9 results
Allocation of attention to scenes of peer harassment: Visual–cognitive moderators of the link between peer victimization and aggression
- Wendy Troop-Gordon, Robert D. Gordon, Bethany M. Schwandt, Gregor A. Horvath, Elizabeth Ewing Lee, Kari J. Visconti
-
- Journal:
- Development and Psychopathology / Volume 31 / Issue 2 / May 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 22 March 2018, pp. 525-540
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
As approximately one-third of peer-victimized children evidence heightened aggression (Schwartz, Proctor, & Chien, 2001), it is imperative to identify the circumstances under which victimization and aggression co-develop. The current study explored two potential moderators of victimization–aggression linkages: (a) attentional bias toward cues signaling threat and (b) attentional bais toward cues communicating interpersonal support. Seventy-two fifth- and sixth-grade children (34 boys; Mage = 11.67) were eye tracked while watching video clips of bullying. Each scene included a bully, a victim, a reinforcer, and a defender. Children's victimization was measured using peer, parent, and teacher reports. Aggression was measured using peer reports of overt and relational aggression and teacher reports of aggression. Victimization was associated with greater aggression at high levels of attention to the bully. Victimization was also associated with greater aggression at low attention to the defender for boys, but at high attention to the defender for girls. Attention to the victim was negatively correlated with aggression regardless of victimization history. Thus, attentional biases to social cues integral to the bullying context differentiate whether victimization is linked to aggression, necessitating future research on the development of these biases and concurrent trajectories of sociobehavioral development.
13 - How Oracle Erred
- Edited by Ruth L. Okediji
-
- Book:
- Copyright Law in an Age of Limitations and Exceptions
- Published online:
- 07 June 2017
- Print publication:
- 30 March 2017, pp 375-428
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Abstract In Oraclev.Google (2015), the Federal Circuit addressed whether the “method header” components of a dominant computer program were uncopyrightable as “merging” with the headers’ ideas or function. Google had copied the headers to ease the ability of third-party programmers to interact with Google’s Android platform. The court rebuffed the copyrightability challenge; it reasoned that because the plaintiff’s expression might have been written in alternative forms, there was no “merger” of idea and expression. But the Oracle court may have been asking the wrong question.
In Lotusv.Borland (1995), the owner of a dominant spreadsheet program sought to prevent a new competitor’s program from making available a set of “command menu” headers based on the dominant program’s menus. The defendant also wrote its own, original command menus, but provided the copied menus as an option to relieve customers who, migrating from the dominant spreadsheet, would otherwise have had a substantial burden to master new terms and rewrite macros.
In assessing the legality of the copying in Lotus, the First Circuit started its inquiry not with a question about how the plaintiff’s program might have been written, but rather with how the program actually was written. It then identified the menu commands as “methods of operation” because they were necessary to make the actual program operate a computer. The copyright statute renders “methods of operation” per se uncopyrightable, regardless of the possibility of alternatives.
Debates over the conflict between Oracle and Lotus have largely ignored a middle road that supports the Lotus result without the potential for overkill some observers see in Lotus. This middle road is a doctrine known as the “explanation/use” distinction. Laid out in the classic Supreme Court case of Bakerv.Selden (1880), and ratified by statutory provisions of the Copyright Act including the much-ignored § 113(b), the “explanation/use distinction” specifies that a copyright owner has no power to control behaviors that belong to the domain of utility patent. Like “merger” and “method of operation,” the “explanation/use” doctrine implements the deference that, pursuant to Congressional command and Supreme Court precedent, U.S. copyright law must give to patent law. However, the explanation/use doctrine operates by limiting the scope of the exclusive rights a copyright owner might otherwise possess, not by targeting the copyrightability of what plaintiff produced.
