LRTW

[LRTW] 9-20 Thesis Construction

Homework

  • Read the opinion of the court in United States v. Grinnell Corp. (your antitrust law assignment), and write a 1-paragraph summary, in Chinese, of the facts (no more than 10 lines).
  • Write another summary of the court’s opinion in Part I (again, 1-paragraph, in Chinese, 10 lines or less).
  • Submit your summaries to the mailing list by the end of Sun. (9/17).
  • Prepare a 3-5 min. short talk, in English, commenting on the court’s opinion. (Feel free to take cues from the dissenting opinions.)
Advertisements
LRTW

[LRTW] 10/5 Major Resources for Legal Research

Exercises:

  • United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 86 S. Ct. 1698 (1966).
  • Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS (2007).
  • United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
  • Polygram Holding v. FTC, 416 F.3d 29 (D.C. Cir., 2005).
  • 148 F.2d 416.
  • 148 F.2d at 421.
  • Charles Reich, The New Property (1964).
  • Coase, The Problem of Social Cost (1961).
  • Christine Jolls, Cass R. Sunstein & Richard Thaler, A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics, 50 Stan. L. Rev. 1471 (1998).
  • Articles by Justice Sotomayor.
  • Articles citing Warren & Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890).
  • Articles citing Ely’s “Democracy and Distrust.”
  • Most recent article by Bill Simon of Columbia Law.
  • Articles published by Columbia Law School in the last 30 days.
  • 有關同性婚姻與多元家庭的文章。
  • 有關廢除死刑的文章。

Homework:

  • 研讀大法官釋字 689號解釋,並整理解釋理由與一個(部分)不同意見書之論點大綱.
LRTW

[LRTW] 9-21 Thesis Construction

Homework

  • Read the opinion of the court in United States v. Grinnell Corp. (your antitrust law assignment), and write a 1-paragraph summary, in Chinese, of the facts (no more than 10 lines).
  • Write another summary of the court’s opinion in Part I (again, 1-paragraph, in Chinese, 10 lines or less).
  • Submit your summaries to the mailing list by the end of Mon. (9/19).
  • Prepare a 3-5 min. short talk, in English, commenting on the court’s opinion. (Feel free to take cues from the dissenting opinions.)
Comm. Law, cyberlaw, media law

[commlaw] 5/31 Privacy vs. Commercial Interests

Required Reading:

  • Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, ch.11 (If you haven’t finished it yet.)
  • Lothar Determann, Social Media Privacy: A Dozen Myths and Facts, 2012 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 7. (If you didn’t read it last week.)
  • If you have finished both of them, read something below.

Important Cases:

  • Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (decided May 16, 2016).
  • In re DoubleClick Inc. Privacy Litigation, 154 F.Supp.2d 497 (S.D.N.Y., 2001).

Additional Reading:

Homework:

  • What is “big data”? If “big data” collects only anonymous data, does it still pose any threat to our privacy? (敏瑄)
Comm. Law, cyberlaw, media law

[commlaw] 5/24 Privacy vs. Free Speech

Required Reading:

  • Andrew R.W. Hughes, Does the United States Have an Answer to the European Right to Be Forgotten?, 7 No. 1 Landslide 18 (2014).
  • Lothar Determann, Social Media Privacy: A Dozen Myths and Facts, 2012 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 7.

Important Cases:

Additional Reading:

  • Spiros Tassis & Margarita Peristeraki, The Extraterritorial Scope of the “Right to Be Forgotten” and How This Affects Obligations of Search Engine Operators Located Outside the EU, 2 Eur. Networks L. & Reg. Q. 244 (2014).
  • Meg Leta Ambrose, A Digital Dark Age and the Right to Be Forgotten, 17 No. 3 J. Internet L. 1 (2013).
  • James Q. Whitman, The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty, 113 YALE L.J. 1151 (2004).
  • Rodney A. Smolla, Privacy and the First Amendment Right to Gather News, 67 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1097 (1999).
  • Erwin Chemerinsky, Balancing the Rights of Privacy and the Press: A Reply to Professor Smolla, 67 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1152 (1999).
  • Guardian, Right to be Forgotten (a good portal, with news updates and commentaries).
  • Will Oremus, Why Is This Obscure New York Times Story Banned From Google Results in Europe?, Slate, (Oct. 6 2014).
  • Mark Scott, Google Alerts British News Outlets About Deleting Their Links, N.Y. Times (July 3, 2014).

Homework:

  1. Please brief us on the EU Court of Justice case “Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González.” (翊軒)
Comm. Law, cyberlaw

[commlaw] 5/17 Privacy vs. Law Enforcement / Anti-Terrorism

Required Reading:

  • Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, ch.11 (excellent overview on both surveillance and data aggregation issues).

Important Cases:

  • U.S. v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2015).
  • Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 999 (2014).
  • Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S.Ct. 1138 (2013).
  • Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
  • Obama v. Klayman, 800 F.3d 559 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
  • In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d 717 (Foreign Int. Surv. Ct. Rev. 2002).

Additional Reading:

Homework:

  1. What is ECHELON? Do you think there is any legitimate justification for our government to deploy something of the same nature domestically? If so, what legal safeguard should be in place to protect our privacy? (欣茹)
  2. Please comment on the recent tug of war between Apple and FBI over iPhone cracking. (麗謹)
Comm. Law, cyberlaw

[commlaw] 5/10 The Backbone of Network Economy

Required Reading:

  • Lawrence Lessig, The Internet Under Siege, Foreign Policy, Nov.-Dec. 2001, at 56. (In case you didn’t read it for the 3/22 class. If you did, read the cases or some of the additional material below.)

Important Cases:

  • Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir., 2014).
  • Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir., 2010).

Additional Reading:

Homework:

  1. What do e-publishing, e-banking and Industry 4.0 have in common, and how do they differ? Where do Taiwan’s chances lie? (翊軒)
  2. What is Internet peering and transit? Does the arrangements of peering and transit have any bearing on network economy? (敏瑄)