The disclosure requirement in patent law is designed to reveal knowledge regarding a patented invention to allow proper understanding and utilization of that invention. The contention offered here is the presence of an inherent incompatibility between the disclosure requirement and genetic inventions. Genetic inventions are highly contingent on big genetic statistical data (GSD), which is gathered during the commercial phase of a genetic invention. GSD are essential for various purposes, which at least some should be satisfied by the disclosure. However, since GSD can be gathered only at the postapplication period, GSD are not disclosed through the disclosure requirement. Therefore, there is a disclosure-genetics incompatibility. This incompatibility prevents patent law from fully accomplishing its intended purpose. he origins of this incompatibility can be traced to the structure of the disclosure requirement, a consequence of a hidden technological assumption in patent law regarding the very perception of what is an invention. 

With the COVID pandemic threatening to bring many individuals to the verge of bankruptcy, and with the introduction of a new consumer bankruptcy reform bill in Congress, now is a good time to consider the drawbacks of the current consumer bankruptcy regime. The Article argues that the principal failing of the current legal regime– the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA)– emanates from the underlying narrative of the legislation, which insulates consumer bankruptcy from the larger context of consumer indebtedness and consumer credit markets. This (mis)conception of the problem, I argue, has originated with the consumer creditor industry, which holds a strong interest in separating the regulation of consumer bankruptcy from that of consumer lending. The Article demonstrates that historically, the push by consumer creditors toward insulating consumer bankruptcy policy was facilitated by Congressional rules of committee jurisdiction, which assign consumer bankruptcy legislation and consumer credit legislation to different House and Senate committees.

In this essay, Greenberg explores trans and gender-nonconforming ways of being in contemporary Judaism, through a televised version of Abraham, as portrayed in the award-winning Amazon series Transparent. Transparent's challenge to the gender divide is made by citing, referencing, and reimagining the mythological call to the biblical figure of Abraham: "Go forth from your land, your birthplace, your father's house, to the land that I will show you" (Gen 12:1). The interconnection between the text's temporal and spatial gaps allows for a polysemic reading. It not only gives way to a renewed exploration of the two parts of the verse (the divine call to Abraham "Go forth," and "from your father's house") but also adds another possible transfeminist reading of the conclusion to Abraham's story: "Return to your parent's house, to care for your community," urging action and spiritual leadership.

Financialization and rising income inequality are two of the most pronounced economic developments of recent decades, and there is increasing evidence that these trends are somehow related. However, explanations of this link are still limited, and pay little attention to workers themselves. As a result, the impact of financialization on income inequality appears at most as an unfortunate side-effect. This article takes a different approach by investigating both financialization and income inequality from within the historical development of the class struggle in the United States economy. It shows that the economic problems of the 1970s that provided the impetus for financialization were closely related to the escalating conflicts between labor and capital, in which the state served as an increasingly important terrain of struggle. Viewed from this perspective, rising income inequality appears less as an unexpected outcome of financialization and more as its very raison d’etre.

This paper develops a unified model of policy diffusion to analyze the speed of adoption of statewide lockdown policies within a federal system during the COVID-19 pandemic. The modified unified model was built to improve our understanding of policy diffusion in contexts where existing models fall short. The authors highlight three main policy diffusion channels: regional, vertical, and internal. The paper shows the empirical test of the model across US states and finds that vertical effects, such as higher approval ratings for President Donald Trump, as well as a comparatively high proportion of COVID-19 federal funding support, bear a strong positive association with the speed of statewide lockdown adoption policies. In addition, certain internal effects are also important – higher governor approval ratings are positively associated with the speed of statewide lockdown adoption policies, as are state and local spending, democratic state governments, and population awareness of the virus. However, other internal factors, such as the stringency of statewide lockdown policies and the relative proportion of COVID-19 deaths in a state, were minimally associated with the speed of lockdown policy adoption. Surprisingly, unlike past studies, horizontal regional effects did not play a significant role in the presented analysis – the speed of adoption of lockdown policies by neighboring states bears no association with the speed of policy adoption of statewide lockdowns. Overall, the results suggest a strong influence of political factors on the speed of statewide lockdown adoption policies in the US.

Dr. Yael Sternhell
Prof. Udi Sommer

PODCASTS