Cross-Border Testifying Tips: U.S. Experts in Canada and Canadian Experts in the U.S.

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 470-473
Author(s):  
Alison Vredenburgh ◽  
Jason Young ◽  
David Liske ◽  
Stephen Young
Keyword(s):  
Human Factors ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Panel Discussion ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Client Expectations ◽  
Theoretical Evidence ◽  
Forensic Testimony ◽  
The U.S

Professionals who are allowed by a court to serve as expert witnesses are granted the special legal status of offering opinion and theoretical evidence based on human factors research and provided facts that the expert did not witness themselves. The role of the Human Factors forensic expert in U.S. and Canadian court cases has become more common over the past two decades as lawyers become increasingly aware of the specialized nature of this field of study. U.S. and Canadian Human Factors experts sometimes find themselves being retained by firms on the other side of the border due to their specialized experience and training in a particular area relevant to the case at hand. In such situations, the expert will need to deal with differences in legal systems and differences in client expectations between the U.S. and Canada. The goal of this panel discussion session is to share the combined experience and knowledge of the panelists with the audience regarding the most significant differences between U.S. and Canadian clients, courtrooms, and procedures in forensic testimony, so that the expert knows what to expect when accepting a cross-border retention.

Cross-Border Payments with Blockchain

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcos Allende López ◽  
Antonio Leal Batista
Keyword(s):  
Smart Contracts ◽  
Proof Of Concept ◽  
Development Bank ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Currency Exchange ◽  
Front End ◽  
Digital Money ◽  
Technical Advice ◽  
The U.S

This document describes the proof-of-concept (PoC) developed by the Inter-American Development Bank, the IDB Lab, LACChain, the Citi Bank Innovations Labs, and ioBuilders to demonstrate cross-border payments between entities in different countries that involve currency exchange, using digital money represented by tokens -tokenized money- in the LACChain Besu Blockchain Network. For this PoC, Citi Bank played the role of the bank holding the funds; the IDBs headquarters in the U.S. played the role of the sender of tokenized dollars; an individual in Dominican Republic played the role of recipient of tokenized Dominican pesos; LACChain provided the blockchain infrastructure and developed the back end, the smart contracts and the integrations; and ioBuilders provided technical advice and developed the front end.

scholarly journals Are the U.S. Patent Priority Rules Really Necessary?

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
File System ◽  
The United States ◽  
First Person ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Priority Rules ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
System P ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The U.S

The United States is the only country in the world that awards patents tothe first person to invent something, rather than the first to file apatent application. In order to determine who is first to invent, theUnited States has created an elaborate set of "interference" proceedingsand legal standards to define invention and decide how it may be proven.Supporters of this system claim that it is necessary to protect smallinventors, who may not have the resources to file patent applicationsquickly, and may therefore lose a patent race to large companies whoinvented after they did. Advocates of global patent harmonization havesuggested, however, that the first inventor is usually also the first tofile, and that the first-to-invent standard is unnecessary and wasteful.In this Article, we study U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO")interference proceedings and court cases in which the parties dispute whois first to invent. We find that the first person to file is usually, butby no means always, also the first to invent. In over 40% of the cases, thefirst to invent is last to file. We also find that the long-standing rulethat discriminated against foreign inventors by requiring proof ofinventive activity in the U.S. had surprisingly little effect on outcomes;that a large number of priority disputes involve near-simultaneousinvention; and that the vast majority of such disputes could be resolvedwithout reliance on much of the evidence the law permits. Finally, we studythe role of small inventors to see whether they are disproportionately thebeneficiaries of the first to invent system. While the evidence is mixed,it does not appear that small inventors particularly benefit from the firstto invent system.Part I describes the legal background for the international debate over howto determine patent priority. Part II describes our studies and discussesour results in detail. Finally, Part III draws conclusions forpolicy-makers from the data. There is some truth to the arguments of bothsides in this debate. The first to invent system does produce significantlydifferent results in individual cases than a first to file system would.But it is not clear that those different results are particularly fairer,or that they are worth the cost. We suggest some possible ways to modifythe U.S. system to take account of these facts without changing entirely toa first-to-file system.

