Professor Mark Research Articles

Fidaxomicin: novel antibiotic for Clostridium difficile infection

AbstractFidaxomicin (Dificlir) is a new antibiotic licensed for the treatment of C. difficile infection in adults. In our New products review, Steve Chaplin presents the clinical data relating to its efficacy and adverse events and Professor Mark Wilcox discusses its place in treatment.

Introduction

Introduction Melvin I. Urofsky Most of the articles in this issue come from the Leon Silverman Lecture Series that the Society sponsored last year, and that dealt with the broadly defined topic ofthe Supreme Court and property rights. As one can see, this covers a wide spectrum of interests. Jonathan O’Neill explored the notion of property, and what it meant to the Founders of the country. As James Ely put in his classic book, property was considered the “guardian of every other right.” Professor Ely also delivered one of the lectures on property rights in the Gilded Age, and tried to dispel some myths about the alleged obsession of jurists of the latter part of the nineteenth century withproperty. Richard Epstein picked up on this theme in his exploration of the beginnings of public utility regulation, and how the Supreme Court responded to it. The source of much of the power of Congress to regulate different aspects of the market derive from the Commerce Clause, and as we all know, over the years there have been several definitions ofcommerce, as well as ideas on just how much power the Clause granted to the federal government. Professor Mark Killenbeck looks past the superficial contradictions to find certain basic threads regarding the meaning the Commerce Clause as well as the goals that it has sought. Few groups have fared as badly at the hands of the federal government as Native Americans. Professor Angela Riley examines the efforts of tribes to protect their lands— rights supposedly guaranteed by treaties in many instances—in the high court. We also have three articles that are not Silverman Lectures. Marjorie Heins examines the First Amendment and academic freedom, focusing on the Supreme Court cases that arose out of the massive investigations in the early 1950s into New York City teachers’ and professors’ political beliefs and associations. Deborah Ann Roy is a lawyer in the Justice Department. Just as 2013 marks the fiftieth anniversary ofthe March on Washington, it is also a half-century since the Good Friday Parade in Birmingham, Alabama, an event that holds an important place in the history of the civil rights movement, and that also led to two Supreme Court cases. Ms. Roy gives us v vi JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY a retrospective narrative of that march, and assesses the ensuing Supreme Court cases. Anthony Lewis was an important figure in Supreme Court history. Nearly everyone credits him as being the first modem reporter of the Court and its business. He was not simply a congressional correspondent who walked across the street on slow days. TheNew York Times assigned himto focus on the Court, and his lucid and intelligent analyses of the Court’s decisions not only won him a Pulitzer Prize, but set a gold standard for all who came after. After his death last year, I asked Lyle Denniston to write about him. Lyle has had a distinguished career as a Court reporter for the Baltimore Sun, but beyond that, he worked with Tony Lewis and has witnessed how reporting on the Court has changed. His piece reflects that intimacy, as well as the differences the two men had over certain matters. Last, but certainly not least, Grier Stephenson tells us about some of the books that have come out recently dealing with the Court, its members, and its decisions. As always, a veritable feast, and I invite you to enjoy! ...

Professor Mark Rapley

Professor Mark Rapley

Second Reply to Professor Anderson

Second Reply to Professor Anderson

Private FCPA Enforcement

American Business Law JournalVolume 49, Issue 3 p. 419-506 Original Article Private FCPA Enforcement Gideon Mark, Gideon Mark Assistant Professor of Business Law Business Law, University of Maryland School of BusinessSearch for more papers by this author Gideon Mark, Gideon Mark Assistant Professor of Business Law Business Law, University of Maryland School of BusinessSearch for more papers by this author First published: 12 September 2012 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1714.2012.01137.xCitations: 13 Professor Mark holds degrees from Brandeis University, Columbia University, Harvard University, New York University, and the University of California. Many thanks to the American Business Law Journal (ABLJ) and Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) for helpful comments on a prior version of this paper presented at the ABLJ Invited Scholars Colloquium during the 2011 ALSB Annual Conference in New Orleans. That version earned the ALSB's Ralph J. Bunche Award for best paper on international law. Thanks also to W. Stephen Smith for his review and insight. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume49, Issue3September 2012Pages 419-506 RelatedInformation

The Fall of Mosaddeq, August 1953: Institutional Narratives, Professor Mark Gasiorowski and My Study

