Oklahoma City University

About: Oklahoma City University is a education organization based out in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Comparative law. The organization has 240 authors who have published 421 publications receiving 6923 citations.

Constitutional Puzzles and (Neuro) Technological Changes

Abstract: This chapter explains why neuroimaging raises constitutional puzzles, even where constitutional rules at first seem clear. The Fifth Amendment bars compelled self-incrimination and one might assume that would prevent police from circumventing this limit by obtaining evidence of mental states some other way. The Fourth Amendment would almost certain classify neuroimaging as a search, and thus subject it to constitutional limits. However, both of the implications of these provisions are unclear: They seem to leave police with plenty of room to gather physical evidence of various kinds – and there are certain respects in which neuroimaging evidence resembles such physical evidence (as the chapter illustrates with the help of a hypothetical crime investigation). The chapter points to a way ahead and also argues that while the First Amendment isn’t generally considered a kind of privacy protection, its freedom of thought protection may be a key part of solving these puzzles.

Utilizing single primers as molecular markers in Poa spp.

Abstract: An approach is described whereby single simple sequence repeat (SSR) primers are utilized at high annealing temperature to identify and evaluate the presence of palindrome or quasi-palindrome regions in polyploid genomes to provide locus specific genotyping for polyploid grass species. The procedure has been effective in identifying markers that coexpress in Poa arachnifera and interspecific Poa hybrids. DNA sequence analysis of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification products identified an array of homologous loci within and among evaluated individuals. From this study, 157 single primers were identified to provide information and identify polymorphisms across P. arachnifera. Similar to random amplified polymorphic DNA, arbitrarily primed PCR or low-stringency single primer PCR methods, this approach requires no prior genome information, utilizes agarose gels and can be visualized with ethidium bromide. Preliminary evaluations of additional Poa spp., Bromus inermis, Dactylis glomerata, Thinopyrum ponticum, Lolium perenne and Agrostis spp. suggest wide utility of this approach toward genotyping polyploid grasses.

International Trade in Agricultural Products: A Research Guide

Abstract: Lee Peoples' guide on researching international agricultural law includes documentation and links on intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, treaties and agreements, dispute resolution, customs, tariffs, domestic trade law and policy, and statistics.

The Adequacy of the Mark: Raising the Standard Under 35 U.S.C. § 287(A) for Patented Online Software Methods

Abstract: How does one broadcast ownership of property to the public at large? A variety of immediately apparent methods come to mind. For instance, a small, tangible object can be marked with data proclaiming ownership, such as a tag with a name, address and phone number accompanying a piece of luggage. For a much larger piece of property, say a parcel of land, one may use a "No Trespassing" sign. These are practices consistent with the right of exclusion concept, a mainstay of American property law for centuries. The issue, of course, becomes more complex when the property is intangible. Consider the normally abstract rights that intellectual property laws confer: how does a patent holder, for instance, broadcast ownership of a method that cannot actually be seen or felt? How are members of the general public supposed to know that a patented method is, in fact, the patent holder's property? Professor Adam Mossoff argues that patents have evolved from a strict grant of royal prerogative during Queen Elizabeth I's reign to a common-law property right. Thus, should one apply common-law property doctrine to properly establish patent ownership? The paper provides an overview of caselaw, history and analysis concerning the patent marking statute of 35 USC 287(a), and discusses what constitutes a sufficient mark for patents covering intangible contemporary products such as websites and software.