This chapter examines justifications for the “explanation/use distinction,” and suggests a two-part test for implementing that doctrine. The chapter argues that a copyright owner should have no prima facie rights over copying behavior where (1) the goals of the copying are “use” (behavior in the realm of utility patent) and (2) the copying is done solely for goals unrelated to the expressiveness of the plaintiff’s work of authorship. (The copying in Oracle and Lotus seems to have been fully indifferent to expressive values; the result might be different in a case where defendant’s goals are mixed.)
This two-part test is met by the defendants in Oracle and Lotus. (1) Making a machine operate is clearly utilitarian. And as for (2) indifference to expression, both Lotus and Oracle involve someone copying a computer interface to enable users to interoperate: third-party programmers could use or design Java-enabled programs on Android, and spreadsheet users could use their prior macros on a new spreadsheet program. Interoperability is one of the few areas where indifference to expression is clear: After all, when one wants a spare key made, the elegance or beauty of the key’s shape is irrelevant – all that matters is that the shape fits the lock.
Contributors
-
- By Thomas M. Achenbach, Steven Arnocky, Christine Blain-Arcaro, Amy Bombay, Nancy Brady, Jacob A. Burack, Tony Charman, Xinyin Chen, Lauren Drvaric, Heidi Flores, Stephanie A. Fryberg, Jan S. Greenberg, Jennifer Hepditch, Jinkuk Hong, Jennifer M. Knack, Amanda Krygsman, Christine L. Lackner, Peter A. Leavitt, Marsha Mailick, Matilda E. Nowakowski, Vladimir Ponizovsky, Louis A. Schmidt, Sidney J. Segalowitz, Leann E. Smith, Audra Sterling, Jillian Stewart, Wendy Troop-Gordon, Tracy Vaillancourt, Ryan J. van Lieshout, Irene Vitoroulis, Steven F. Warren, Jordana Waxman, Fan Yang, Siman Zhao
- Edited by Jacob A. Burack, McGill University, Montréal, Louis A. Schmidt, McMaster University, Ontario
-
- Book:
- Cultural and Contextual Perspectives on Developmental Risk and Well-Being
- Published online:
- 05 June 2014
- Print publication:
- 26 May 2014, pp xiii-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Dan L. Burk, Eric R. Claeys, Thomas F. Cotter, Hanoch Dagan, Richard A. Epstein, Jeanne C. Fromer, Wendy J. Gordon, Paul J. Heald, Steven Hetcher, David Lametti, Mark A. Lemley, Margaret H. Lemos, Mark P. McKenna, Peter S. Menell, Gideon Parchomovsky, Lee Petherbridge, Michael Risch, Jennifer E. Rothman, Emily Sherwin, Henry E. Smith, Madhavi Sunder, Molly Shaffer Van Houweling, R. Polk Wagner, Christopher S. Yoo
- Edited by Shyamkrishna Balganesh, University of Pennsylvania Law School
-
- Book:
- Intellectual Property and the Common Law
- Published online:
- 05 September 2013
- Print publication:
- 02 September 2013, pp ix-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
20 - The Concept of “Harm” in Copyright
- from Part V - Parallels between the Substantive Common Law and Intellectual Property
- Edited by Shyamkrishna Balganesh, University of Pennsylvania Law School
-
- Book:
- Intellectual Property and the Common Law
- Published online:
- 05 September 2013
- Print publication:
- 02 September 2013, pp 452-483
