A bit too late, from the rooster's perspective anyways.

Looks interesting--I clicked through and was immediately offered an AI summary of the paper, because of course I was.

Are we doing book swag???

This may explain why I feel toddler-type frustration and want to yell "I DO IT" at the screen when it happens...

Both were about nourishing roots, I guess? But... one was the roots of a genre of music and the other was leguminous veggies, with is a tough gap to bridge.

Grammatically, it seems to be calling "critical race theory" an activity on its own, grouped with "training," "assessments," "hiring," etc.. I guess the theorizing itself is unlawful, even if you don't write it down? (Or, & I'm going out on a limb here, this is poorly-written & unclear.)

I read "mischief" your way and I like it. "Wreaks havoc" is much more aggressive, but maybe "sows confusion" or I guess you could say something has counterintuitive results?

My earlier work on this. (7/7 -fin) digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol76/is...

This is especially relevant for the United States as “an IP-exporter in both copyright and patent-heavy industries.” These industries would likely “exert their influence and encourage the lifting of tariffs if faced with the potential loss of their IP rights abroad.” (6/7)

As I suggest above, Wasserman Rajec agrees that an important aspect of allowing retaliation through different WTO agreement suspensions is that “countries that may not pose much threat through tariffs imposition can pose a threat to industries that are important to a violator country economy.” (5/7)

Despite the practical challenges of implementing IP rights suspensions, Professor Wasserman Rajec suggests that “just having the blueprint of IP-rights suspension may prove useful to countries that are trying to remind the United States of just how interconnected our industries all are.” (4/7)

including “the difficulty of implementing targeted suspension of IP rights” and the challenge smaller economies face in achieving “a level of IP-rights suspension that will compensate their losses due to tariffs.” (3/7)

As Rajec has observed, in the 3 cases where non-tariff countermeasures in IP rights suspension have been approved by the WTO, none ultimately resulted in the actual suspension of IP rights. She suggests several reasons for this, (2/7)

This patent makes me think we should bring back the moral utility doctrine... I mean, the depravity of bathing in sprinkles!