INDIRECT NETWORK EFFECTS, USAGE EXTERNALITIES, AND PLATFORM COMPETITION

Firearms are the leading cause of death in US children and adolescents, but little is known about whether the overall legal landscape was associated with excess mortality after a landmark US Supreme Court decision in 2010. To measure excess mortality due to firearms among US children aged 0 to 17 years after the McDonald v Chicago US Supreme Court decision (2010). An excess mortality analysis was conducted using the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) database before and after McDonald v Chicago, the landmark 2010 US Supreme Court decision on firearms regulation. States were divided into 3 groups based on legal actions taken before and since 2010, most permissive, permissive, and strict. Firearm mortality trends before (1999-2010) and after (2011-2023) were determined and compared across the 3 groups for all intents and by intent (homicide and suicide). Subgroup analysis by observed race and ethnicity was conducted. For each US state, pre-and post-McDonald v Chicago all-intent pediatric firearm mortality incident rates were compared. These data were analyzed January 2011 through December 2023. The pre- and post-McDonald v Chicago legal landscape. Excess mortality during the post-McDonald v Chicago period. During the post-McDonald v Chicago period (2011-2023), there were 6029 excess firearm deaths (incidence rate [IR], 158.6 per million population; 95% CI, 154.8-162.5) in the most permissive group. In the permissive group, there were 1424 excess firearm deaths (IR, 107.5 per million person-years; 95% CI, 103.8-111.3). In the strict group, there were -55 excess firearm deaths (IR, -2.5 per million person-years; 95% CI, -5.8 to 0.8). Non-Hispanic Black populations had the largest increase in firearm mortality in the most permissive and permissive state groupings. Four states (California, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island) had decreased pediatric firearm mortality after McDonald v Chicago, all of which were in the strict firearms law group. States in the most permissive and permissive firearm law categories experienced greater pediatric firearm mortality during the post-McDonald v Chicago era. Future work should focus on determining which types of laws conferred the most harm and which offered the most protection.

The ramifications of last year's US Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International concerning software patentability have become apparent as other courts grapple with and implement that decision. The Web extra at http://youtu.be/Boa67CXBqPU is an audio recording of Brian M. Gaff reading his Computing and the Law column, in which he discusses how the ramifications of last year's US Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International concerning software patentability have become apparent as other courts grapple with and implement that decision.

Letters from Vienna: Reflections on the Coffee House Debate on Whether Arbitration is Appropriate for the Resolution of Mass Claims in the Aftermath of the US Supreme Court Decision in At&T Mobility V. Concepcion

Peer Effects on the United States Supreme Court

Investments in rural land for agriculture, timber, and other natural resource purposes occur frequently and globally. Fundamental principles of liberty and property found in the United States of America’s (“US”) legal system, from its origins to recent US Supreme Court decisions, continue to positively benefit holders of real estate in the Southern US, through a deep-rooted public policy of supporting private property rights and rural economic development. This stable rule of law enhances the long-term adaptability and sustainability of timberland as an asset class. This article is a commentary. It combines legal research methodology with the observations and conclusions of the authors. Its purpose is to demonstrate that the existence of alienable, documentable ownership, and related property rights create inherent stability and security. These principles form the basis of a culture that is defined by the rule of law and is “open for business.” This business mindset is particularly prevalent in the Southern US.

The recent US Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey, by changing the legal standard by which restrictions on abortion are evaluated, will have a profound effect on access to reproductive health care in the United States. This article reviews the Pennsylvania antiabortion restrictions at issue in Casey and discusses the ways in which the new constitutional standard fundamentally weakens the legal protections previously afforded women and physicians in the 1973 case, Roe v Wade. While the majority opinion reaffirmed a woman's right to choose an abortion, the opinion opens the door to a multitude of new restrictive abortion laws, which diminish, and in some cases completely block, a woman's ability to exercise that right. The effect of weakened legal protection will fall most heavily on young, poor, minority, and rural women, who will be unable to overcome obstacles imposed by mandatory waiting periods, biased counseling, and parental notification requirements. The restrictions are also likely to exacerbate the shortage of physicians providing abortion services by making the procedure more costly and the providers' jobs more dangerous. Finally, the medical community can help to ensure women access to comprehensive and competent reproductive health care.

Recent US Supreme Court decisions have invalidated patent claims on isolated genomic DNA, and testing methods that applied medical correlations using conventional techniques. As a consequence, US genetic testing laboratories have a relatively low risk of infringing patents on naturally occurring DNA or methods for detecting genomic variants. In Europe, however, such claims remain patentable, and European laboratories risk infringing them. We report the results from a survey that collected data on the impact of patents on European genetic testing laboratories. The results indicate that the proportion of European laboratories that have refrained from providing associated testing services owing to patent protection has increased over the last decade (up from 7% in 2008 to 15% in 2017), and that the non-profit sector was particularly strongly affected (up from 4% in 2008 to 14% in 2017). We renew calls for more readily available legal support to help public sector laboratories deal with patent issues, but we do not recommend aligning European law with US law at present. Watchful monitoring is also recommended to ensure that patents do not become a greater hindrance for clinical genetic testing laboratories.

