All corrections that are needed will be in effect only after the retake. I have notes on each one who has interacted with me in this regard. If later than the 15th you see no changes, please, write to the email of the course to look into that. In the meantime, rest! It is almost Summer! It is all said and done anyway.
Monday 4 June 2012
Monday 28 May 2012
"Retake" opportunity
People who are interested in improving their final grades can opt for the retake test scheduled for the 12th of June.
Format: Electronic
Posted online or delivered to your mailboxes at 10:00am and due for submission at 14:00pm
Content: cases and short essay questions about essential aspects of the course. No chapter is excluded. The final grade can be also reduced, if this evaluation is unsuccessful.
Send an email BEFORE June 6, for registration.
Format: Electronic
Posted online or delivered to your mailboxes at 10:00am and due for submission at 14:00pm
Content: cases and short essay questions about essential aspects of the course. No chapter is excluded. The final grade can be also reduced, if this evaluation is unsuccessful.
Send an email BEFORE June 6, for registration.
Saturday 26 May 2012
Final averages
As explained, selecting the assignments to take into account was based on criteria that would benefit MOST students. This was no special privileges or considerations would be given to any one. As a result, some people could not pass the course, but the same would have been true had it be done differently, and to many more people.
60% corresponds to:
-The first and second assignments were counted on the mere submission with 100% (when both were submitted). Still, few did not present them and they got a zero.
The third was not counted (hierarchy) because 80% of the group failed it with 0.
-The grade on the debate (adjusted according to my own notes and your comments on the survey). I you had a better grade on the quiz, this last was not changed.
-the combined grade of the mindmap/presentation, and the individual research that followed (most people chose to describe the forms of business organisations in their country). Late submissions do not count! These two are also averaged to your convenience.
40% corresponds to the final paper.
This list will be updated shortly, please check later if your ID does not appear below. For details, write an email or contact me via Skype on Monday.
107479= 5% (0)
107970= 68% (2)
107472= 60% (1)
113554= 71% (3)
107538= 51% (1)
120121= MI
105934= 47% (0)
120131= MI
108001= MI
105974= 48% (0)
096444= 86% (4)
110346= 42% (0)
108541= 92% (5)
107467= MI
107532= 56% (1)
107477= 82% (4)
113579= 71% (3)
105897= 57% (1)
105989= 48% (0)
080553= 56% (1)
105977= 66% (2)
105893= 48% (0)
105933= 74% (3)
120264= MI
105978= 57% (1)
105975= 57% (1)
120173= MI
096448= 63% (2)
107803= 46% (0)
105932= 54% (1)
107480= 75% (3)
105899= 70% (2)
107528= 52% (1)
107539= 49% (0)
105942= 53% (1)
107468= 74% (3)
120152= 63% (2)
120133= 60% (1)
110347= 48% (0)
107541= 71% (3)
096485= 72% (3)
105705= 56% (1)
105906= 56% (1)
105984= 61% (2)
105787= 62% (2)
095983= MI
YY= 37% (0)
096488= 78% (3)
107530= 78% (3)
60% corresponds to:
-The first and second assignments were counted on the mere submission with 100% (when both were submitted). Still, few did not present them and they got a zero.
The third was not counted (hierarchy) because 80% of the group failed it with 0.
-The grade on the debate (adjusted according to my own notes and your comments on the survey). I you had a better grade on the quiz, this last was not changed.
-the combined grade of the mindmap/presentation, and the individual research that followed (most people chose to describe the forms of business organisations in their country). Late submissions do not count! These two are also averaged to your convenience.
40% corresponds to the final paper.
This list will be updated shortly, please check later if your ID does not appear below. For details, write an email or contact me via Skype on Monday.