The Rise in Popularity of Cryptocurrency and Associated Criminal Activity

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 325-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sesha Kethineni ◽  
Ying Cao
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Tax Evasion ◽  
Criminal Activity ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
News Reports ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Content Review ◽  
Privacy And Anonymity

Cryptocurrency such as bitcoin, Ethereum, and, more recently, Monero has become the currency of choice for many drug dealers and extortionists. The criminal activities extend to tax evasion, money laundering, Ponzi schemes, and the theft of cryptocurrencies to kidnapping for ransom. As the demand for cryptocurrencies increases, it provides opportunities for criminals to hide behind the presumed privacy and anonymity. Identifying these cryptocurrency-related crimes have posed challenges for law enforcement due to the cross-border nature of transactions, the use of evasion technology to mask the identity of users, and inconsistent regulations. To address the role of cryptocurrencies in criminal activities, the study focused on four research questions: (1) What role do cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin (BTC) play in criminal activities? (2) What factors facilitate cryptocurrency-related criminal activities? (3) What role do politics play in regulating cryptocurrencies? and (4) What are the challenges they pose for regulators and law enforcement? To answer the questions, the study utilized a systematic content review of the news reports, court cases, scholarly articles, online search engines, and commentaries relevant to regulations and reforms. The findings help to understand the current climate of virtual currencies, their use in criminal activities, and the complexities involved in regulating cryptocurrencies.

Qualifying as an Expert Witness and a Perspective on Negligence

1992 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 616-620
Author(s):  
Leighton L. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Human Factors ◽  
Personal Experience ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Landing Gear ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness Testimony ◽  
Representative Case ◽  
Gear Case

This article discusses the process of qualifying as an expert witness in court cases. The author's personal experience as a human factors expert witness in a representative case is described and used as an illustrative example. The role of the expert witness in typical injury litigations is described. The difficulty in convincing judges to allow such testimony by experts is also discussed. The value of human factors expert witness testimony is shown through the particulars of an inadvertent landing gear retraction accident lawsuit. In addition, a discussion of the negligence phase of these types of litigations is provided and it is demonstrated again using the landing gear case as illustration, how human factors expert witness testimony can be extremely integral to the judgment of negligence.

‘They make a business out of desperate people’: The role of recruitment agents in cross-border labour chains

2021 ◽  
pp. 031289622098689
Author(s):  
Christina Stringer ◽  
Ani Kartikasari ◽  
Snejina Michailova
Keyword(s):  
Jel Classification ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Employment Contracts ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Return Home ◽  
Forced Labour ◽  
Film Productions

This article examines the role recruitment agents play in the complex web of forced labour. Our focus is the abusive treatment of Indonesian crew onboard South Korean factory trawlers fishing in New Zealand’s waters. We gathered data from multiple sources: (1) documents, including Indonesia’s national legislation and migrants’ employment contracts; (2) 27 interviews with Indonesian crew; and (3) translation work for New Zealand government ministries, court cases, and film productions. We analyse how recruitment agents are implicated, as seen through the crew’s eyes, in three phases – before departure, onboard the vessels, and following their return home. JEL Classification: J81, F55, F66

Asiana Airlines Flight 214

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Chow ◽  
Stephen Yortsos ◽  
Najmedin Meshkati
Keyword(s):  
Human Factors ◽  
Aviation Safety ◽  
Cultural Factors ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Cultural Issues ◽  
Flight Crew ◽  
Pilot Performance ◽  
Engineering Designs ◽  
Flight Deck

This article focuses on a major human factors–related issue that includes the undeniable role of cultural factors and cockpit automation and their serious impact on flight crew performance, communication, and aviation safety. The report concentrates on the flight crew performance of the Boeing 777–Asiana Airlines Flight 214 accident, by exploring issues concerning mode confusion and autothrottle systems. It also further reviews the vital role of cultural factors in aviation safety and provides a brief overview of past, related accidents. Automation progressions have been created in an attempt to design an error-free flight deck. However, to do that, the pilot must still thoroughly understand every component of the flight deck – most importantly, the automation. Otherwise, if pilots are not completely competent in terms of their automation, the slightest errors can lead to fatal accidents. As seen in the case of Asiana Flight 214, even though engineering designs and pilot training have greatly evolved over the years, there are many cultural, design, and communication factors that affect pilot performance. It is concluded that aviation systems designers, in cooperation with pilots and regulatory bodies, should lead the strategic effort of systematically addressing the serious issues of cockpit automation, human factors, and cultural issues, including their interactions, which will certainly lead to better solutions for safer flights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document