Damages

About: Damages is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 9365 publications have been published within this topic receiving 89750 citations. The topic is also known as: compensation award.

The Disintegration of Intellectual Property? A Classical Liberal Response to a Premature Obituary

Abstract: The title of this paper plays off the title of Thomas Grey's well known article, The Disintegration of Property, which argued in part that the ceaseless consensual fragmentation and recombination of property rights revealed some inner incoherence of private property institutions. I take the opposite position and treat this supposed disintegration as evidence of the robust nature of private property rights, not only for land but for all forms of intellectual property. I use this framework to critique modern intellectual property rights cases that impose limits on the terms of private licenses, and the efforts, some of which were embodied in the now dormant Patent Reform Act of 2007 to limit the use of injunctions, damages, and attorney's fees, including at least one effort to shield an important class of admitted infringements of patents from all forms of liability. One broad issue that patent reform initiatives raise concerns the question of whether the per se rules for physical takings carry over to the patent area, which in turn raises the larger philosophical question of the transference of legal principles from the physical to the intellectual realm.

Attribution: How Is It Relevant for Loss and Damage Policy and Practice?

Abstract: Attribution has become a recurring issue in discussions about Loss and Damage (LD and linked to debates about liability and compensation. The aim of attribution science, however, is not to establish responsibility, but to further scientific understanding of causal links between elements of the Earth System and society. This research into causality could inform the management of climate-related risks through improved understanding of drivers of relevant hazards, or, more widely, vulnerability and exposure; with potential benefits regardless of political positions on L&D. Experience shows that it is nevertheless difficult to have open discussions about the science in the policy sphere. This is not only a missed opportunity, but also problematic in that it could inhibit understanding of scientific results and uncertainties, potentially leading to policy planning which does not have sufficient scientific evidence to support it. In this chapter, we first explore this dilemma for science-policy dialogue, summarising several years of research into stakeholder perspectives of attribution in the context of L&D. We then aim to provide clarity about the scientific research available, through an overview of research which might contribute evidence about the causal connections between anthropogenic climate change and losses and damages, including climate science, but also other fields which examine other drivers of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Finally, we explore potential applications of attribution research, suggesting that an integrated and nuanced approach has potential to inform planning to avert, minimise and address losses and damages. The key messages are In the political context of climate negotiations, questions about whether losses and damages can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change are often linked to issues of responsibility, blame, and liability. Attribution science does not aim to establish responsibility or blame, but rather to investigate drivers of change. Attribution science is advancing rapidly, and has potential to increase understanding of how climate variability and change is influencing slow onset and extreme weather events, and how this interacts with other drivers of risk, including socio-economic drivers, to influence losses and damages. Over time, some uncertainties in the science will be reduced, as the anthropogenic climate change signal becomes stronger, and understanding of climate variability and change develops. However, some uncertainties will not be eliminated. Uncertainty is common in science, and does not prevent useful applications in policy, but might determine which applications are appropriate. It is important to highlight that in attribution studies, the strength of evidence varies substantially between different kinds of slow onset and extreme weather events, and between regions. Policy-makers should not expect the later emergence of conclusive evidence about the influence of climate variability and change on specific incidences of losses and damages; and, in particular, should not expect the strength of evidence to be equal between events, and between countries. Rather than waiting for further confidence in attribution studies, there is potential to start working now to integrate science into policy and practice, to help understand and tackle drivers of losses and damages, informing prevention, recovery, rehabilitation, and transformation.

Public Nuisance—A Critical Examination

Abstract: Why is making obscene telephone calls like laying manure in the street? Answer: in the same way as importing Irish cattle is like building a thatched house in the borough of Blandford Forum; and as digging up the wall of a church is like helping a homicidal maniac to escape from Broadmoor; and as operating a joint-stock company without a royal charter is like being a common cold; and as keeping a tiger in a pen adjoining the highway is like depositing a mutilated corpse on a doorstep; and as selling unsound meat is like embezzling public funds; and as garaging a lorry in the street is like an inn-keeper refusing to feed a traveller; and as keeping treasure-trove is like subdividing houses which so “become hurtful to the place by overpestering it with poor.” All are, or at some time have been said to be, a common (alias public) nuisance. The definition of this offence, according to Archbold's Criminal Pleading and Practice, is as follows: “Every person is guilty of an offence at common law, known as public nuisance, who does an act not warranted by law, or omits to discharge a legal duty, if the effect of the act or omission is to endanger the life, health, property, morals, or comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects.” The person who commits a public nuisance incurs liability to life imprisonment and unlimited fines. He can be made vicariously liable for the offence if it is committed by his servants. He can be ordered to stop it by an injunction, and made to pay damages in tort if it causes anyone loss. With such a broad concept in existence, backed with such broad remedies, what need have we of any other criminal offence?—or torts?—or remedies in administrative law?

Forensic Economics: An Introduction with Special Emphasis on Price Fixing

Abstract: This paper aims at explaining accepted methods of forensic analysis and how forensic economics is used in the context of competition-law enforcement. Illustrations are drawn from ancient and modern antitrust cases involving price-fixing allegations. The stated goal of antitrust laws of most nations is deterrence. Optimal deterrence requires that cartel penalties be based on multiples of economic injuries. Yet, antitrust authorities are typically reluctant to calculate fines on the basis of damages because of perceived analytical challenges or because the fact-finders lack needed economic education. However, reasonable estimates of damages can often be quickly prepared using simpler methods than econometric modeling. More often than not, alternative estimates of cartel overcharges tend to be mutually supportive. The reluctance of antitrust authorities to base fines on damages seems to indicate an abundance of caution.

Market-based Emissions Regulation When Damages Vary Across Sources: What Are the Gains from Differentiation?

Abstract: For much of the air pollution currently regulated under US emissions trading programs, health and environmental damages vary significantly with the location of the source. Existing policies...