In a landmark decision, MedImmune v. Genentech, the US Supreme Court held that a patent licensee does not have to terminate or be in breach of its licence agreement before filing a lawsuit to challenge the validity or enforceability of the licensed patent in a declaratory judgement action. This paper reports on the state of the law before MedImmune, the MedImmune decision itself, and the impact of MedImmune on technology transfer and licensing, including the new leverage US patent licensees now enjoy in challenging their licensors. The paper also discusses possible ramifications as to license agreements in the future, including the antitrust implications of restrictive licence provisions in the USA, as well as various international aspects of technology licensing in Europe and Japan.

Editorial/Letters

In the past 8 years, the US Supreme Court has issued landmark opinions in three cases that involved the criminal culpability of juveniles. In the most recent case, in 2012, a ruling prohibited states from mandating life without parole for crimes committed by minors. In these cases, the Court drew on scientific studies of the adolescent brain in concluding that adolescents, by virtue of their inherent psychological and neurobiological immaturity, are not as responsible for their behaviour as adults. This article discusses the Court's rationale in these cases and the role of scientific evidence about adolescent brain development in its decisions. I conclude that the neuroscientific evidence was probably persuasive to the Court not because it revealed something new about the nature of adolescence but precisely because it aligned with common sense and behavioural science.

Dövme, insanlık tarihi kadar eski bir sanat dalı ola-rak kabul edilmektedir. Dövmeler ise türlerine ve özelliklerine göre fikri hukuk bakımından genel ola-rak korunmaya uygun bulunan figüratif eserlerdir. Dövme sanatçısının hakları ile dövmenin vücuduna yapıldığı kişinin haklarının arasında atipik bir çekiş-me söz konusudur. Zira diğer fikri ürünlerden farklı olarak dövmenin uygulandığı yer insan vücududur. Dövmenin hususiyet arz eden bir figür olduğu veya dövme yaptıran kişinin milyonlarca takipçisi bulunan, şöhretli bir kişi olduğu durumlarda bu menfaat çatış-ması daha fazla ve daha belirgin bir önem kazanmak-tadır. Zira bu özgün dövmeler veya şöhret sahibi bir kişinin yaptırdığı dövmeler son derece popüler ola-bilmektedir. Bu şöhretli kişilerin dövmelerinin sinema eserleri veya bilgisayar oyunlarında görünür şekilde konumlandırılması halinde ise durum giderek daha karmaşık bir hal almaktadır. Dövme sanatçılarının şirketi olan Solid Oak Sketchers LLC’nin, NBA2K oyununun yapımcısı Take-Two Interactive Software ve 2K Games Inc’ye telif hakkı ihlali iddiasıyla açtığı dava bu bakımdan dikkat çekicidir. Mahkemenin bu davayı reddederken yaptığı değerlendirmeler dövme sanatçılarının telif haklarının anlaşılması bakımından önem taşımaktadır. Sony v Grand Turismo kararında kabul edilen mekânsal gerçeklik algısı istinası, dövme sanatçılarının oyun yapım şirketine açtıkları bu davada, kendisini oldukça farklı bir şekilde tekrar göstermiştir. ABD Yüksek Mahkemesi, daha evvel Sony’nin Gran Turismo isimli bilgisayar oyununu tanımlayıcı eser (expressive work) olarak kabul et-miştir. Bu davada mahkeme, davacı VIRAG, S.R.L.’nin marka hakkına, mekânsal gerçeklik algısı istisnası kapsamında tecavüz edilmediğine karar ver-miştir. Mahkeme, Solid Oak Sketchers LLC tarafın-dan açılan davada ise bu bakış açısını çeşitli kriter-lerle olgunlaştırmıştır. Dövme sanatçılarının telif haklarını incelediğimiz bu çalışmada önce mekânsal gerçeklik algısının etki ve kriterleri bahse konu iki adet ABD yüksek mahkemesi kararlarının gerekçele-rinin ışığında ele alınarak tartışılmıştır. Tebliğde ayrıca mekânsal gerçeklik algısının fikri hukuktaki yeri, bu davaların gerekçeleriyle detaylı bir şekilde analiz edilerek aydınlatılmıştır.

This case-control study investigates the association of the US Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v Wade with mental distress among female individuals of reproductive age.

Professor Fletcher N. Baldwin Jr (University of Florida) considers the “All Funds” case – the US Supreme Court decision of 22 April 1996 to let stand the forfeiture of drug money beyond immediate jurisdiction – and its potential implications for prior safe haven bank accounts, access to the proceeds of crime and enabling international seizure. Published in the Letter from … section of Amicus Curiae - Journal of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and its Society for Advanced Legal Studies. The Journal is produced by the Society for Advanced Legal Studies at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London.

Harold Kletschka

The US Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey both protects a woman's liberty to choose to terminate her pregnancy and permits the state to make it more difficult for her to exercise her choice. In their opinion on the case, Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter eloquently defend constitutional protection of the right to make intimate decisions like continuing or ending a pregnancy. At the same time, they permit the state to try to persuade pregnant women not to have abortions and to make abortion harder to obtain and more costly, as long as the state's methods do not create an "undue burden" on the decision. Any restriction on abortion is a burden; whether it is "undue" (and therefore unconstitutional) depends on one's circumstances. The Court appears to view the difference between an undue burden and mere inconvenience from the perspective of privilege. The restrictions that were upheld may not significantly affect middle-class access to abortion, but they could prove insurmountable for many less privileged women.