This article discusses the National Performance Review's (NPR's) broad-reaching effort to reinvent government by making it more businesslike, focusing on its successful effort to reform the Federal procurement process. The article shows that the reformed system couples greatly increased buyer discretion with dramatically reduced oversight of government spending - both internal and external. This article asserts that this combination erodes the public's confidence in the procurement system, violates established norms, and is antithetical to a host of Congressional mandates and policies. More particularly, the article provides empirical evidence of the dramatic, sustained reduction in government contract related litigation during the 1990's. The article expresses concern because the trend coincided with two significant changes: (1) a large-scale Congressionally-mandated reduction in acquisition personnel, which materially reduced internal oversight, and (2) the sweeping NPR re-invention initiatives, which considerably increased purchaser discretion. The article offers a provisional list of explanations for the decrease in litigation. It asserts that, in this context, litigation - a form of external monitoring initiated by private attorneys general - is a public good. Reduced litigation relating to the award and performance of the government's contracts threatens the public's trust in the reinvention agenda. Litigants, in this context, serve the public interest while pursuing their own self interest. Moreover, the need for the private sector to provide this service increases as internal oversight decreases. The article suggests that, despite the success of procurement reform, the current paradigm elevates its facially attractive norms - efficiency and discretion - at the expense of other established, yet apparently undervalued, norms that guide the procurement system, e.g., transparency, integrity, and competition. It cautions that businesslike government has diluted existing internal and external oversight mechanisms and threatened sustained public confidence in the procurement system.
{"title":"Fear of Oversight: The Fundamental Failure of Business-like Government","authors":"Steven L. Schooner","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.283369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.283369","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the National Performance Review's (NPR's) broad-reaching effort to reinvent government by making it more businesslike, focusing on its successful effort to reform the Federal procurement process. The article shows that the reformed system couples greatly increased buyer discretion with dramatically reduced oversight of government spending - both internal and external. This article asserts that this combination erodes the public's confidence in the procurement system, violates established norms, and is antithetical to a host of Congressional mandates and policies. More particularly, the article provides empirical evidence of the dramatic, sustained reduction in government contract related litigation during the 1990's. The article expresses concern because the trend coincided with two significant changes: (1) a large-scale Congressionally-mandated reduction in acquisition personnel, which materially reduced internal oversight, and (2) the sweeping NPR re-invention initiatives, which considerably increased purchaser discretion. The article offers a provisional list of explanations for the decrease in litigation. It asserts that, in this context, litigation - a form of external monitoring initiated by private attorneys general - is a public good. Reduced litigation relating to the award and performance of the government's contracts threatens the public's trust in the reinvention agenda. Litigants, in this context, serve the public interest while pursuing their own self interest. Moreover, the need for the private sector to provide this service increases as internal oversight decreases. The article suggests that, despite the success of procurement reform, the current paradigm elevates its facially attractive norms - efficiency and discretion - at the expense of other established, yet apparently undervalued, norms that guide the procurement system, e.g., transparency, integrity, and competition. It cautions that businesslike government has diluted existing internal and external oversight mechanisms and threatened sustained public confidence in the procurement system.","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":"197 1","pages":"16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76953557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Shifting the Paradigm in E-Commerce: Move Over Inherently Distinctive Trademarks--The E-brand, I-brand and Generic Domain Names Ascending to Power?","authors":"Xuan-Thao N. Nguyen","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/ptyzu","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/ptyzu","url":null,"abstract":"50 American University Law Review 937 (2001)","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":"30 1 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76617794","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the United States repeatedly threatened China with a series of economic sanctions, trade wars, non-renewal of most-favored-nation status, and opposition to entry into the World Trade Organization. Such threats eventually led to compromises by the Chinese government and the signing of intellectual property agreements in 1992, 1995, and 1996. Despite these agreements, intellectual property piracy remains rampant in China. Although China initially had serious concerns about the United States's threats of trade sanctions, the constant use of such threats by the U.S. government has led China to change its reaction and approach. By 1996, it had become obvious that the existing American foreign intellectual property policy was ineffective, misguided, and self-deluding. The United States not only lost its credibility, but its constant use of trade threats helped China improve its ability to resist American demands. Such threats and bullying also created hostility among the Chinese people, making the government more reluctant to adopt Western intellectual property law reforms. Thus, scholars, policymakers, and commentators have called for a critical assessment and reformulation of the existing ineffective policy. While many commentators have criticized the wrong-headed U.S.-China intellectual property policy, so far no scholarship has utilized the constructive strategic partnership model pronounced in the Joint Statement issued after the 1997 U.S.-China Summit. This Article argues that this partnership model not only presents a new model upon which the two countries are to build their diplomatic relations, but also provides a conceptual framework under which a new bilateral intellectual property policy is to be developed. This Article traces the breakdown of the American intellectual property policy toward China and examines the constructive strategic partnership model. To help policymakers formulate a new policy, this Article develops a twelve-step action plan that aims to cultivate a more stable and harmonious relationship of the two countries, to foster better mutual understanding between each other, and to promote a self-sustainable intellectual property regime in China.