Over the decades that followed the overthrow of Mosaddeq in August 1953 a narrative attributing the fall exclusively to foreign conspiracy has taken hold and become institutionalized. In this narrative the internal factors are reduced to the simplest level of abstraction. They do not exist outside foreign conspiracy! This narrative is premised on an Anglo-American coup plot code-named TP-AJAX that was attempted in the late hours of 15 August but failed. The ensuing flight of the Shah generated dynamics which led to the fall of Mosaddeq four days later. The CIA chief operative in Tehran Kermit Roosevelt was quick to take credit claiming that these dynamics were inseminated by his ingenious and spontaneous planning. For abiding internal reasons both the CIA and the MI6 headquarters preferred to claim victory rather than admit failure. Evidence that emerged following the declassification of the State Department papers in 1989 and the leak of a secret CIA internal history in 2000 produced glaring evidence that the fall of Mosaddeq on 19 August 1953 had taken Washington, even its embassy in Tehran, by complete surprise and that post facto claims by Roosevelt were inconsistent both with Washington's explicit policy directives and Roosevelt's own situation reports filed with the CIA Washington during the interval between the two events. Roosevelt later published a phantasmagorical account of the event which, together with reminiscences of a few unnamed former operatives, was given credence by Professor Gasiorowski and associates, who curiously chose to ignore archival evidence.

SEPTEMBER 2012 PLACEMENT ADS

SEPTEMBER 2012 PLACEMENT ADS

MAY 2012 PLACEMENT ADS

MAY 2012 PLACEMENT ADS

Conference Scene: Progress with Promising Human Antibodies

Antibodies and antibody-based therapeutics have become big business, with annual sales over US$50 billion, accounting for >6% of worldwide pharmaceutical revenues. Ten molecules have blockbuster status (>US$1 billion), with six generating more than US$6 billion in sales. In excess of 300 products based on this rapidly maturing technology are in clinical trials. The generation and manufacture of human antibodies is now routine, although the cost of goods remains an issue. Optimizing combinations of antibodies with other therapeutics (e.g., chemotherapy) is a major short-term goal, while target validation and product differentiation remain significant hurdles if growth is to continue. Some of the notable highlights of the recent 16th International Conference on Human Antibodies and Hybridomas meeting in Cannes, France are described below. The conference was sponsored by the international journal Human Antibodies, in association with the Integrative Medical Sciences Association (IMSA). The Program Chairman was Professor Mark Glassy, IMSA, San Diego, CA, USA.

In Defense of the Short Cut

Congress frequently gives administrative agencies a choice of several different tools, including legislative rulemaking, non-legislative rulemaking, and adjudication, to interpret and apply statutes. In theory, an agency should be able to announce an interpretation of a statute through a policy statement, interpretive rule or other form of non-legislative rule (often referred to more generally as “guidance documents”) without incurring the costs or delay of notice and comment rulemaking. As long as the agency does not treat that policy decision as binding, and justifies the decision when it is applied to a concrete factual situation, there should be nothing legally objectionable about the agency’s action. Nevertheless, courts have fashioned a variety of unworkable tests to distinguish between legislative and non-legislative rules, and have frequently struck down rules that agencies characterize as non-legislative rules on the grounds that the rules are, instead, legislative rules, and are invalid because they were not adopted through notice and comment procedures. Many academics have criticized this approach and have suggested that courts, in reviewing an agency’s policy decisions, should simply look at the procedures that the agency uses to make those decisions. If the agency does not use notice and comment rulemaking, the reformers argue, a court should conclude that the agency’s policy decision is a non-legislative rule, and the court should simply accord the policy the effect and deference due to a non-legislative rule, instead of trying to determine whether the policy is a legislative rule or non-legislative rule. This proposal, sometimes referred to as “the short cut,” has generated much scholarly debate, including recent articles by Professors David Franklin and Mark Seidenfeld. Critics argue that the proposal reduces public input in agencies’ policymaking and reduces judicial oversight, because agencies’ non-legislative rules may not be reviewable in court. Supporters of the proposal counter that it does not eliminate public or judicial oversight of non-legislative rules, but merely delays review until the agencies’ policy decisions are applied in a concrete factual setting. This article critiques the proposals of Professors Franklin and Seidenfeld and advances an alternative reform proposal. In order to address the concerns raised by reformers regarding lack of public and judicial oversight of agencies’ policymaking under “the short cut”, without imposing substantial costs on the non-legislative rulemaking process that could discourage its appropriate use, the article proposes (1) an expansion of judicial review for non-legislative rules, but only in cases where an agency’s non-legislative rule is unlikely to ever be applied to a concrete factual situation because it announces a decision to de-regulate or to not enforce the law or regulations in specific instances; and (2) legislation to require posting of significant guidance documents on the Internet, an opportunity for public comment on those documents and posting of the comments on the Internet, without an obligation on the agency to prepare a “concise general statement of the basis and purpose” of the guidance or to respond to the comments.