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Albert Altchek, David H. Barad, Katharine Batt, Yuval Bdolah, Revaz Botchorishvili, Nicolas Bourdel, Michael S. Broder, Douglas N. Brown, Jubilee Brown, Antoine Maurice Bruhat, Michel Canis, Mine S. Cicek, Carmel J. Cohen, Christopher P. Crum, Christina E. Curtin, Liane Deligdisch, Philip J. Di Saia, Ramez N. Eskander, Tamara Finger, David Fishman, Brooke L. Fridley, David M. Gershenson, Norbert Gleicher, Ellen L. Goode, Pierre S. Gordon, Ioannis Gryparis, Jonathan Hecht, Wendy C. Hsiao, Eric C. Huang, Nathan G. Kase, Valentin Kolev, Lale Kostakoglu, Neri Laufer, Anna Laury, Gerard Mage, Angelica Mareş, Maurie Markman, Luciano G. Nardo, Farr R. Nezhat, Sree Durga Patchava, Tanja Pejovic, Catherine M. Phelan, Benoit Rabischong, Jamal Rahaman, David Rodriguez-Buritica, Paul Saenger, Peter Schlosshauer, William L. Simpson, Cardinale B. Smith, Jason Sternchos
- Edited by Liane Deligdisch, Nathan G. Kase, Carmel J. Cohen
-
- Book:
- Altchek's Diagnosis and Management of Ovarian Disorders
- Published online:
- 05 August 2013
- Print publication:
- 25 July 2013, pp vii-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Victoria M. Allen, Frederic Amant, Sarah Armstrong, Thomas F. Baskett, Michael A. Belfort, Meredith Birsner, Renee D. Boss, Leanne Bricker, Josaphat K. Byamugisha, Giorgio Capogna, Michael P. Casaer, Frank A. Chervenak, Vicki Clark, Filip Claus, Malachy O. Columb, Charles Cox, Jean T. Cox, Vegard Dahl, John Davison, Jan Deprest, Clifford S. Deutschman, Roland Devlieger, Karim Djekidel, Steven Dymarkowski, Roshan Fernando, Clare Fitzpatrick, Sreedhar Gaddipati, Thierry Girard, Emily Gordon, Ian A. Greer, David Grooms, Sina Haeri, Katy Harrison, Edward J. Hayes, Michelle Hladunewich, Andra H. James, Tracey Johnston, Bellal Joseph, Erin Keely, Ruth Landau, Stephen E. Lapinsky, Susanna I. Lee, Larry Leeman, Hennie Lombaard, Stephen Lu, Alison MacArthur, Laura A. Magee, Paul E. Marik, Laurence B. McCullough, Alexandre Mignon, Carlo Missant, Jack Moodley, Lisa E. Moore, Kate Morse, Warwick D. Ngan Kee, Catherine Nelson-Piercy, Clemens M. Ortner, Geraldine O’Sullivan, Luis D. Pacheco, Fathima Paruk, Melina Pectasides, Nigel Pereira, Patricia Peticca, Sharon T. Phelan, Felicity Plaat, Lauren A. Plante, Michael P. Plevyak, Dianne Plews, Wendy Pollock, Laura C. Price, Peter Rhee, Leiv Arne Rosseland, Kathryn M. Rowan, Helen Ryan, Helen Scholefield, Neil S. Seligman, Nadir Sharawi, Alex Sia, Bob Silver, Mieke Soens, Ulrich J. Spreng, Silvia Stirparo, Nova Szoka, Andrew Tang, Kha M. Tran, Els Troost, Lawrence C. Tsen, Derek Tuffnell, Kristel Van Calsteren, Marc Van de Velde, Marcel Vercauteren, Chris Verslype, Peter von Dadelszen, Carl Waldman, Michelle Walters, Linda Watkins, Paul Westhead, Cynthia A. Wong, Gerda G. Zeeman, Joost J. Zwart
- Edited by Marc van de Velde, Helen Scholefield, Lauren A. Plante
-
- Book:
- Maternal Critical Care
- Published online:
- 05 July 2013
- Print publication:
- 04 July 2013, pp ix-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Aakash Agarwala, Linda S. Aglio, Rae M. Allain, Paul D. Allen, Houman Amirfarzan, Yasodananda Kumar Areti, Amit Asopa, Edwin G. Avery, Patricia R. Bachiller, Angela M. Bader, Rana Badr, Sibinka Bajic, David J. Baker, Sheila R. Barnett, Rena Beckerly, Lorenzo Berra, Walter Bethune, Sascha S. Beutler, Tarun Bhalla, Edward A. Bittner, Jonathan D. Bloom, Alina V. Bodas, Lina M. Bolanos-Diaz, Ruma R. Bose, Jan Boublik, John P. Broadnax, Jason C. Brookman, Meredith R. Brooks, Roland Brusseau, Ethan O. Bryson, Linda A. Bulich, Kenji Butterfield, William R. Camann, Denise M. Chan, Theresa S. Chang, Jonathan E. Charnin, Mark Chrostowski, Fred Cobey, Adam B. Collins, Mercedes A. Concepcion, Christopher W. Connor, Bronwyn Cooper, Jeffrey B. Cooper, Martha Cordoba-Amorocho, Stephen B. Corn, Darin J. Correll, Gregory J. Crosby, Lisa J. Crossley, Deborah J. Culley, Tomas Cvrk, Michael N. D'Ambra, Michael Decker, Daniel F. Dedrick, Mark Dershwitz, Francis X. Dillon, Pradeep Dinakar, Alimorad G. Djalali, D. John Doyle, Lambertus Drop, Ian F. Dunn, Theodore E. Dushane, Sunil Eappen, Thomas Edrich, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, Jason M. Erlich, Lucinda L. Everett, Elliott S. Farber, Khaldoun Faris, Eddy M. Feliz, Massimo Ferrigno, Richard S. Field, Michael G. Fitzsimons, Hugh L. Flanagan Jr., Vladimir Formanek, Amanda A. Fox, John A. Fox, Gyorgy Frendl, Tanja S. Frey, Samuel M. Galvagno Jr., Edward R. Garcia, Jonathan D. Gates, Cosmin Gauran, Brian J. Gelfand, Simon Gelman, Alexander C. Gerhart, Peter Gerner, Omid Ghalambor, Christopher J. Gilligan, Christian D. Gonzalez, Noah E. Gordon, William B. Gormley, Thomas J. Graetz, Wendy L. Gross, Amit Gupta, James P. Hardy, Seetharaman Hariharan, Miriam Harnett, Philip M. Hartigan, Joaquim M. Havens, Bishr Haydar, Stephen O. Heard, James L. Helstrom, David L. Hepner, McCallum R. Hoyt, Robert N. Jamison, Karinne Jervis, Stephanie B. Jones, Swaminathan Karthik, Richard M. Kaufman, Shubjeet Kaur, Lee A. Kearse Jr., John C. Keel, Scott D. Kelley, Albert H. Kim, Amy L. Kim, Grace Y. Kim, Robert J. Klickovich, Robert M. Knapp, Bhavani S. Kodali, Rahul Koka, Alina Lazar, Laura H. Leduc, Stanley Leeson, Lisa R. Leffert, Scott A. LeGrand, Patricio Leyton, J. Lance Lichtor, John Lin, Alvaro A. Macias, Karan Madan, Sohail K. Mahboobi, Devi Mahendran, Christine Mai, Sayeed Malek, S. Rao Mallampati, Thomas J. Mancuso, Ramon Martin, Matthew C. Martinez, J. A. Jeevendra Martyn, Kai Matthes, Tommaso Mauri, Mary Ellen McCann, Shannon S. McKenna, Dennis J. McNicholl, Abdel-Kader Mehio, Thor C. Milland, Tonya L. K. Miller, John D. Mitchell, K. Annette Mizuguchi, Naila Moghul, David R. Moss, Ross J. Musumeci, Naveen Nathan, Ju-Mei Ng, Liem C. Nguyen, Ervant Nishanian, Martina Nowak, Ala Nozari, Michael Nurok, Arti Ori, Rafael A. Ortega, Amy J. Ortman, David Oxman, Arvind Palanisamy, Carlo Pancaro, Lisbeth Lopez Pappas, Benjamin Parish, Samuel Park, Deborah S. Pederson, Beverly K. Philip, James H. Philip, Silvia Pivi, Stephen D. Pratt, Douglas E. Raines, Stephen L. Ratcliff, James P. Rathmell, J. Taylor Reed, Elizabeth M. Rickerson, Selwyn O. Rogers Jr., Thomas M. Romanelli, William H. Rosenblatt, Carl E. Rosow, Edgar L. Ross, J. Victor Ryckman, Mônica M. Sá Rêgo, Nicholas Sadovnikoff, Warren S. Sandberg, Annette Y. Schure, B. Scott Segal, Navil F. Sethna, Swapneel K. Shah, Shaheen F. Shaikh, Fred E. Shapiro, Torin