decision that comes out "wrong" under the Constitution?

It may be your interpretation of the Commerce Clause is plausible.
I argue that the same is true of the Supreme Court's decisions.  
 
>>The problem here is your expansive definition of the word "alter."
>>Anything that adds detail and specificity to laws will alter those
>>laws, if you have a broad enough definition of the word "alter".
>
>"Alter" is, perhaps, a poor choice of words. However, I don't 
>think the specific word is important: There is some distinction 
>between filling in grey areas, and changing aspects of a law
>which had previously been black and white.

You're seeing "black and white" where it isn't there.  What's
the line to draw for the commerce clause?  
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637