{"title":"From Pirates to Partners: Protecting Intellectual Property in China in the Twenty-First Century","authors":"Peter K. Yu","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.245548","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.245548","url":null,"abstract":"During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the United States repeatedly threatened China with a series of economic sanctions, trade wars, non-renewal of most-favored-nation status, and opposition to entry into the World Trade Organization. Such threats eventually led to compromises by the Chinese government and the signing of intellectual property agreements in 1992, 1995, and 1996. Despite these agreements, intellectual property piracy remains rampant in China. Although China initially had serious concerns about the United States's threats of trade sanctions, the constant use of such threats by the U.S. government has led China to change its reaction and approach. By 1996, it had become obvious that the existing American foreign intellectual property policy was ineffective, misguided, and self-deluding. The United States not only lost its credibility, but its constant use of trade threats helped China improve its ability to resist American demands. Such threats and bullying also created hostility among the Chinese people, making the government more reluctant to adopt Western intellectual property law reforms. Thus, scholars, policymakers, and commentators have called for a critical assessment and reformulation of the existing ineffective policy. While many commentators have criticized the wrong-headed U.S.-China intellectual property policy, so far no scholarship has utilized the constructive strategic partnership model pronounced in the Joint Statement issued after the 1997 U.S.-China Summit. This Article argues that this partnership model not only presents a new model upon which the two countries are to build their diplomatic relations, but also provides a conceptual framework under which a new bilateral intellectual property policy is to be developed. This Article traces the breakdown of the American intellectual property policy toward China and examines the constructive strategic partnership model. To help policymakers formulate a new policy, this Article develops a twelve-step action plan that aims to cultivate a more stable and harmonious relationship of the two countries, to foster better mutual understanding between each other, and to promote a self-sustainable intellectual property regime in China.","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":"41 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87499860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of the 1999 Patent Law Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","authors":"Phil N. Makrogiannis","doi":"10.1089/blr.2006.25.355","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2006.25.355","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":"24 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83544528","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Pediatric testing of prescription drugs: the Food and Drug Administration's carrot and stick for the pharmaceutical industry.","authors":"K R Karst","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":"49 ","pages":"739-72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21893283","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-01-01DOI: 10.1089/073003102761698025
Stephen R. Baird
ion. Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1273-74 (“[T]he determination of patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter.”) For the ’505 Patent, the end result of “maintaining the state” is described as the innovation over the prior art, and the essential, “most important aspect”: The most important aspect of the user interface of the present invention is not that it has tabs or that it enables a certain amount of non-sequential (non-linear) access to the various form sets within a virtual application, but that it maintains data state across all panes. INTERNET PATENTS CORPORATION v. ACTIVE NETWORK, INC. 10 Col. 9 ll. 45-49. IPC stresses the unconventionality of the claim elements of maintaining the state, furnishing icons on a web page with a browser having Back and Forward navigation functions, and displaying an online application form. IPC Supp. Br. at 9-10. We agree with the district court that the character of the claimed invention is an abstract idea: the idea of retaining information in the navigation of online forms. Mayo notes the insufficiency of “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known” to found an “inventive concept.” 132 S. Ct. at 1298. The ’505 Patent specification refers to the “browser Back and Forward button functionality” as “conventional.” Col. 3 ll. 5-10. The specification also refers to the Back and Forward functionality as “well-known” and “common,” e.g., “Furthermore, the common convenience of the ‘Back’ and ‘Forward’ buttons (provided in all well-known Internet browsers) generally does not function properly when filling in online forms.” Col. 2 ll. 37-40. The specification also states that the use of internet web pages for users to fill out online applications was brought about by “[t]he increasing popularity of the Internet and the World Wide Web,” and describes these online application systems as generating information to the user based on information inputted by the user. Col. 1 ll. 40-60. As the district court observed, claim 1 contains no restriction on how the result is accomplished. The mechanism for maintaining the state is not described, although this is stated to be the essential innovation. The court concluded that the claim is directed to the idea itself—the abstract idea of avoiding loss of data. IPC’s proposed interpretation of “maintaining state” describes the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished upon the activation of an icon. Thus we affirm that claim 1 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. INTERNET PATENTS CORPORATION v. ACTIVE NETWORK, INC. 11