107479= 5% (0)
107970= 68% (2)
107472= 60% (1)
113554= 71% (3)
107538= 51% (1)
120121= MI
105934= 47% (0)
120131= MI
108001= MI
105974= 48% (0)
096444= 86% (4)
110346= 42% (0)
108541= 92% (5)
107467= MI
107532= 56% (1)
107477= 82% (4)
113579= 71% (3)
105897= 57% (1)
105989= 48% (0)
080553= 56% (1)
105977= 66% (2)
105893= 48% (0)
105933= 74% (3)
120264= MI
105978= 57% (1)
105975= 57% (1)
120173= MI
096448= 63% (2)
107803= 46% (0)
105932= 54% (1)
107480= 75% (3)
105899= 70% (2)
107528= 52% (1)
107539= 49% (0)
105942= 53% (1)
107468= 74% (3)
120152= 63% (2)
120133= 60% (1)
110347= 48% (0)
107541= 71% (3)
096485= 72% (3)
105705= 56% (1)
105906= 56% (1)
105984= 61% (2)
105787= 62% (2)
095983= MI
YY= 37% (0)
096488= 78% (3)
107530= 78% (3)
Wednesday 16 May 2012
The end
The course is finished for the term and the final papers due on Monday afternoon, the latest. Your final averages will take no longer than a week to be communicated. Only 4 of the assignments (those with the best results fo rmost) will be taken into account; detailed records will be made available.
People with low attendance patterns (4 or less sessions) will probably be in need to repeat the course.
If in need of specific information, please write an email or arrage for an appointment. Thank you for your participation, and remember the last lesson´s message: To prevent disputes, conflicts should be well administered or resolved. Be good, do well!
People with low attendance patterns (4 or less sessions) will probably be in need to repeat the course.
If in need of specific information, please write an email or arrage for an appointment. Thank you for your participation, and remember the last lesson´s message: To prevent disputes, conflicts should be well administered or resolved. Be good, do well!
Tuesday 15 May 2012
Week 16: May 14-19
In the last class the topic will be legal disputes and their resolution. Conflict management in as much as we have time. The class will start at 10:10. Your papers are not due on this date, but submissions are welcome. If most groups need extra time to prepare the paper, then we can discuss the possibility of extending the term.
Wednesday 9 May 2012
Useful for groups working on ACTA and related issues
This is a post on the EDRI newsletter, where a contributor reports on the current developments of the legislative procedure on ACTA at the European Parliament:
"Next week, the European Parliament's Development Committee (DEVE), the first of the five Committees responsible for providing opinions on the proposed ACTA agreement will vote on its draft recommendation.
As of today, it appears more likely than not that the Development Committee will vote in favour of ACTA. The Parliamentarian leading on the dossier is Czech Eurosceptic Jan Zahradil. While there is an obvious attraction for a Eurosceptic to support (ironically following the European Commission's line very diligently) an EU proposal which is deeply unpopular and flawed, a “yes” vote would come as a big shock to many observers and risks creating political momentum that could potentially breathe new life into the allegedly “dead” proposal. Of course, a “yes” vote can only happen if the Parliamentarians, whose job is to support policies that defend development, ignore the opinions of
organisations like Médicins sans Frontières, ignore the analysis of the dangers for development described by the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development and, last but not least, ignore the political direction agreed in several of the political groups. To contact Parliamentarians on the DEVE Committee to ask them not to vote in favour of Mr Zahradil's position, please see the links below.
The dangers of splits in the political groups that have already declared their opposition to ACTA are best illustrated by the amendments tabled to the draft Opinion in the Industry Committee (ITRE). There, in line with the majority of interventions in the Committee discussions, the Parliamentarian in charge of the dossier, Amelia Andersdotter (Sweden, Greens/EFA) proposed rejection. However, the Danish Liberal Jens Rohde (who sat alongside his group leader at the press conference where the
Liberal group's against ACTA was announced) has co-signed an amendment with the conservative EPP group, in order to delete the recommendation to reject ACTA. In response to a blog article criticising him for this, Mr Rhode said that, when preparing an Opinion for another Committee on a
proposal, it was not the role of the Committee to make a recommendation. He did not explain what the purpose of an Opinion is, if it is not to express an opinion.