D. Shear, Prem S. Shekar, Stanton K. Shernan, Naomi Shimizu, Douglas C. Shook, Kamal K. Sikka, Pankaj K. Sikka, David A. Silver, Jeffrey H. Silverstein, Emily A. Singer, Ken Solt, Spiro G. Spanakis, Wolfgang Steudel, Matthias Stopfkuchen-Evans, Michael P. Storey, Gary R. Strichartz, Balachundhar Subramaniam, Wariya Sukhupragarn, John Summers, Shine Sun, Eswar Sundar, Sugantha Sundar, Neelakantan Sunder, Faraz Syed, Usha B. Tedrow, Nelson L. Thaemert, George P. Topulos, Lawrence C. Tsen, Richard D. Urman, Charles A. Vacanti, Francis X. Vacanti, Joshua C. Vacanti, Assia Valovska, Ivan T. Valovski, Mary Ann Vann, Susan Vassallo, Anasuya Vasudevan, Kamen V. Vlassakov, Gian Paolo Volpato, Essi M. Vulli, J. Matthias Walz, Jingping Wang, James F. Watkins, Maxwell Weinmann, Sharon L. Wetherall, Mallory Williams, Sarah H. Wiser, Zhiling Xiong, Warren M. Zapol, Jie Zhou
- Edited by Charles Vacanti, Scott Segal, Pankaj Sikka, Richard Urman
-
- Book:
- Essential Clinical Anesthesia
- Published online:
- 05 January 2012
- Print publication:
- 11 July 2011, pp xv-xxviii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
14 - Moral Philosophy, Information Technology, and Copyright: The Grokster Case
-
- By Wendy J. Gordon, Professor of law and Paul J. Liacos Scholar in Law Boston University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts
- Edited by Jeroen van den Hoven, John Weckert, Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales
-
- Book:
- Information Technology and Moral Philosophy
- Published online:
- 21 July 2009
- Print publication:
- 31 March 2008, pp 270-300
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
A plethora of philosophical issues arise where copyright and patent laws intersect with information technology. Given the necessary brevity of the chapter, my strategy will be to make general observations that can be applied to illuminate one particular issue. I have chosen the issue considered in MGM v. Grokster, a recent copyright case from the U.S. Supreme Court. Grokster, Ltd., provided a decentralized peer-to-peer technology that many people, typically students, used to copy and distribute music in ways that violated copyright law. The Supreme Court addressed the extent to which Grokster and other technology providers should be held responsible (under a theory of ‘secondary liability’) for infringements done by others who use the technology.
In its Grokster opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ducked difficult questions about the consequences of imposing liability on such a technology provider, and instead chose to invent a new doctrine that imposed secondary liability on the basis of a notion of ‘intent’. The judges have been accused of sidestepping immensely difficult empirical questions and instead taking the ‘easy way out’ (Wu 2005, p. 241). This chapter asks if the Court's new doctrinal use of ‘intent’ is in fact as deeply flawed as critics contend. To examine the issue, the chapter employs two broadly defined ethical approaches to suggest an interpretation of what the Court may have been trying to do. The first is one that aims at impersonally maximizing good consequences; the chapter uses the term ‘consequentialist’ for this approach.