marijuana con law - increase achieved by the invention in...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
When punishments so disproportionate to crimes as to constitute violations of the Eight Amendment? Would it be unconstitutional to impose life imprisonment for the first time possession of a small amount of marijuana? For a large amount of marijuana? For prostitution? How should the test be framed? Yes, life imprisonment is permissible for a large amount of marijuana. In Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957 (1991), the Court upheld a life sentence without the possibility of parole for possession of 672 grams of cocaine. UK Medical journal cited cocain as 2.3x worse then marijuana in terms of dependence and physical harm. Therefore 1500 grams of marijuana is enough for life -buisness, clear intent to sell Less then 70 grams is a small amount, only fine Substantially is at 75% increase And According Judge Bryson, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 265 F.3d 1371; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 20590; 60 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1272, 9/19, Lexis) (PDNS3521) The term "to increase substantially" in claim 1 of the '705 patent refers to the claimed
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: increase achieved by the invention in the relative productivity of the catalyst used in the Fischer-Tropsch process. The specification defines "substantially increased" catalyst activity or productivity as an increase of at least about 30%, more preferably an increase of about 50%, and still more preferably an increase of about 75% . '705 patent, col. 1, ll. 59-63. Based on that language from the specification, the trial court found, and the parties agree, that the term "to increase substantially" requires an increase of at least about 30% in the relative productivity of the catalyst. Notwithstanding that numerical boundary, the trial court found the phrase "to increase substantially" to be indefinite because the court concluded that there were two possible ways to calculate the increase in productivity, the subtraction method and the division method, and the patent did not make clear which of those ways was used in the claim. Not for prostitution, respect privacy and freedoms...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/24/2011 for the course ECON 1011 taught by Professor Bob during the Spring '11 term at Bob Jones University.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online