The third Committee working on this dossier is the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI), where Marielle Gallo (EPP, France) is responsible. Unsurprisingly, as Ms Gallo is a staunch defender of repressive measures to support IPR enforcement, her draft report is in favour of ACTA. Her solution to ACTA's problems is to require the European Commission to produce annual reports on ACTA's implementation and, where breaches of fundamental rights are identified, to “immediately” persuade the European Court of Justice to bring them to an end. And this would be a good strategy if the European Commission did not have a long history of failing to respect its reporting obligations (its data retention report was seven months late), if the Commission had not proposed “voluntary”
breaches of European law itself, if the mechanism for the European Court to immediately end infringements identified by the Commission actually existed, if ACTA was a purely internal instrument and if one of the biggest risks to fundamental rights was not from foreign companies
regulating EU freedom of communication.
The Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE) published the draft Opinion from the MEP responsible Dimitrios Droutsas (Greece, S&D). The Opinion raises a whole range of dangers for fundamental rights created by ACTA, strongly implying that ACTA is illegal under EU law. However, Mr
Droutsas appears to prefer to include that conclusion only after the dossier has been fully debated in the Committee. The Committee will have a public hearing next Wednesday morning (16 May) with invited experts from civil society (including EDRi and La Quadrature), the European Commission, the EDPS and others.
The fifth Committee, the International Trade Committee (INTA), will be responsible for the final Committee vote, before the dossier is sent to the Plenary sitting of the European Parliament in July. While the draft final report by the MEP in charge, David Martin has been published, this
Committee's work on the dossier is at an earlier stage than the others, as they are supposed to take the other Committee's opinions into account before finalising their position. Mr Martin's draft recommendation states that the costs of ACTA outweigh the potential benefits and it should, therefore, be rejected.
EDRi's Stop ACTA page
http://edri.org/stopacta
Médicins sans Frontières
http://www.msfaccess.org/conte
German Ministry position
http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/0
Danish blog article on Rohde's amendment
https://bitbureauet.dk/2012/05
Zahradil draft opinion
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Andersdotter draft opinion
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Gallo draft opinion
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Martin draft recommendation
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Infographic on the Parliament's procedures for ACTA
http://www.laquadrature.net/wi
Detailed information on the EU's decision-making processes
http://www.edri.org/files/2012
contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi http://www.edri.org/edrigram
"Next week, the European Parliament's Development Committee (DEVE), the first of the five Committees responsible for providing opinions on the proposed ACTA agreement will vote on its draft recommendation.
As of today, it appears more likely than not that the Development Committee will vote in favour of ACTA. The Parliamentarian leading on the dossier is Czech Eurosceptic Jan Zahradil. While there is an obvious attraction for a Eurosceptic to support (ironically following the European Commission's line very diligently) an EU proposal which is deeply unpopular and flawed, a “yes” vote would come as a big shock to many observers and risks creating political momentum that could potentially breathe new life into the allegedly “dead” proposal. Of course, a “yes” vote can only happen if the Parliamentarians, whose job is to support policies that defend development, ignore the opinions of
organisations like Médicins sans Frontières, ignore the analysis of the dangers for development described by the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development and, last but not least, ignore the political direction agreed in several of the political groups. To contact Parliamentarians on the DEVE Committee to ask them not to vote in favour of Mr Zahradil's position, please see the links below.
The dangers of splits in the political groups that have already declared their opposition to ACTA are best illustrated by the amendments tabled to the draft Opinion in the Industry Committee (ITRE). There, in line with the majority of interventions in the Committee discussions, the Parliamentarian in charge of the dossier, Amelia Andersdotter (Sweden, Greens/EFA) proposed rejection. However, the Danish Liberal Jens Rohde (who sat alongside his group leader at the press conference where the
Liberal group's against ACTA was announced) has co-signed an amendment with the conservative EPP group, in order to delete the recommendation to reject ACTA. In response to a blog article criticising him for this, Mr Rhode said that, when preparing an Opinion for another Committee on a
proposal, it was not the role of the Committee to make a recommendation. He did not explain what the purpose of an Opinion is, if it is not to express an opinion.
