Musalo on the History of Gender Asylum in the U.S.

Karen Musalo has published an article called, "A Short History of Gender Asylum in the U.S.: Resistance and Ambivalence May Very Slowly Be Inching Towards Recognition of Women's Claims," in a special issue of the Refugee Survey Quarterly on Gender Equality and Refugee Women.

Here is the abstract:

This article provides an overview and analysis of protection for gender-related claims to refugee status, with a focus on the United States. It defines the term “ gender-related” and explains the historical interpretive barriers to such claims. The article examines the earliest United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees pronouncements on the issue – beginning with Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme Conclusion No. 39 in 1985, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ first Guidelines on the Protection of Refugee Women in 1991, and continues through its Social Group and Gender Guidelines, issued in 2002. Within this context (and the context of other developments – such as the 1993 issuance of Canadian Guidelines), the article discusses developments in the United States, beginning with the release of “Gender Considerations” in 1995. It reviews the subsequent development of the United States jurisprudence, from Matter of Kasinga in 1996, to the recent resolution of Matter of R-A- (the case of Rody Alvarado) in 2009. It explains the current position of the Obama Administration, as set forth in a brief in the case of L.R. Through the discussion of this jurisprudence, the article highlights the ambivalence among United States adjudicators, and examines the advances and setbacks in the recognition of gender-related claims to protection. It concludes that the United States appears to be adopting a position more consistent with international guidance, but that until there is binding precedent, adjudicators remain free to retreat from the small advances that have been made.

Wang on Insider Trading

Bill Wang and Marc Steinberg have published the Third Edition of their Insider Trading (Oxford Univ. Press). Here is a brief description of the treatise:

This treatise analyzes the application of various laws to stock market insider trading and tipping. Among the federal laws are Exchange Act Section 10(b), SEC Rule 10b-5, mail/wire fraud, SEC Rule 14e-3, Exchange Act Section 16, and Securities Act Section 17(a). The state law discussed is both state common law and a state law claim by the issuer.

Another chapter addresses government enforcement of the insider trading/tipping prohibitions. A chapter on compliance programs deals with how firms can try to prevent illegal insider trading and tipping. Two chapters compare the harmful and allegedly beneficial effects of stock market insider trading and discuss the harm to individual investors from each specific insider trade.

Bill has summarized the book in an article called, "The United States Law on Stock Market Insider Trading and Tipping," 26 Nihon University Comparative Law Review 107 (2009).

Wagman on Living and Teaching Animal Law

Bruce Wagman has published an article called "Growing Up With Animal Law: From Courtrooms to Casebooks," 60 J. Leg. Ed. 193 (Nov. 2010). Here is the intro:

Over the past eighteen years I have had the rare privilege of riding on the waves of intellectual, legal and academic development of the field of animal law. I started by incorporating isolated bits of pro bono work into a civil litigation practice and in 1996 I began teaching animal law. Since late 2005 my work has consistently been more than 90 percent animal law. I have had the honor of teaching full semester animal law classes more than twenty times at four Bay Area law schools, guest lecturing and speaking at conferences and classes in other schools across the nation, and co-authoring Animal Law: Cases and Materials, originally published in 2000 and now in its fourth edition.2 Each day I am grateful for the gift of this practice, the result of a truly providential mix of coincidence and circumstance. My path as a lawyer for the animals, and as an animal law professor and lecturer, has paralleled the incredible growth in the field. During my tenure in animal law’s thrall it has become a rapidly growing, vital social justice movement. It has developed much like environmental law, its natural older cousin, which attracted so many in the 1960s and 1970s. Given that animal law and I have grown up together, I have been asked to write this article, which will discuss our mutual path in practice and academia.

Feldman on the IP Landscape for iPS Cells

Robin Feldman has published an article with Deborah Furth called "The Intellectual Property Landscape for iPS Cells," 3 Stanford J. L. Sci. & Pol. 17 (2010) (peer reviewed). Here is the abstract:

Beginning in 2006, induced pluripotent stem cells have raised the tantalizing possibility that stem cell research could move forward without the significant moral and ethical dilemmas that have paralyzed the field. These cells, known as iPS cells, originate from adult somatic cells, but function in a manner that is almost equivalent to embryonic stem cells. If iPS cell research lives up to its promise, stem cell research, diagnostics, and treatment could be accomplished without destroying or in any way interfering with human embryos or their development.

While we may be entering a historic moment in stem cell research, we are also facing a historic period in American patent law. Of the five key principles of patentability, three are currently in flux, creating challenges for those who would navigate the system. In the brief space alloted here, we will survey the shifting landscape in American patent law, as it may affect the rights available to iPS cell inventors. This brief overview may serve not only as an alert for scientists in the field, but also as a reminder to those of us in the patent world that our failure to resolve doctrinal uncertainties can have a tangible effect on scientific research.

Feldman on the Subconscious in IP Law

Robin Feldman has published an article called "The Role of the Subconscious in Intellectual Property Law," 2 Sci. & Tech. L. J. 2 (2010). Here is the abstract:

Human behavior stems from a fascinating tangle of conscious and subconscious impulses. While we are often quite aware of what we are doing and how we have come to do it, such is not always the case. Various human drives can lead us, for example, to be perfectly convinced that our actions are appropriate or that our motives are pure, despite considerable evidence to the contrary.

The human mind is particular important in the realm of intellectual property. The stuff of intellectual property, that which we choose to protect, flows from processes of the human mind as it interacts with the natural world and with creations that have come before. Without knowing any more, one might imagine that subconscious processes of the human mind could come to play a role in the unfolding doctrines.

This piece will consider how Intellectual Property law handles subconscious impulses on the part of participants in the system. Looking at examples from Copyright, Trade Secret, and Patent law, the piece argues that although such impulses may be treated differently in different areas of Intellectual Propety law, the variations can be understood in the context of the moral stance adopted in the doctrinal area. Where the connection between the moral stance of the doctrine and the approach taken by the doctrine is muddled, it may signal a doctrine in disarray. As an example, the piece analyzes the doctrine of Inequitable Conduct in patent law, concluding that this area of law has lost its bearings.