Search the archive.

Recent legislative and judicial actions concerning intellec- tual property law reveal several stark trends. Congress has been remarkably hospitable to stronger intellectual property rights. Congress passed forty-three intellectual property laws during the time period in question. Of those that affected the substan- tive strength of intellectual property rights, over 80% made rights stronger.1 These laws made it easier to acquire intellectual property rights, broadened the scope of protection, and strengthened enforcement. The Supreme Court’s intellectual property jurisprudence, however, has moved largely in the oppo- site direction. The Court decided forty-four intellectual property cases from the October 2002–2003 Term through the October 2015–2016 Term, and of those that substantively affected the ex- tent of rights, two-thirds weakened protection.

1. The use of the terms “stronger” and “weaker” refers solely to the strength (or weakness) of intellectual property rights from the perspective of the intellectual property rights owner. These terms do not indicate that a given law is more or less socially beneficial.

(Collins Dictionary, “strengthen” , accessed 7/2/24, GDI JK)

If a currency, economy, or industry strengthens, or if something strengthens it, it increases in value or becomes more successful.

(“significantly”, WordNet, =,

accessed 8-15-15, AFB]

[“significantly”, MacMillan Dictionary, , accessed 8-15-15, AFB]

2 in a way that is relevant or that has an important effect on something

[“significantly”, The Free Dictionary, , accessed 8-15-15, AFB]

significantly

[“significantly”, Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significantly, accessed 8-15-15, AFB]

significantly

[“significantly”, Dictionary.com, , accessed 8-15-15, AFB]

significant

[“significantly”, Oxford English Dictionary, , accessed 8-15-15, AFB]

significantly

[“significantly”, MacMillan Dictionary, , accessed 8-15-15, AFB]

significantly - definition and synonyms

[“significantly”, The Free Dictionary, , accessed 8-15-15, AFB]

significantly

[“significantly”, The Free Dictionary, , accessed 8-15-15, AFB]

significantly

[“significantly”, Cambridge Dictionaries Online, , accessed 8-15-15, AFB]

significantly

Should An utterance of the word should. Also, what ‘should be’.

should    /ʃʊd/ Show Spelled[shood] Show IPA –auxiliary verb 1. pt. of shall. 2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased. 3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that. 4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize. Use should in a Sentence See images of should Search should on the Web Origin: ME sholde, OE sc ( e ) olde; see shall —Can be confused:  could, should, would (see usage note at this entry ). —Synonyms 3. See must1 . —Usage note Rules similar to those for choosing between shall and will have long been advanced for should and would, but again the rules have had little effect on usage. In most constructions, would is the auxiliary chosen regardless of the person of the subject: If our allies would support the move, we would abandon any claim to sovereignty. You would be surprised at the complexity of the directions. Because the main function of should in modern American English is to express duty, necessity, etc. ( You should get your flu shot before winter comes ), its use for other purposes, as to form a subjunctive, can produce ambiguity, at least initially: I should get my flu shot if I were you. Furthermore, should seems an affectation to many Americans when used in certain constructions quite common in British English: Had I been informed, I should (American would ) have called immediately. I should (American would ) really prefer a different arrangement. As with shall and will, most educated native speakers of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice between should and would. See also shall. Shall –auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person shall, 2nd shall or ( Archaic ) shalt, 3rd shall, present plural shall; past singular 1st person should, 2nd should or ( Archaic ) shouldst or should·est, 3rd should, past plural should; imperative, infinitive, and participles lacking. 1. plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later.

¶4 The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word "should"13 in the May 18 order connotes futurity or may be deemed a ruling in praesenti.14 The answer to this query is not to be divined from rules of grammar;15 it must be governed by the age-old practice culture of legal professionals and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission (from the critical May 18 entry) of the turgid phrase, "and the same hereby is", (1) makes it an in futuro ruling - i.e., an expression of what the judge will or would do at a later stage - or (2) constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of a disputed law issue, the trial judge's intent must be garnered from the four corners of the entire record.16

[CONTINUES – TO FOOTNOTE]

Merriam-Webster’s Inc., Tenth Ed., http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected

Should - used to express probability or expectation. They should arrive here soon.

Should—2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.

should (DUTY) auxiliary verb used to express that it is necessary, desirable, advisable, or important to perform the action of the following verb

shall 'shall' describes something that is mandatory. If a requirement uses 'shall', then that requirement _will_ be satisfied without fail. Noncompliance is not allowed. Failure to comply with one single 'shall' is sufficient reason to reject the entire product. Indeed, it must be rejected under these circumstances. Examples: # "Requirements shall make use of the word 'shall' only where compliance is mandatory." This is a good example. # "C++ code shall have comments every 5th line." This is a bad example. Using 'shall' here is too strong. should 'should' is weaker. It describes something that might not be satisfied in the final product, but that is desirable enough that any noncompliance shall be explicitly justified. Any use of 'should' should be examined carefully, as it probably means that something is not being stated clearly. If a 'should' can be replaced by a 'shall', or can be discarded entirely, so much the better. Examples: # "C++ code should be ANSI compliant." A good example. It may not be possible to be ANSI compliant on all platforms, but we should try. # "Code should be tested thoroughly." Bad example. This 'should' shall be replaced with 'shall' if this requirement is to be stated anywhere (to say nothing of defining what 'thoroughly' means).