The third Committee working on this dossier is the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI), where Marielle Gallo (EPP, France) is responsible. Unsurprisingly, as Ms Gallo is a staunch defender of repressive measures to support IPR enforcement, her draft report is in favour of ACTA. Her solution to ACTA's problems is to require the European Commission to produce annual reports on ACTA's implementation and, where breaches of fundamental rights are identified, to “immediately” persuade the European Court of Justice to bring them to an end. And this would be a good strategy if the European Commission did not have a long history of failing to respect its reporting obligations (its data retention report was seven months late), if the Commission had not proposed “voluntary”
breaches of European law itself, if the mechanism for the European Court to immediately end infringements identified by the Commission actually existed, if ACTA was a purely internal instrument and if one of the biggest risks to fundamental rights was not from foreign companies
regulating EU freedom of communication.
The Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE) published the draft Opinion from the MEP responsible Dimitrios Droutsas (Greece, S&D). The Opinion raises a whole range of dangers for fundamental rights created by ACTA, strongly implying that ACTA is illegal under EU law. However, Mr
Droutsas appears to prefer to include that conclusion only after the dossier has been fully debated in the Committee. The Committee will have a public hearing next Wednesday morning (16 May) with invited experts from civil society (including EDRi and La Quadrature), the European Commission, the EDPS and others.
The fifth Committee, the International Trade Committee (INTA), will be responsible for the final Committee vote, before the dossier is sent to the Plenary sitting of the European Parliament in July. While the draft final report by the MEP in charge, David Martin has been published, this
Committee's work on the dossier is at an earlier stage than the others, as they are supposed to take the other Committee's opinions into account before finalising their position. Mr Martin's draft recommendation states that the costs of ACTA outweigh the potential benefits and it should, therefore, be rejected.
EDRi's Stop ACTA page
http://edri.org/stopacta
Médicins sans Frontières
http://www.msfaccess.org/conte
German Ministry position
http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/0
Danish blog article on Rohde's amendment
https://bitbureauet.dk/2012/05
Zahradil draft opinion
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Andersdotter draft opinion
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Gallo draft opinion
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Martin draft recommendation
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Infographic on the Parliament's procedures for ACTA
http://www.laquadrature.net/wi
Detailed information on the EU's decision-making processes
http://www.edri.org/files/2012
contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi http://www.edri.org/edrigram
Monday 7 May 2012
Week 15: May 7-11
On Wednesday the lecture will concentrate on the law of obligations and contracts. The group should be prepared to participate actively based on the guidelines presented in the last post. There is no deliverable for this week.
Thursday 26 April 2012
Week 14: April 30-May 4
The reading for this week is brief and very simple; the chapter on contracts and treaties of Honore´ s book. Besides, find short answers to the following questions:
1. When a binding contract is created?
2. What are other sources of obligations besides contracts?
3. What types of contracts we have? (classification, not examples)
4. What are some of the contracts that business deal with on every day basis?
5. What is the difference between employment contract and other type of civil/private contracts?
6. What, in your country, is the legislation applicable to contractual relationships?
Both sides of the debate would have received a passing grade, a 4 in the opinion of most of the students a 2 in mine, but to slice it fair a 3. Many are criteria applicable and detailed feedback is available upon request. However, according to records on the preparation and conduction of the debate, and the quality of the participation, these grades are adjusted, so at the end everyone got a personal evaluation that ranges from 0-5. These will be communicated to the group later.
The next class will take place in week 15, when at least a list of preliminary bibliography for the final paper should be ready. I will be available to correct the works in progress (I recommend you to use this opportunity!). The final paper is due on week 16.
1. When a binding contract is created?
2. What are other sources of obligations besides contracts?
3. What types of contracts we have? (classification, not examples)
4. What are some of the contracts that business deal with on every day basis?
5. What is the difference between employment contract and other type of civil/private contracts?
6. What, in your country, is the legislation applicable to contractual relationships?
Both sides of the debate would have received a passing grade, a 4 in the opinion of most of the students a 2 in mine, but to slice it fair a 3. Many are criteria applicable and detailed feedback is available upon request. However, according to records on the preparation and conduction of the debate, and the quality of the participation, these grades are adjusted, so at the end everyone got a personal evaluation that ranges from 0-5. These will be communicated to the group later.
The next class will take place in week 15, when at least a list of preliminary bibliography for the final paper should be ready. I will be available to correct the works in progress (I recommend you to use this opportunity!). The final paper is due on week 16.