离子。Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1273-74(“[T]专利资格的确定需要充分了解所要求保护的主题的基本特征。”)对于505专利，“维持状态”的最终结果被描述为对现有技术的创新，以及必不可少的，“最重要的方面”:本发明的用户界面最重要的方面不是它具有选项卡，也不是它支持对虚拟应用程序中的各种表单集进行一定数量的非顺序(非线性)访问，而是它维护所有窗格中的数据状态。互联网专利公司诉活跃网络公司案45-49。IPC强调维护状态、在具有后退和前进导航功能的浏览器的网页上提供图标以及显示在线申请表格等要求元素的非常规性。IPC供应商Br在9至10。我们同意地区法院的观点，即要求保护的发明的特征是一个抽象的概念:在在线表格的导航中保留信息的概念。梅奥指出，“众所周知的、为人熟知的、常规的活动”不足以形成一个“创造性的概念”。第132卷。在1298年。505专利说明书将“浏览器后退和前进按钮功能”称为“常规”。上校3;5 - 10。该规范还将“后退”和“前进”功能称为“众所周知的”和“通用的”，例如，“此外，‘后退’和‘前进’按钮(在所有知名的Internet浏览器中提供)的通用便利性通常在填写在线表单时不能正常工作。”上校2。37-40。该规范还指出，使用互联网网页供用户填写在线申请是由“互联网和万维网的日益普及”带来的，并将这些在线应用系统描述为根据用户输入的信息向用户生成信息。上校:1。奖金的。正如地区法院所观察到的那样，权利要求1没有对如何实现结果进行限制。维持这种状态的机制没有被描述，尽管这被认为是最基本的创新。法院的结论是，索赔针对的是概念本身——避免数据丢失的抽象概念。IPC对“保持状态”的建议解释描述了在激活图标时完成保持状态的任何方法所产生的效果或结果。因此，我们确认权利要求1不是针对专利合格的主题。互联网专利公司诉活跃网络公司案
{"title":"Review of the 1999 Trademark Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","authors":"Stephen R. Baird","doi":"10.1089/073003102761698025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/073003102761698025","url":null,"abstract":"ion. Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1273-74 (“[T]he determination of patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter.”) For the ’505 Patent, the end result of “maintaining the state” is described as the innovation over the prior art, and the essential, “most important aspect”: The most important aspect of the user interface of the present invention is not that it has tabs or that it enables a certain amount of non-sequential (non-linear) access to the various form sets within a virtual application, but that it maintains data state across all panes. INTERNET PATENTS CORPORATION v. ACTIVE NETWORK, INC. 10 Col. 9 ll. 45-49. IPC stresses the unconventionality of the claim elements of maintaining the state, furnishing icons on a web page with a browser having Back and Forward navigation functions, and displaying an online application form. IPC Supp. Br. at 9-10. We agree with the district court that the character of the claimed invention is an abstract idea: the idea of retaining information in the navigation of online forms. Mayo notes the insufficiency of “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known” to found an “inventive concept.” 132 S. Ct. at 1298. The ’505 Patent specification refers to the “browser Back and Forward button functionality” as “conventional.” Col. 3 ll. 5-10. The specification also refers to the Back and Forward functionality as “well-known” and “common,” e.g., “Furthermore, the common convenience of the ‘Back’ and ‘Forward’ buttons (provided in all well-known Internet browsers) generally does not function properly when filling in online forms.” Col. 2 ll. 37-40. The specification also states that the use of internet web pages for users to fill out online applications was brought about by “[t]he increasing popularity of the Internet and the World Wide Web,” and describes these online application systems as generating information to the user based on information inputted by the user. Col. 1 ll. 40-60. As the district court observed, claim 1 contains no restriction on how the result is accomplished. The mechanism for maintaining the state is not described, although this is stated to be the essential innovation. The court concluded that the claim is directed to the idea itself—the abstract idea of avoiding loss of data. IPC’s proposed interpretation of “maintaining state” describes the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished upon the activation of an icon. Thus we affirm that claim 1 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. INTERNET PATENTS CORPORATION v. ACTIVE NETWORK, INC. 11","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":"7 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79005104","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Beyond 43 million: the \"regarded as\" prong of the ADA and HIV infection--a tautological approach.","authors":"B K Esser","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":"49 2","pages":"471-503"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1999-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21844493","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Arthur J. Gajarsa, Evelyn Aswad, Joseph S. Cianfrani
Does the right to exclude in patent law give patentees the right to prevent repairs of their inventions? Typically, patentees are considered to have given to the purchasers of their patented devices the authority to use the patented devices. Generally, such authority also includes the ability to repair the device. This grant of authority, however, does not include an unrestricted license to “make” another device. At some point, repairs may be so extensive that they constitute a reconstruction, or unauthorized “making,” of the patented device. The distinction between minor repairs and extensive repairs that result in an impermissible reconstruction is not always clear. This Article raises issues for discussion with respect to the distinction between permissible repair and impermissible reconstruction. Part I explores the emerging inconsistencies in the repair/reconstruction jurisprudence. Part II discusses problems patentees may face in attempting to redefine what constitutes “impermissible reconstruction” through private contracts with purchasers of their patented goods.
