The "Overview of the Privacy Act of 1974," prepared by the Department of Justice's Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties (OPCL), is a discussion of the Privacy Act's disclosure prohibition, its access and amendment provisions, and its agency recordkeeping requirements. Tracking the provisions of the Act itself, the Overview provides reference to, and legal analysis of, court decisions interpreting the Act's provisions.

Although clients disclose many of their concerns to therapists, they often choose to conceal some of their concerns as well. Equally, therapists occasionally reveal something of themselves to clients via therapist self-disclosure, but typically keep the focus on clients. Such disclosure, whether by clients or therapists, is seldom easy, and is instead often fraught with questions as to what, how much, and why to disclose, as well as concerns regarding the consequences of disclosure. Clearly, disclosure (or the lack thereof) is an important phenomenon of the therapy endeavour. The chapters included in this book examine various aspects of the disclosure and concealment phenomena, whether from client or therapist perspective. Contributions examine the relationship of therapist self-disclosure to alliance and outcome; the phenomenon of therapist self-disclosure in psychodynamic therapy; client concealment and disclosure of secrets in therapy; young adults’ disclosures in psychotherapy and on Facebook; and lying in psychotherapy. Each offers intriguing insights into the disclosure, or lack of disclosure, in psychotherapy, from the therapist or client perspective. This book was originally published as a special issue of Counselling Psychology Quarterly.

Considers economic concentration within the U.S. automobile industry and its impact on consumers, competition, and technological progress, and its response to Government regulations.

Licensing Intellectual Property: Law & Application is the most popular textbook for teaching the legal underpinnings and the skills of intellectual property licensing, which is one of the core areas of law practice for business and intellectual property lawyers. This book covers: Licensing Transactions for inventions and creative works Contract drafting Intellectual property The purchase of this ebook edition does not entitle you to receive access to the Connected eBook on CasebookConnect. You will need to purchase a new print book to get access to the full experience including: lifetime access to the online ebook with highlight, annotation, and search capabilities, plus an outline tool and other helpful resources. Intellectual property is among the most important and interesting areas of law, thanks to its close link to the technological innovation sweeping society. But it is not enough to simply own patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets—inventors and creators need to put these intellectual property assets to productive use. Licensing is the most important way to do that. Licensing Intellectual Property: Law and Application provides students of varied backgrounds with an understanding of the legal principles and licensing models available to help clients accomplish their business objectives. This book is for courses focusing on the law of licensing and the application of licensing in practice. In particular, the book’s extensive drafting and client counseling exercises provide students the opportunity to develop their skills. New to the Fifth Edition: Updated material on the intersection between intellectual property licensing and unfair competition Updates on new business models for copyrighted works Updates on laws protecting information and data Professors and students will benefit from: Accessible to students/teachers of varied backgrounds and levels of expertise Explains business context for licensing: what clients want to accomplish and why Covers why licensing is the predominant transaction model for ideas, information, inventions, and creative works Discusses “headline” topics

Traditionally, the grand jury has conducted its work in secret. Secrecy prevents those under scrutiny from fleeing or importuning the grand jurors, encourages full disclosure by witnesses, and protects the innocent from unwarranted prosecution, among other things. The long-established rule of grand jury secrecy is enshrined in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which provides that government attorneys and the jurors themselves, among others, ﷿must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury.﷿Accordingly, as a general matter, persons and entities external to the grand jury process are precluded from obtaining transcripts of grand jury testimony or other documents or information that would reveal what took place in the proceedings, even if the grand jury has concluded its work and even if the information is sought pursuant to otherwise-valid legal processes. At times, the rule of grand jury secrecy has come into tension with Congress' power of inquiry when an arm of the legislative branch has sought protected materials pursuant to its oversight function. For instance, some courts have determined that the information barrier established in Rule 6(e) extends to congressional inquiries, observing that the Rule contains no reservations for congressional access to grand jury materials that would otherwise remain secret. Nevertheless, the rule of grand jury secrecy is subject to a number of exceptions, both codified and judicially crafted, that permit grand jury information to be disclosed in certain circumstances (usually only with prior judicial authorization). Perhaps the most significant of these for congressional purposes are (1) the exception that allows a court to authorize disclosure of grand jury matters ﷿preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding,﷿ and (2) the exception, recognized by a few courts, that allows a court to authorize disclosure of grand jury matters in special or exceptional circumstances. In turn, some courts have determined that one or both of these exceptions applies to congressional requests for grand jury materials in the context of impeachment proceedings, though there is authority to the contrary. Additionally, because Rule 6(e) covers only ﷿matters occurring before the grand jury, courts have recognized that documents and information are not independently insulated from disclosure merely because they happen to have been presented to, or considered by, a grand jury. As such, even if Rule 6(e) generally limits congressional access to grand jury information, Congress has a number of tools at its disposal to seek materials connected to a grand jury investigation. Prior Congresses have considered legislation that would have expressly permitted a court to authorize disclosure of grand jury matters to congressional committees on a showing of substantial need. However, in response to such proposals, the executive branch has voiced concerns that the legislation would raise due-process and separation-of-powers issues and potentially undermine the proper functioning of federal grand juries. These concerns may have resulted in Congress declining to alter Rule 6(e). As a result, to the extent Rule 6(e) constrains Congress' ability to conduct oversight, legislation seeking to amend the rules governing grand jury secrecy in a way that would give Congress independent access to grand jury materials may raise additional legal and pragmatic issues for the legislative branch to consider.