By Christopher J. D’Alessandro (Rutgers Law Student) It’s difficult to imagine how a political lawn sign could come with a price tag of $2,263.489. What could make a flimsy cardboard sign for a Paterson, New Jersey mayoral candidate warrant such an astronomical price? Well let’s do a simple calculation and see how the variables add … Continue reading The $2.2 Million Lawn Sign and the First Amendment…
Category: Blog
Paff v. Galloway: Defining “Public Record” in the Digital Age
Brooke Lewis ’17 The New Jersey Supreme Court has recently decided to hear a case that will set open records policy in the emerging world of big data. While our government’s transition to the digital world has brought about new levels of speed and efficiency, it may have also created an unintended “black box.” Information … Continue reading Paff v. Galloway: Defining “Public Record” in the Digital Age…
Revealing Algorithmic Rankers
By Julia Stoyanovich (Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Drexel University) and Ellen P. Goodman (Professor, Rutgers Law School). This post is derived from their recent Freedom to Tinker post. ProPublica’s story on “machine bias” in an algorithm used for sentencing defendants amplified calls to make algorithms more transparent and accountable. It has never been more … Continue reading Revealing Algorithmic Rankers…
Pleading Standards: The Hidden Threat to Actavis
In FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court issued one of the most important antitrust decisions in the modern era. It held that a brand drug company’s payment to a generic firm to settle patent litigation and delay entering the market could violate the antitrust laws. Since the decision, courts have analyzed several issues, including causation, … Continue reading Pleading Standards: The Hidden Threat to Actavis…
Why a ‘Large and Unjustified’ Payment Threshold is Not Consistent with Actavis
FTC v. Actavis was a landmark antitrust decision. In rejecting the “scope of the patent” test that had immunized settlements by which brand-name drug firms pay generic companies to delay entering the market (“exclusion payment settlements”), the Supreme Court made clear that such agreements “tend to have significant adverse effects on competition” and could violate … Continue reading Why a ‘Large and Unjustified’ Payment Threshold is Not Consistent with Actavis…