scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Bio: Glenn Harlan Reynolds is an academic researcher from University of Tennessee. The author has contributed to research in topics: Supreme court & Constitutional law. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 62 publications receiving 269 citations. Previous affiliations of Glenn Harlan Reynolds include University of Chicago & University of California, Berkeley.


Papers
More filters
Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the basic characteristics of nanotechnology as it is currently understood and some of the technical and social consequences likely to arise as nanotechnology matures are outlined and discussed.
Abstract: This Article outlines the basic characteristics of nanotechnology as it is currently understood and will briefly describe some of the technical - and social - consequences likely to arise as nanotechnology matures. Next, it examines three potential approaches for regulating nanotechnology and the likely consequences of each. The Article concludes with suggestions for further study, as well as a list of "dos" and "don'ts" for regulating nanotechnology.

32 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: A survey of case law, history, and scholarship on the Second Amendment can be found in this paper, where the authors synthesize a so-called "Standard Model" of Second Amendment interpretation, and briefly address questions of what weapons might be protected under a more expansive treatment than exists today.
Abstract: This Article surveys case law, history, and scholarship on the Second Amendment. Examining both "individual right" and "collective right" theorists, it synthesizes a so-called "Standard Model" of Second Amendment interpretation, and briefly addresses questions of what weapons might be protected under a more expansive treatment of the Second Amendment than exists today.

23 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that there are limits on Congress's power to create and extend intellectual property interests, and they suggest some approaches that courts might take in evaluating, and perhaps striking down, congressional actions in this area.
Abstract: As an increasing amount of society's wealth is tied up in intangible assets, strong, clear property rights can make a good deal of sense. But it is also possible to have too much of a good thing, and our society is in danger of reaching that point. Recent scholarship suggests as much: a growing body of literature details the expansion of particular doctrines, the rising burden of IP-related transaction costs, or the pressing need for collective *46 institutions to mediate between individual firms and the mushrooming pile of IP rights they must traverse to do business. In this Essay, we approach one part of this problem at the source. We argue that there are limits on Congress's power to create and extend intellectual property interests. Such limits are \"internal\" in the sense that they are the result of the very same constitutional provision giving rise to Congress's power in the first place, the Copyright and Patent Clause of the Constitution which grants the power \"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.\" We argue that the language of the Copyright and Patent Clause may restrict some of Congress's more far-reaching efforts at promoting intellectual property in recent years, particularly in passing ad hoc extensions of copyrights and patents for the benefit of individual companies. We then suggest some approaches that courts might take in evaluating, and perhaps striking down, congressional actions in this area.

12 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: The authors examines the consequences of taking such a view seriously as a matter of constitutional law, and suggests that those consequences might be quite drastic, and concludes that the right to bear arms exists only on the part of state militias, and not as any sort of individual right.
Abstract: Proponents of the so-called "collective right" model of the Second Amendment often assert that the right to bear arms exists only on the part of state militias, and not as any sort of individual right. Without addressing the merits of that claim, this Article examines the consequences of taking such a view seriously as a matter of constitutional law, and suggests that those consequences might be quite drastic.

11 citations


Cited by
More filters
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: In this paper, Cardozo et al. proposed a model for conflict resolution in the context of bankruptcy resolution, which is based on the work of the Cardozo Institute of Conflict Resolution.
Abstract: American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

1,336 citations

01 Jan 2007
TL;DR: The high prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among both patients with normal studies and those with radiculopathy and other disorders limits the usefulness of this information in predicting study outcome.
Abstract: Cannon DE, Dillingham TR, Miao H, Andary MT, Pezzin LE: Musculoskeletal disorders in referrals for suspected lumbosacral radiculopathy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2007;86:957–961. Objective: An electrodiagnostic evaluation is often requested for patients with suspected lumbosacral radiculopathy. Although musculoskeletal disorders can produce lower-limb symptoms, their prevalence in this referral population is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of common lower-limb musculoskeletal disorders in patients referred for lower-limb electrodiagnosis and determine whether these findings predict study outcome. Design: Subjects undergoing an electrodiagnostic study for lower-limb symptoms and suspected lumbosacral radiculopathy constituted the sample. A standardized clinical and electrodiagnostic evaluation was performed for all patients. Results: There were 170 subjects included. The mean age was 52 (SD 17), and 45% were males. The total prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in the sample was 32%. The prevalence in those with a normal study was 55% as compared with 21% in those with lumbosacral radiculopathy (P 0.0001). Conclusions: Musculoskeletal disorders are common in patients suspected of having lumbosacral radiculopathy. The high prevalence among both patients with normal studies and those with radiculopathy and other disorders limits the usefulness of this information in predicting study outcome. In particular, it is common for patients to have two or more problems and the presence of a musculoskeletal disorder should not preclude such testing.

309 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: New commons are various types of shared resources that have recently evolved or have been recognized as commons as discussed by the authors, which are commons without pre-existing rules or clear institutional arrangements and have been studied extensively.
Abstract: This paper is a guide to the rapidly growing area of research and activity I call 'new commons.' Simply put, new commons (NC) are various types of shared resources that have recently evolved or have been recognized as commons. They are commons without pre-existing rules or clear institutional arrangements. The paper introduces a map that outlines the NC resource sectors and identifies some of the salient questions that this new area of research raises. In addition, it examines the relationship between new commons and traditional common-pool resources and common property regimes.This overview includes a survey of the physical resources, the user communities, the literature, and some of the major collective action activities. Tacking new commons over several years has demonstrated that this vast arena is inhabited by heterogeneous groups from divergent disciplines, political interests, and geographical regions that are increasingly finding the term 'commons' crucial in addressing issues of social dilemmas, degradation, and sustainability of a wide variety of shared resources. The resource sectors include scientific knowledge, voluntary associations, climate change, community gardens, wikipedias, cultural treasures, plant seeds, and the electromagnetic spectrum. All of these new resource sectors and communities require rigorous study and analysis in order to better grasp the institutional nature of these beasts. This map is designed to serve as an introductory reference guide for future scholarly work.

207 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors define disruptive innovations through use of innovation adoption characteristics and propose a heuristic or Baedeker to better determine if an innovation could be disruptive to an organization.

179 citations