Wednesday 25 April 2012
Saturday 21 April 2012
Week 13: April 23-27
The debate planned for the next class should cover 3 academic hours: 135 minutes, after one hour of traditional lecture (including a 15 minutes break for organizing the last details).
By now each one should be already educated on the role to defend. Without preparing, participation will harm your team, so make sure you do not count on improvising.
A list with the least you should cover is already communicated to your coordinators; discuss with them. With a good effort collaborating and effective team work everyone could do fine.
A debate is a formal/traditional/academic and intellectual exercise. This should help not only on IPLegislation but on presentation skills, group work, leadership, and argumentation.
By now each one should be already educated on the role to defend. Without preparing, participation will harm your team, so make sure you do not count on improvising.
A list with the least you should cover is already communicated to your coordinators; discuss with them. With a good effort collaborating and effective team work everyone could do fine.
Wednesday 18 April 2012
Assignation of roles
Julius coordinates the team arguing against the current status of IPlaws
Han Xiao, Yujun, Satu Vahteristo, Uche, Julia Robotaenko, Jaanika Tomingas, Valeria, Lauri Puskar,
Ganesh Paudel, Tomi Näres, Tomi Laitinen, Lauri Kosonen, Julius Hyppönen, Christina Karjalainen, Juli Jokinen, Marta Idaszek, Joonas, Magomed Dzhavatkhanov, Benoit braconnot,
Julien Bêche and Jaro Auranen.
Riku-Juuso the one in favour of the IPL as they are proposed now, and their rigorous enforcement
Rikimaru, Sebastian Bahri, Rosa bergheim, Luminita Cretu, Miikka Gröhn, Tuomas Hirvonen, Jesse, Benjamin Jamois, Janne, Juha Kautto, Evgeny, Ez lynold Sajonia, Maciej, Henri levo, Tuomas, Tuomas pasanen, Alyona, Haoyi Sun, Emmi, Magomed Isalov, David Remy Valeri, Qi Zeng, and Maria Erss.
Prepare on your role and also on how to debate. On this, a variety of websites are widely available. Start here
More detailed instructions can be obtained from the coordinators.
Han Xiao, Yujun, Satu Vahteristo, Uche, Julia Robotaenko, Jaanika Tomingas, Valeria, Lauri Puskar,
Ganesh Paudel, Tomi Näres, Tomi Laitinen, Lauri Kosonen, Julius Hyppönen, Christina Karjalainen, Juli Jokinen, Marta Idaszek, Joonas, Magomed Dzhavatkhanov, Benoit braconnot,
Julien Bêche and Jaro Auranen.
Riku-Juuso the one in favour of the IPL as they are proposed now, and their rigorous enforcement
Rikimaru, Sebastian Bahri, Rosa bergheim, Luminita Cretu, Miikka Gröhn, Tuomas Hirvonen, Jesse, Benjamin Jamois, Janne, Juha Kautto, Evgeny, Ez lynold Sajonia, Maciej, Henri levo, Tuomas, Tuomas pasanen, Alyona, Haoyi Sun, Emmi, Magomed Isalov, David Remy Valeri, Qi Zeng, and Maria Erss.
Prepare on your role and also on how to debate. On this, a variety of websites are widely available. Start here
More detailed instructions can be obtained from the coordinators.
Sunday 15 April 2012
Week 12: April 16-20
On the 18th we start with the quiz announced on property law in general. Next, the class will introduce intellectual property rights, theory and categories. The roles for the upcoming debate will also be distributed. Two moderators are needed (one for the group in favor of current IPlaws, and the other for the team that will be debating against them), also two annotators that should keep records on the discussion and present a report. Volunteers are welcome.
