School of Law

Concerns over biopiracy have fueled urgent calls for a new system of legal protection for indigenous biological materials and knowledge. Detractors of the current patent systems say that the knowledge of traditional cultures and communities does not readily fit into the industrialized world’s definition of intellectual property (IT); critics argue that existing laws basically promote the interests of the industrialized world. However, intellectual property and technology law expert Charles McManis, J.D., disagrees. More…

In recognition of the role that William H. (Bill) Danforth, life trustee and chancellor emeritus, his family and the Danforth Foundation have played in the evolution of Washington University in St. Louis, the Hilltop Campus will be renamed the Danforth Campus, according to Chancellor Mark S. Wrighton. An official recognition ceremony will be held Sept. 17, when the new name takes effect.

Biotech innovations pop up every day. From medicines developed by large companies to ingenious solutions worked out by individuals in university labs, new technologies are poised to enter the marketplace. The question is, are patents helping or hurting this process? “Patents are essential to bring biotechnology innovations from everyone — not just well-funded corporations — to the people,” says F. Scott Kieff, J.D., associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis. “Without patents, the biotech marketplace in basic science takes on the nature of something like an old boys’ club in which personal attributes such as fame, prestige, and even gender and race, govern what exchanges take place; and the addition of patents gives many more people a way to play in that game.”

Growing biopiracy concerns have fueled urgent calls for a new system of legal protection for traditional knowledge. Detractors of the current patent systems say that the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities does not readily fit into the existing rules of the industrialized world and that these rules basically promote the interests of the industrialized world. However, Charles McManis, J.D., IP and technology law expert and the Thomas and Karole Green Professor of Law at Washington University in St. Louis, argues that “at least in the short run, existing intellectual property regimes offer the most realistic avenue for securing effective legal protection for traditional knowledge holders.”

More than 30 Washington University faculty, administrators and staff will participate in science and technology presentations when the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest general scientific organization, holds its annual meeting Feb. 16-20 at both the America’s Center and Renaissance Grand Hotel in downtown St. Louis.

Fantasy sports providers and fans will be closely following the case that centers on the fantasy sports leagues’ use of players’ names without permission and the profits the league derives from doing so. An entertainment law expert and professor at WUSTL says that this case could have an effect on all fantasy leagues.

She has argued that the institution of marriage has always been dynamic, shifting to fulfill economic needs in societies or kin groups.

Family historian Stephanie Coontz will debunk popular myths about marriage and the family in her Assembly Series/School of Law lecture, “Courting Disaster? The World Historical Transformation of Marriage.” The talk, which is free and open to the public, will be held at 11 a.m.Wednesday, February 1 in Graham Chapel.

BagenstosThe United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously on January 9 in favor of a Georgia inmate in a disability rights case, United States v. Georgia. Samuel R. Bagenstos, J.D., professor of law, argued the case on behalf of the inmate, Tony Goodman. The ruling paves the wave for Goodman to seek damages against the state of Georgia. According to the ruling, Goodman’s “more serious allegations” were that he was “confined for 23-to-24 hours per day in a 12-by-3-foot cell, in which he could not turn his wheelchair around” and that “the lack of accessible facilities rendered him unable to use the toilet and shower without assistance, which was often denied.”

EpsteinHarriet Miers withdrawal from consideration for the U.S. Supreme Court is not surprising given the fact that she ranks among the least qualified candidates since the nomination of Hugo Black in 1937, according to an analysis by authors of a new book on the politics of Supreme Court nominations. “Despite the tremendous importance of politics in Supreme Court nominations, the single most important determinant of a successful confirmation is the qualifications of the nominee,” suggests Lee Epstein, WUSTL Supreme Court expert and co-author of “Advice and Consent: The Politics of Judicial Appointments.”