Plagiarized AND wrong!
Further to an earlier IPBiz posting concerning plagiarism by a Phillipines Supreme Court Justice [
Plagiarism issue in Supreme Court decision ], one of the copied authors is saying that the copied text was used in a sense that distorted its meaning.
The article The Philippines Supreme Court is Again under Fire for an Alleged Plagiarized Ruling states that copied author Evan Criddle indicates that the Supreme Court opinion draws the opposite conclusion relating to jus cogen that was asserted in the law review article.
Thus, not only copied but misused!
Now, in the patent law context, think back to Mark Lemley's "Ending Abuse..." article in BULR and that footnote about Robert Clarke which was the opposite of what Clarke had indicated.
***
“A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens” by Ivan Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale Journal of International Law (2009)
Plagiarism issue in Supreme Court decision ], one of the copied authors is saying that the copied text was used in a sense that distorted its meaning.
The article The Philippines Supreme Court is Again under Fire for an Alleged Plagiarized Ruling states that copied author Evan Criddle indicates that the Supreme Court opinion draws the opposite conclusion relating to jus cogen that was asserted in the law review article.
Thus, not only copied but misused!
Now, in the patent law context, think back to Mark Lemley's "Ending Abuse..." article in BULR and that footnote about Robert Clarke which was the opposite of what Clarke had indicated.
***
“A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens” by Ivan Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale Journal of International Law (2009)
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home