{"title":"How Much Fuel to Add to the Fire of Genius? Some Questions About the Repair/Reconstruction Distinction in Patent Law","authors":"Arthur J. Gajarsa, Evelyn Aswad, Joseph S. Cianfrani","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3474127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3474127","url":null,"abstract":"Does the right to exclude in patent law give patentees the right to prevent repairs of their inventions? Typically, patentees are considered to have given to the purchasers of their patented devices the authority to use the patented devices. Generally, such authority also includes the ability to repair the device. This grant of authority, however, does not include an unrestricted license to “make” another device. At some point, repairs may be so extensive that they constitute a reconstruction, or unauthorized “making,” of the patented device. The distinction between minor repairs and extensive repairs that result in an impermissible reconstruction is not always clear. This Article raises issues for discussion with respect to the distinction between permissible repair and impermissible reconstruction. Part I explores the emerging inconsistencies in the repair/reconstruction jurisprudence. Part II discusses problems patentees may face in attempting to redefine what constitutes “impermissible reconstruction” through private contracts with purchasers of their patented goods.","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":"33 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1999-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86352178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Individuals may file damages actions against public officials who violate their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court, however, has held that officials are entitled to qualified immunity from such actions if no reasonable official would have believed their conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. This doctrine is largely driven by the goal of minimizing the social costs of constitutional tort litigation. This Article challenges the conventional understanding of qualified immunity, arguing that the Court has created an analytical paradox by promoting early pretrial resolution of qualified immunity claims on summary judgment, while simultaneously articulating the relevant legal directive as a reasonableness standard, which requires an inevitably fact-intensive inquiry. The Article argues that the confluence of this fact-based immunity standard and conventional summary judgment doctrine has burdened the federal courts and civil rights litigants in their comprehension and application of the doctrine in civil rights litigation. By disaggregating the distinct doctrinal components of qualified immunity and summary judgment, the Article illustrates how these two gatekeeping mechanisms create a confusing and self-contradictory doctrinal structure that makes pretrial resolution of immunity claims unlikely. Moreover, even where qualified immunity's factual nature does not entirely preclude summary resolution of constitutional tort claims, it substantially increases litigation costs, thus conflicting with the doctrine's central objective. The modest step of acknowledging qualified immunity's factual nature will lead to a clearer understanding of the doctrine and may promote a reconsideration of its benefits and burdens.
{"title":"The Burdens of Qualified Immunity: Summary Judgment and the Role of Facts in Constitutional Tort Law","authors":"Alan K. Chen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.125048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.125048","url":null,"abstract":"Individuals may file damages actions against public officials who violate their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court, however, has held that officials are entitled to qualified immunity from such actions if no reasonable official would have believed their conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. This doctrine is largely driven by the goal of minimizing the social costs of constitutional tort litigation. This Article challenges the conventional understanding of qualified immunity, arguing that the Court has created an analytical paradox by promoting early pretrial resolution of qualified immunity claims on summary judgment, while simultaneously articulating the relevant legal directive as a reasonableness standard, which requires an inevitably fact-intensive inquiry. The Article argues that the confluence of this fact-based immunity standard and conventional summary judgment doctrine has burdened the federal courts and civil rights litigants in their comprehension and application of the doctrine in civil rights litigation. By disaggregating the distinct doctrinal components of qualified immunity and summary judgment, the Article illustrates how these two gatekeeping mechanisms create a confusing and self-contradictory doctrinal structure that makes pretrial resolution of immunity claims unlikely. Moreover, even where qualified immunity's factual nature does not entirely preclude summary resolution of constitutional tort claims, it substantially increases litigation costs, thus conflicting with the doctrine's central objective. The modest step of acknowledging qualified immunity's factual nature will lead to a clearer understanding of the doctrine and may promote a reconsideration of its benefits and burdens.","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":"12 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86064638","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Native Americans and the Vaccine Act: excluding those we found here.","authors":"J D Leach","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":"46 6","pages":"1935-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21050964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：