New Microscopes, New Telescopes: A Conversation with Mark Liberman About the Uncertain Future of Linguistics

In this wide-ranging discussion, University of Pennsylvania linguistics professor Mark Liberman assesses the state of affairs in the field of linguistics and lays out what he sees as the most promising avenues for language-related inquiry. Returning to themes from his 2007 plenary address at the Linguistic Society of America annual meeting, Liberman outlines the “series of unfortunate events” that led to a dwindling appreciation of linguistic analysis in academia and the public sphere. He calls on fellow linguists to participate in greater public engagement on language issues, a type of engagement that Liberman has put into practice by cofounding the widely read linguistics blog Language Log. He expects the field to be increasingly dominated by data-driven approaches, as speech and language engineers work to create ever-larger collections of texts and develop more sophisticated tools to analyze them. His own work as director of the Linguistic Data Consortium has blazed a trail in the collection, maintenance, and annotation of large-scale corpora, both written and spoken; new corpus-based tools make this type of analysis more accessible than ever. Liberman sees the early twenty-first century as resembling the early seventeenth century, when the invention of the microscope and telescope opened up new worlds for exploration. The question is now what can be done with the new microscopes and telescopes at our disposal, without losing sight of traditional methods of linguistic study. The conversation took place at the 2011 Linguistic Society of America annual meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Facebook and User-Controlled Privacy: Evaluating Privacy Settings as Notice-and-Consent

“Notice and consent” is a widely-used model of privacy protection that relies on users’ ability to interpret an organization’s written description of its information practices through a privacy policy and choose whether to participate. In the past, organizations using this model have fallen under harsh criticism for providing long, legalistic notices and confusing, unclear choices. In the past few years, Facebook has sought to address these issues through privacy settings such as the “Privacy Publisher tool.” These mechanisms are new and untested, but they could potentially vindicate notice-and-consent by using graphics, metrics and other mechanisms to better inform and facilitate privacy decisions. The study will test the efficacy of these mechanisms for providing appropriate protection. In doing so, it will evaluate their feasibility as a model for notice and consent. To conduct this evaluation, the thesis will conduct a behavioral survey of how site visitors use these settings to understand their privacy risk and make decisions based on personal preferences. The study hypothesizes that, while privacy settings may provide some protection, they leave most users unprotected from many significant privacy harms. The survey itself will consist of three sections. The first section will test respondents’ ability to use the privacy settings to protect against specific harms. The survey will present the respondents with the mock privacy pages and prompt them to choose settings in response to a privacy issue. One prompt may be: “Choose Facebook settings that would only allow friends to tag photos of you.” The results could indicate whether the settings discourage certain kinds of protections, such as content sharing restrictions on Facebook. The second section will examine how respondents currently apply their privacy preferences on Facebook. Respondents will begin by submitting their Facebook privacy settings via multiple choice answers. Respondents will then answer questions about their preferences for each privacy practice. This section will permit the study to compare users’ opinion on the issues with how they actually selected their settings and will be an important indicator for evaluating the privacy settings. Finally, the third section will collect information of demographics and Facebook usage, such as how often a user checks Facebook for updates or posts to his or her wall. The final report will include a statistical analysis of these results and an examination of the conclusion. The study will conduct an analysis of variance, for instance, to understand how significant the gaps were between respondents’ selected settings and the settings that actually protect their preferences. The study will also employ regression techniques to understand which privacy settings face similar usability obstacles and which demographics face greater risks to privacy. David Krone is a recent graduate of Georgetown University’s Communications, Culture and Technology Program. David conducted research on Facebook Privacy as part of his thesis, with Georgetown Professors Mark MacCarthy and Diana Owen as advisors. In addition, David works full time as a Cybersecurity and Privacy Analyst at the Office of Personnel Management where he holds several privacy-related responsibilities. These include assessing IT system security risks to conducting system privacy threshold analyses (PTAs) and compiling reports on breaches involving personally identifiable information (PII). David holds the certification for the CIPP/G (Certified Information Privacy Professional – Government). Finally, as a Georgetown undergraduate, David studied the intersection of society and information and communications technologies by majoring in Science, Technology and International Affairs and minoring in Computer Science.

Profile of Released Guantánamo Detainees: The Government's Story Then and Now Cover Statement by Professor Mark Denbeaux

Profile of Released Guantánamo Detainees: The Government's Story Then and Now Cover Statement by Professor Mark Denbeaux

A Critique of Mark Lemley’s 'The Myth of the Sole Inventor'

Professor Mark Lemley advances a thesis that “the canonical story of the lone genius inventor is largely a myth” and describes a selection of pioneer inventions to support his thesis. We show that Lemley has many of his facts wrong. We examine his assertions and set the record straight in the pioneer invention cases of Edison, the Wright brothers, the Selden automobile patent vis-a-vis Ford, Watt and the steam engine and Fleming and penicillin. We are concerned with the errors in alleged historical and legal facts in what Lemley calls “lessons of history” and “realities of innovation” because these are used to argue that the patent system does not work as patent theory suggests. We show that Lemley’s major thesis that these inventions were made “near-simultaneously” by others has no basis in fact and show that patent law inherently ensures that patent protection is not extended to near-simultaneous inventions. We illustrate that the lessons of history, when informed by consultation of relevant patents, legal decisions and patent law not only do not support Lemley’s central thesis, but offer valuable insights into how America’s historical patent system and innovation work together to foster development.

