Freedom to Experiment: Toward a Concept of Inventor Welfare – Rudolph J.R. Peritz Independent Invention As A Defense To Patent Infringement – Samson Vermont An Independent Invention Defense to Patent Infringement: The Academy Talking to Itself: Should Anyone Listen? – Roger Milgrim Less "Gotcha": A Response to Milgrim – Samson Vermont A Reply to A Response – Roger [...]
|
||||||
|
Abstract Infonorma is a multi-agent system that provides its users with recommendations of legal normative instruments they might be
interested in. The Filter agent of Infonorma classifies normative instruments represented as Semantic Web documents into legal branches and performs content-based similarity analysis. This agent, as well as the entire Infonorma system, was modeled under the guidelines of MAAEM, a software development methodology for multi-agent application engineering. This article describes the Infonorma requirements specification, the architectural design solution for those requirements, the detailed design of the Filter agent and the implementation model of Infonorma, according to the guidelines of the MAAEM methodology.
Abstract This paper provides a computational framework, based on defeasible logic, to capture some aspects of institutional agency.
Our background is Kanger-Lindahl-Pörn account of organised interaction, which describes this interaction within a multi-modal logical setting. This work focuses in particular on the notions of counts-as link and on those of attempt and of personal and direct action to realise states of affairs. We show how standard defeasible logic (DL) can be extended to represent these concepts: the resulting system preserves some basic properties commonly attributed to them. In addition, the framework enjoys nice computational properties, as it turns out that the extension of any theory can be computed in time linear to the size of the theory itself.
Detecting Lies in Children and Adults
Preface
How to Get Patent Protection in Europe? – Marco T. Connor and Lin YasongThe Patent Office Meets the Poison Pill: Why Legal Methods Cannot Be Patented – Andrew A. SchwartsWell-known Marks Doctrine: Where Do We Go From Here? – Tashia A. Bunch |
||||||
|
|
||||||