Final paper list of approved topics so far:
1. Rosa and Emmi: LEB, to be narrowed.
2. Satu and Sebastian: Balancing digital rights in Europe
3. Benjamin and Julien: EU policy on Digital rights. The French approach.
4. Maria: IPlaws (pending details)
5. Jesse and Julius Hyppönen: EU policy on digital rights: current issues and expected developments (ACTA)
6. Riku Juuso and Tuomas Pasanen: EU policy on digital rights
7. Miikka: Trademarks and Patent laws, pending specific issue.
8. Qi and Haoyi: Are IPL needed or imposed onto China?
9. Ignatious, Ez and Lauri: Laws affecting oil trade (needs to be specified, and put into a narrow context)
10. Joonas and Juliane: Copyrights and marketing
11. Qi Zeng and Haoyi Sun: Intellectual property rights in China: needed or imposed?
12. Tomi and Henri: Practical assessment of the LEB in Finland (loans)
13. Janne and Juha: The IPlaws "Censorship effect"
Your final grade on the paper will be reduced up to 10% if the topic has not been approved in advance.
1. Rosa and Emmi: LEB, to be narrowed.
2. Satu and Sebastian: Balancing digital rights in Europe
3. Benjamin and Julien: EU policy on Digital rights. The French approach.
4. Maria: IPlaws (pending details)
5. Jesse and Julius Hyppönen: EU policy on digital rights: current issues and expected developments (ACTA)
6. Riku Juuso and Tuomas Pasanen: EU policy on digital rights
7. Miikka: Trademarks and Patent laws, pending specific issue.
8. Qi and Haoyi: Are IPL needed or imposed onto China?
9. Ignatious, Ez and Lauri: Laws affecting oil trade (needs to be specified, and put into a narrow context)
10. Joonas and Juliane: Copyrights and marketing
11. Qi Zeng and Haoyi Sun: Intellectual property rights in China: needed or imposed?
12. Tomi and Henri: Practical assessment of the LEB in Finland (loans)
13. Janne and Juha: The IPlaws "Censorship effect"
Your final grade on the paper will be reduced up to 10% if the topic has not been approved in advance.
Wednesday 4 April 2012
Week 11: March 9-13
The final can be presented in couples or individually.
Two good topics can be:
1. Practical assessment of the legal environment of a particular business idea or project. This requires explicit references to the legislation applicable, in the terms, and using the concept discussed on the course.
2. Analyze the current European policy on digital economic rights and the trends about their protection within the region.
You can propose other subjects, in a field that allows discussing business activities and laws, but they can be accepted only if undoubtedly relevant to the course.
On Wednesday, you will receive a set of electronic readings materials (or their references) to cover independently; The next meeting will take place on April 18th.
Sunday 1 April 2012
Week 10: April 2-6
Read the chapter on Property on the Introduction to Law by T.Honore book; and prepare to participate in the common summary sent to your personal email addresses via Writeboard. Each group should contribute with comments, text or any substantial addition on how property law appeared (history) and what justifies the protection of private property. I added a starting argument that groups can support or contrast with differing opinions. Every idea is welcome.
All contributions should be added by the end of the next class.
All contributions should be added by the end of the next class.
Friday 23 March 2012
Friday, March 23
I only received on time 1 concept map. The rest of the groups did not submit anything, made the wrong assignment (despite clear announcements on this blog), or sent the work late. Anyway, every group has to present to the rest the outline/mindmap/graphic summary as requested, and we will start next week. Make, improve or/and complete your homework (the presentation is worth half of the grade).
Today is due the work for this week. I will ask a copy in print (in addition to the electronic version), per group, at the beginning of the next session
On Wednesday 28th, the class will begin at 10:30am
This was up to you to inquire about, but to prevent appeals to the most predictable excuses, I link here two tutorials out of dozens available online. I am sure many of you use these tools long ago!
1. Bubbl
2. SpiderscribeSunday 18 March 2012
Week 8: March 19-23
From the beginning it was explained that consistent involvement is needed to be able to follow the course. This involves regular visits to this blog and following instructions.
For clarifications, assistance, and additional materials: write, ask, contact me via Skype or arrange for an appointment.
In addition, every group has to look for legislation and doctrine about the following special forms:
Joint Ventures, Syndicates, Federations, Trusts, Cooperatives, Foundations.
Are they all available to business?
For clarifications, assistance, and additional materials: write, ask, contact me via Skype or arrange for an appointment.