Obituary: Professor Mark William Casewell (1940–2011)

Obituary: Professor Mark William Casewell (1940–2011)

ISB News September 2011: from the President and Secretary

We are pleased to announce the Phenology 2012 Conference. This second interdisciplinary international conference will be held at the University of WisconsinMilwaukee, 10–13 September 2012. This conference aims to bring together experts from around the world in all sub-fields of phenology and related disciplines. The overall theme of the conference is Future Climate and the Living Earth. Conference products will include a set of peer-reviewed scientific papers in a special issue of the International Journal of Biometeorology. The conference will run over 4 days, starting on Monday 10 September 2012, and finishing on Thursday 13 September 2012. Main events will take place at the UWMilwaukee School of Continuing Education Conference Center located in the heart of Milwaukee's business and commercial district. The conference dinner will be held in the Pilot House at Discovery World and include access to the Reiman Aquarium. Keynote speakers will be Dr. Thomas R. Karl, Director of the USA National Climatic Data Center, and Regents Professor Steven W. Running, University of Montana. Field trips will be held on the last day of the conference and are under development. Please visit the conference website: to see more information and to register your interest in order to be included in future direct messages. The Chair of the Phenology 2012 Conference is Distinguished Professor Mark D. Schwartz, who is also Chair of the ISB Phenology Commission and Chair of the USA National Phenology Network Board of Directors. He hopes to see many of you in Milwaukee in September 2012!

The Threshold Learning Outcome on self-management for the Bachelor of Laws degree: A proposed focus for teaching strategies in the first year law curriculum

The Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) Discipline Scholars for Law, Professors Sally Kift and Mark Israel, articulated six Threshold Learning Outcomes (TLOs) for the Bachelor of Laws degree as part of the ALTC’s 2010 project on Learning and Teaching Academic Standards. One of these TLOs promotes the learning, teaching and assessment of self-management skills in Australian law schools. This paper explores the concept of self-management and how it can be relevantly applied in the first year of legal education. Recent literature from the United States (US) and Australia provides insights into the types of issues facing law students, as well as potential antidotes to these problems. Based on these findings, I argue that designing a pedagogical framework for the first year law curriculum that promotes students’ connection with their intrinsic interests, values, motivations and purposes will facilitate student success in terms of their personal well-being, ethical dispositions and academic engagement.

Have We Learnt From History?

Have We Learnt From History?

Why the Constitution matters

A major legal scholar presents an empowering reassessment of our nation's most essential document In this surprising and highly unconventional work, Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet poses a seemingly simple question that yields a thoroughly unexpected answer. The Constitution matters, he argues, not because it structures our government but because it structures our politics. He maintains that politicians and political parties-not Supreme Court decisions-are the true engines of constitutional change in our system. This message will empower all citizens who use direct political action to define and protect our rights and liberties as Americans. Unlike legal scholars who consider the Constitution only as a blueprint for American democracy, Tushnet focuses on the ways it serves as a framework for political debate. Each branch of government draws substantive inspiration and procedural structure from the Constitution but can effect change only when there is the political will to carry it out. Tushnet's political understanding of the Constitution therefore does not demand that citizens pore over the specifics of each Supreme Court decision in order to improve our nation. Instead, by providing key facts about Congress, the president, and the nature of the current constitutional regime, his book reveals not only why the Constitution matters to each of us but also, and perhaps more important, how it matters.

Mark Ylvisaker's Influence on Scripts, Videos, and Projects within a South African Context

The current article overviews a range of collaborative group projects undertaken by members of the Conversation Groups for individuals living with aphasia and cognitive-communication disorders in the Department of Communication Pathology, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Projects work toward creating networks of support and lessening barriers for the individual living with aphasia and cognitive-communication disorders. The article highlights the pervasive and far-reaching influence across continents of Professor Mark Ylvisaker's philosophy, writings, and personal teachings on both Conversation Group projects as well as student clinician-training practice in the University of Pretoria context. In addition, Ylvisaker's influence is described on the development of a collaborative communication partner-training program within a South African retail supermarket environment, highlighting the effort to remove barriers between employees and customers with a cognitive-communication disability specifically.