California Law Review 

About: California Law Review is an academic journal published by UC Berkeley School of Law. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Supreme court & Constitution. It has an ISSN identifier of 0008-1221. Over the lifetime, 2491 publications have been published receiving 47562 citations. The journal is also known as: Calif. L. Rev. & CLR.

The Theory of Social and Economic Organization

Abstract: A synthetic polyisoprene rubber latex produced by emulsifying a solution of polyisoprene rubber in an organic solvent with water and removing the solvent from the resulting oil-in-water emulsion is significantly improved with respect to mechanical stability, wet gel strength and dry film strength by utilizing, as a polyisoprene rubber, a modified polyisoprene rubber prepared by introducing from about 0.03 to 20 carboxyl groups per 100 recurring units of isoprene monomer present in the synthetic cis-1,4-polyisoprene rubber.

The Firm, the Market, and the Law

Abstract: Few other economists have been read and cited as often as R.H. Coase has been, even though, as he admits, \"most economists have a different way of looking at economic problems and do not share my conception of the nature of our subject.\" Coase's particular interest has been that part of economic theory that deals with firms, industries, and markets—what is known as price theory or microeconomics. He has always urged his fellow economists to examine the foundations on which their theory exists, and this volume collects some of his classic articles probing those very foundations. \"The Nature of the Firm\" (1937) introduced the then-revolutionary concept of transaction costs into economic theory. \"The Problem of Social Cost\" (1960) further developed this concept, emphasizing the effect of the law on the working of the economic system. The remaining papers and new introductory essay clarify and extend Coarse's arguments and address his critics. \"These essays bear rereading. Coase's careful attention to actual institutions not only offers deep insight into economics but also provides the best argument for Coase's methodological position. The clarity of the exposition and the elegance of the style also make them a pleasure to read and a model worthy of emulation.\"—Lewis A. Kornhauser, Journal of Economic Literature Ronald H. Coase was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Science in 1991.

Big Data’s Disparate Impact

Abstract: Advocates of algorithmic techniques like data mining argue that these techniques eliminate human biases from the decision-making process. But an algorithm is only as good as the data it works with. Data is frequently imperfect in ways that allow these algorithms to inherit the prejudices of prior decision makers. In other cases, data may simply reflect the widespread biases that persist in society at large. In still others, data mining can discover surprisingly useful regularities that are really just preexisting patterns of exclusion and inequality. Unthinking reliance on data mining can deny historically disadvantaged and vulnerable groups full participation in society. Worse still, because the resulting discrimination is almost always an unintentional emergent property of the algorithm’s use rather than a conscious choice by its programmers, it can be unusually hard to identify the source of the problem or to explain it to a court.This Essay examines these concerns through the lens of American antidiscrimination law — more particularly, through Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination in employment. In the absence of a demonstrable intent to discriminate, the best doctrinal hope for data mining’s victims would seem to lie in disparate impact doctrine. Case law and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Uniform Guidelines, though, hold that a practice can be justified as a business necessity when its outcomes are predictive of future employment outcomes, and data mining is specifically designed to find such statistical correlations. Unless there is a reasonably practical way to demonstrate that these discoveries are spurious, Title VII would appear to bless its use, even though the correlations it discovers will often reflect historic patterns of prejudice, others’ discrimination against members of protected groups, or flaws in the underlying dataAddressing the sources of this unintentional discrimination and remedying the corresponding deficiencies in the law will be difficult technically, difficult legally, and difficult politically. There are a number of practical limits to what can be accomplished computationally. For example, when discrimination occurs because the data being mined is itself a result of past intentional discrimination, there is frequently no obvious method to adjust historical data to rid it of this taint. Corrective measures that alter the results of the data mining after it is complete would tread on legally and politically disputed terrain. These challenges for reform throw into stark relief the tension between the two major theories underlying antidiscrimination law: anticlassification and antisubordination. Finding a solution to big data’s disparate impact will require more than best efforts to stamp out prejudice and bias; it will require a wholesale reexamination of the meanings of “discrimination” and “fairness.”

A Theory of Procedure

Abstract: The search for the most effective conflict resolution procedure requires identfication of the primary objective in resolving different kinds of disputes. This Article focuses on the kind of disputes considered in the legal system and draws on the results of the authors' empirical studies to develop a general theory ofprocedure for attaining the objectives of "truth" and "ustice" in situations of cognitive conflict, conjlict of interest, and in "mixed" disputes. In this Article, we propose a general theory of procedure for resolving conflicts, with special attention to disputes dealt with in the legal process. For a number of years we have applied the theories and methods of social psychology in our research to examine and compare the characteristics of various procedural systems incorporated in the legal process.' Until now we have published only the reports of particular projects, with occasional speculation about more general issues. But now we have developed the body of our research sufficiently to make a more comprehensive statement. In this Article we propose a general framework for analyzing and classifying all conflict resolution procedures, including, of course, all procedures employed in the legal proc-