- On Friday, last week you were to hand in the conceptual map based on the file summarizing the past lecture on personality law. All assignments are to be made by the groups, unless otherwise instructed. Completing the outline with lecture notes or additional information is always welcome and recommended. On Wednesday 28 of this month the teams will begin presenting these to the rest of the group, explaining how the information was selected and organized. No group should take more than 5-7 minutes explaining this outline. Please refer to the previous post that proposed this exercise.
- The assignment for week No.8 is to be based on the topics proposed during the last lecture plus one that every group has to research about. You can select one of the following subjects and make the corresponding report. This should not exceed 3 pages. Submit by Friday 23 AND bring in print on the 28.
1. Consumer Protection Legislation
|
Look for the regulatory sources at the national level (your country)
and briefly explain their content
|
-
Who are consumers
-
Against whom they must be protected?
-
Why this legislation would be necessary if the
civil laws anyway protect?
-
Examples
-
How this affects businesses?
|
2. Corporate Criminal liability
|
Look for legislation and doctrinaire sources (writings of scholars,
articles, books)
|
-
Discuss the connection between criminal laws
and civil laws
-
Comment on the responsibility that is
attributable to fictional entities as opposed to personal responsibility
-
Why this is relevant to the topic of
Personality law?
-
Can one talk about criminal companies?
|
3. Major Business Forms in Your Country
|
Look for the legal provisions that regulate and describe them, only
then use other information sources to complete the chart
|
Draw a comparative chart that illustrates the main similarities and
differences between these and explain the main aspects that are used to
classify them. Bring up identifiable examples of such business arrangements
|
In addition, every group has to look for legislation and doctrine about the following special forms:
Joint Ventures, Syndicates, Federations, Trusts, Cooperatives, Foundations.
Are they all available to business?
SIMPLER IS ALWAYS BETTER. Turn cluttered information into simple outlines!
Saturday 10 March 2012
Week 7: March 12-16
Get acquainted with different tools to make concept maps or graphic outlines. Word and PowerPoint are the simplest ones, but hosted on line are plenty that could help your learning processes, and improve studying and presenting ideas. Some of them are: cmap, text2map, cayra, bookvar, etc. The next class, after reviewing the notes that arrived to your mailboxes today, each group will prepare a concept map to be explained to the rest. It might take one or two weeks to complete this assignment. To facilitate it, be ready and prepare.
Downloadable templates are widely available as well:
Saturday 3 March 2012
Week 6: March 5-9
Summary of the past lectures:
Some of the regulatory systems societies use to exercise social order and control are besides the laws, morals and uses. The sources of legal mandates are of two kinds; material corresponding to those inspiring and motivating legal development. Most probably reflecting ideology, societal needs or pressure, and cultural evolution. Nowadays technology plays a big role in these dynamics too. Formal sources refer to the processes and formats that contain normative legal content. These are only four according to legal science: doctrine (not binding but with interpretative value), jurisprudence (case law, the doctrine of precedent or stare decisis), custom (in as much as the law assigns to it a value) and the laws in general sense. The most restrictive meaning of the laws is explained in the theory of legal hierarchy and the functioning of the different regulatory layers we studied during the past weeks. Democracy is the political environment that we collaborate with and explain in more detail. This is a model that rests upon a well known doctrine, the doctrine of the rule of law.
This is the last introductory topic this class will extend with during the next lecture. With it the foundation to better be able to interpret more specialized content will be wrapped up. Each student should have get acquainted at least with the explanations we already made in class, one or several of the readings that were suggested or the use of such expression.
Think about the applicability of these ideas to the cyberspace and all emerging virtual communities (myspace, second life, even facebook, linkedin, etc).
On Wednesday the group will also start discussing civil laws on personality: Who are "persons?" What type of persons legal systems classify and why?
