JEFFREY F. LEVINE, Affiliation Unknown
Email: jflevine@gmail.com

This Comment briefly explores the economic affects of hosting the Olympic Games and how Western intellectual property law impacts the legal systems of developing nations seeking to host Olympic Games. Specifically, the Comment addresses the massive financial burdens a host nation incurs in order to potentially reap the intangible benefits as an Olympic Host and explores the benefits and burdens China may incur in hosting the upcoming Beijing Olympiad.

After examing the economic issues, the Comment analyzes potential intellectual property law issues, focusing on the right of publicity in an Olympic context. Afterward, the author suggests methods by which China can provide Olympic participants protection of their likeness through an international comparative analysis.

CRAIG MCTAGGART, TELUS Communications Company
Email: craig.mctaggart@telus.com

The ongoing policy debate under the banner of "net neutrality" engages fundamental questions regarding the form of governance that best protects the interests of Internet stakeholders and advances the development of the Internet itself. While incidents sparking net neutrality concerns in North America have been isolated, often misunderstood, and rarely repeated, the attention that they have attracted is indicative of the level of interest in this issue. There are a variety of legitimate concerns on all sides. While some are calling for new legislation or regulation of Internet access to address net neutrality concerns, this paper seeks to demonstrate that, unlike in the United States, Canada's existing Telecommunications Act provides the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) the authority it needs to address any problems that may arise. I propose certain general public policy principles regarding residential wireline Internet access, followed by a set of specific interpretive principles using which the Telecommunications Act may usefully be applied to Canada's competitive Internet access marketplace.

DREW KONING, Fordham University - School of Law
Email: koning@law.fordham.edu

This comment analyzes the recent Supreme Court case, Microsoft v. AT&T and attacks the Court's reasoning behind its holding to limit patent protection of software. The paper examines the history of 271(f) with respect to software and questions whether a fundamental misunderstanding of software by the Court is responsible for its misguided decision.

DANIEL J. SOLOVE, George Washington University Law School
Email: dsolove@law.gwu.edu

Privacy is one of the most important concepts of our time, yet it is also one of the most elusive. As rapidly changing technology makes information increasingly available, scholars, activists, and policymakers have struggled to define privacy, with many conceding that the task is virtually impossible.

In UNDERSTANDING PRIVACY (Harvard University Press, May 2008), Professor Daniel J. Solove offers a comprehensive overview of the difficulties involved in discussions of privacy and ultimately provides a provocative resolution. He argues that no single definition can be workable, but rather that there are multiple forms of privacy, related to one another by family resemblances. His theory bridges cultural differences and addresses historical changes in views on privacy.

Drawing on a broad array of interdisciplinary sources, Solove sets forth a framework for understanding privacy that provides clear, practical guidance for engaging with relevant issues, such as surveillance, data mining, identity theft, state involvement in reproductive and marital decisions, and other pressing contemporary matters concerning privacy.

Chapter 1 is available for download.

JEREMY M. MILLER, Chapman University - School of Law
Email: KAYSHVA@aol.com

Privacy if not now, will soon be a dead letter in legal analysis. However, the related concept of dignity will fill the void; and make sense out of a tangled area of law.

Whether the Court is protecting invasions of privacy under tort law, the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment or those fundamental rights, it is dignity that serves as their common bond. The several cases discussed in this article, reveal the frequent inability of the Court to discuss privacy without referencing dignity, or one of its synonyms: i.e. respect, value, self-worth, self-respect, etc. Thus, it is suggested that the Court is truly protecting human dignity as the underlying value of privacy.

In the context of the Fourth Amendment or invasion of privacy under tort law, the question of whether privacy still exists arises. With modern technology, the concept of privacy diminishes. Even with fundamental rights, is the right to marriage, procreation, family relationships, child-rearing and education, homosexual sodomy, or even the right to die properly termed privacy? It is apparent that true rights are undoubtedly associated with human dignity, for inherent in all of these privileges is the ability to freely determine one's path without inviting judgment of the state. This liberty creates individuality and sustains the right to be individuals, and in every sense of the word promotes self-respect, self-worth, and value. More accurately stated, this is dignity. Although limitations must exist for a properly functioning society, the interest in maintaining an open and free nation demands that legislatures and courts protect this core value.

Privacy can promote crime, but dignity promotes only goodness. The cases discussed illustrate such analysis is already being adopted, and thus upholding dignity as a protected value is not only plausible, it is proven to be possible by its subtle, already existing application. Without nationally recognizing the need for re-focus, the right to erroneous enforcement of a privacy right will continue to remove certain freedoms that are necessary for our Republic to prosper, remain free, and allow men and women to live and die seeking happiness. Additionally, once realized that privacy is a legal fiction, its amorphous contours can be trimmed, with principal, and expanded, again when such is with principal. The widespread problem of private child abuse and child pornography indicates that privacy is not a good in itself. However, dignity is always good and always must be maximized insofar as possible.

The continued use of the fiction privacy, places our glorious country in danger. Dignity is one such legal value and right that without which our system cannot endure. Additionally, once perceived it will undoubtedly aid in creating stability and predictability in several areas of the law.