FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3121732008> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3121732008 startingPage "629" @default.
• W3121732008 abstract "IntroductionThe idea that law should generally be understood or designed minimize redundancy is a force in reasoning. Judges frequently cite anti-redundancy principles in interpreting documents, opining on the structure of doctrine or objecting relitigation of issues under ostensibly different headings.1 These principles, which are instances of what this Article terms anti-redundancy, can operate not only determine results in individual cases but also shape the form and scope of doctrines themselves. In fields ranging from constitutional law contracts, anti-redundancy can support hostility doctrines such as substantive due process2 or unconscionability3 that serve-or could serve- as at least partially redundant backups for other principles.4The too-easy hold of anti-redundancy rhetoric is both troubling and peculiar. For decades, information theory, data compression, and ordinary persons' success concise communication via modern text or historical telegram have made clear that standard human communication tends be full of redundancy5 and often desirably so.6 Further, attention the actual results of drafting and the motivations of drafters suggests that drafters of documents ranging from statutes contracts pay no more than limited heed, if any, concerns with avoiding redundancy.7 To the extent one considers the generation of documents or doctrines as a problem of legal engineering-a practical process of harnessing human artifacts to better achieve objectives8-the desirability of a general rule against redundancy is highly questionable.9 Mechanical, electrical, and civil engineers are commonly advised (or even required) build redundancy into systems so that important ends such as safety are not compromised if one element fails.10 Consistent with conclusions about high-reliability organizations11 in business or government, the U.S. Constitution enshrines a governmental system of checks that falls far short of an ideal of minimalist design.12 Indeed, in many respects, recognition of the desirability of redundancy protect against human limitations pervades the law.13 Yet somehow when fallible, limited humans or human institutions generate documents or doctrines, there is a persistent tendency view-or at least presumptively view-these artifacts of human endeavor as heroically lacking in redundancy.14This Article explores the puzzle of anti-redundancy and examines how doctrine can be designed obtain important benefits from redundancy while substantially mitigating anti-redundancy concerns. The potential desirability of such mitigation reflects acknowledgment that, although redundancy often provides positive value, there can be strong interests in limiting redundancy in various contexts. In law as in other areas, negative trade-offs can counterbalance any positive value that redundancy provides.15 Most obviously, redundancy can lead inefficiency, with repetition adding less value than it costs. More subtly, overlaps between doctrines or areas of law can promote uncertainty and even confusion, leading unpredictable or inappropriate application of corollary principles associated with one doctrine or area but not another. In contrast, clear definition and distinction of doctrines-aspects of law commonly associated with anti-redundancy-can channel the efforts of courts and lawyers in ways that facilitate more precise and self-consistent reasoning as well as the development of a deeper and more instructive case law and body of experience.U.S. patent law offers particularly fertile ground for consideration of such concerns of redundancy and anti-redundancy. Patent law's fertility in this regard reflects its technical nature, its reliance on a largely privately drafted document define rights against the world, and its possession of three decades of case law under a national court of first appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. …" @default.
• W3121732008 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3121732008 creator A5037023745 @default.
• W3121732008 date "2016-03-01" @default.
• W3121732008 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W3121732008 title "Redundancy: When Law Repeats Itself" @default.
• W3121732008 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W3121732008 type Work @default.
• W3121732008 sameAs 3121732008 @default.
• W3121732008 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W3121732008 countsByYear W31217320082019 @default.
• W3121732008 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3121732008 hasAuthorship W3121732008A5037023745 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConcept C152124472 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConceptScore W3121732008C111919701 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConceptScore W3121732008C144024400 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConceptScore W3121732008C152124472 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConceptScore W3121732008C17319257 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConceptScore W3121732008C17744445 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConceptScore W3121732008C190253527 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConceptScore W3121732008C199539241 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConceptScore W3121732008C2776211767 @default.
• W3121732008 hasConceptScore W3121732008C41008148 @default.
• W3121732008 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W3121732008 hasLocation W31217320081 @default.
• W3121732008 hasOpenAccess W3121732008 @default.
• W3121732008 hasPrimaryLocation W31217320081 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W12701658 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W1502079614 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W155379369 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W15541181 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W1596174057 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W1602557271 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W2050478566 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W2264189737 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W2291893184 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W2302954591 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W2750852631 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W2785969208 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W293353226 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W2970671395 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W3122435564 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W3123005214 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W3125702952 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W3126054833 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W44328970 @default.
• W3121732008 hasRelatedWork W2129411914 @default.
• W3121732008 hasVolume "94" @default.
• W3121732008 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3121732008 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3121732008 magId "3121732008" @default.
• W3121732008 workType "article" @default.