Some of the regulatory systems societies use to exercise social order and control are besides the laws, morals and uses. The sources of legal mandates are of two kinds; material corresponding to those inspiring and motivating legal development. Most probably reflecting ideology, societal needs or pressure, and cultural evolution. Nowadays technology plays a big role in these dynamics too. Formal sources refer to the processes and formats that contain normative legal content. These are only four according to legal science: doctrine (not binding but with interpretative value), jurisprudence (case law, the doctrine of precedent or stare decisis), custom (in as much as the law assigns to it a value) and the laws in general sense. The most restrictive meaning of the laws is explained in the theory of legal hierarchy and the functioning of the different regulatory layers we studied during the past weeks. Democracy is the political environment that we collaborate with and explain in more detail. This is a model that rests upon a well known doctrine, the doctrine of the rule of law.
This is the last introductory topic this class will extend with during the next lecture. With it the foundation to better be able to interpret more specialized content will be wrapped up. Each student should have get acquainted at least with the explanations we already made in class, one or several of the readings that were suggested or the use of such expression.
Think about the applicability of these ideas to the cyberspace and all emerging virtual communities (myspace, second life, even facebook, linkedin, etc).
On Wednesday the group will also start discussing civil laws on personality: Who are "persons?" What type of persons legal systems classify and why?
Sunday 26 February 2012
Week 5: February 27-March 2
New subjects are not proposed until we covered all pending assignment and topics.
Friday 17 February 2012
Week 4: February 20-24
In-class exercise on the hierarchy of rules/types of laws, and norms. Find an outline of the regulatory systems chapter HERE, and on the concept of democracy HERE.
The lecture will focus on the rule of law. Recommended reading materials: From the University of Chicago Law Review: THIS, and from Project Muse: THIS. An specific article from UCLA, published by Cambridge press on China (short and clear) can be found HERE, and from the Boston University Law Review a contrasting view can be retreived from HERE (access to the full text at the Library).
Consider: What regulations apply/should be applicable in the/to the cyberspace?
The lecture will focus on the rule of law. Recommended reading materials: From the University of Chicago Law Review: THIS, and from Project Muse: THIS. An specific article from UCLA, published by Cambridge press on China (short and clear) can be found HERE, and from the Boston University Law Review a contrasting view can be retreived from HERE (access to the full text at the Library).
Consider: What regulations apply/should be applicable in the/to the cyberspace?
Saturday 11 February 2012
Week 3: February 13-17
The class will focus on the way states regulate and the extent of the reach of their legislative powers. For this introductory class discussion, being knowledgeable about democracy, free market and the implications of the two, would be beneficial. The lecture will include explanations on these, and how to assess different types of regulations.
These readings may be illustrative of the way democracy can be "applied" or "contrasting:"
The terror subject, privacy vs. public surveillance, and the Internet neutrality discussion.
What laws apply to the cyberspace?
These readings may be illustrative of the way democracy can be "applied" or "contrasting:"
The terror subject, privacy vs. public surveillance, and the Internet neutrality discussion.
What laws apply to the cyberspace?
Friday 3 February 2012
Week 1: January 30-February 3
.
"Week 1 and 2 (February 1st and 8th ):
Law and Societies. Self-assessment questionnaire. What are laws for? How do they affect each one of us and to which extent? Purpose
Reading assignment: Laws and economic development. Glossary of terms"
Law and Societies. Self-assessment questionnaire. What are laws for? How do they affect each one of us and to which extent? Purpose
Reading assignment: Laws and economic development. Glossary of terms"
On 08.02, more on basic concepts and preliminary lessons about regulatory systems and how a legal system is arranged. The first chapters of ISBN 998559505X, 9789985595053 provide adequate support to these and few other lectures to come. Before the second half of the session, self-assessment questionnaires will be distributed along with the readings (or links) on the influence of laws on economic development. The questionnaire should be responded and submitted on the same date
Tallinn Law School is launching a new Master programme in Law and Technology. An info-session will be held next Tuesday, February 7th, at 13:45 in the auditorium I-202 (just next to TUT's main Aula). Maybe some of you are interested in attending...
Tuesday 31 January 2012
Spring 2012
Welcome to the course. Visit this site regularly for announcements, additional materials and updates. Contact your lecturer via email: lebmidterms@gmail.com
The syllabus will be distributed directly to the students attending class, the first and second week of the term.
The syllabus will be distributed directly to the students attending class, the first and second week of the term.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)