Law School

Subrogation is the assumption by a third party (such as a second creditor or an insurance company) of another party's legal right to collect debts or damages. It is a legal doctrine whereby one person is entitled to enforce the subsisting or revived rights of another for one's own benefit. A right of subrogation typically arises by operation of law, but can also arise by statute or by agreement. Subrogation is an equitable remedy, having first developed in the English Court of Chancery. It is a familiar feature of common law systems. Analogous doctrines exist in civil law jurisdictions. Subrogation is a relatively specialized field of law; entire legal textbooks are devoted to the subject. Doctrine. Countries which have inherited the common law system will typically have a doctrine of subrogation, but its doctrinal basis in a particular jurisdiction may vary from that in other jurisdictions, depending upon the extent to which equity remains a distinct body of law in that jurisdiction. English courts have now accepted that the concept of unjust enrichment has a role to play in subrogation. In contrast, this approach has been stridently rejected by the High Court of Australia, where the doctrinal basis of subrogation is said to lie in the prevention of unconscionable results: for example, the discharge of a debtor or one party getting double recovery. Types. The situations in which subrogation will be available are not closed and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Subrogation typically arises in three-party situations. Some common examples of subrogation include: Indemnity insurance. An indemnity insurer may be entitled to be subrogated to the rights of insured as against a third party who is responsible for the damage to the insured. Law of guarantees. A surety may be entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the creditor as against the principal debtor. Trust creditors. A creditor of a trustee may be entitled to be subrogated to the trustee's right of indemnity. Subrogation to outgoing securities. A lender who advances funds for the purpose of discharging a security may be entitled to be subrogated to the third party's security as against the borrower. Bills of exchange. The indorser of a bill of exchange may be entitled to be subrogated to the holder as against the acceptor (who is liable to indemnify the indorser). Indemnity insurer's subrogation rights. "Subrogation" has been used in this context to refer to two distinct situations. First, after paying out under a policy of indemnity insurance, an insurer may be entitled to stand in the shoes of the insured and enforce the insured's rights against the third-party tortfeasor who is responsible for the loss. This is subrogation in its proper or core sense. Insurance subrogation, and, specifically, the types and amounts of payments that can be recovered, differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Secondly, after paying out under a policy of indemnity insurance, an insurer may be entitled to sue the insured where the insured has already had his loss made good by the third-party tortfeasor. That is, the insurer has a claim against the insured so as to ensure that the insured does not get double recovery. This situation might arise if, for example, an insured claimed in full under the policy, but then started proceedings against the third-party tortfeasor, and recovered substantial damages. Strictly speaking, this is not a case of subrogation; it is a case of recoupment.

In law, ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"), or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one"), is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content. European-law countries with a tradition of Roman law may also use an expression from Aristotle translated into Latin: nemo censetur ignorare legem ("nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law") or ignorantia iuris nocet ("not knowing the law is harmful"). Explanation. The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that one was unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if that person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they cannot complain if they incur liability. The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly promulgated—published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over the Internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices. In the ancient phrase of Gratian, Leges instituuntur cum promulgantur ("Laws are instituted when they are promulgated"). In order that a law obtain the binding force which is proper to a law, it must be applied to the men who have to be ruled by it. Such application is made by their being given notice by promulgation. A law can bind only when it is reasonably possible for those to whom it applies to acquire knowledge of it in order to observe it, even if actual knowledge of the law is absent for a particular individual. A secret law is no law at all. In criminal law, although ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, it can be a consideration in sentencing, particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For example, in one Canadian case, a person was charged with being in possession of gambling devices after they had been advised by customs officials that it was legal to import such devices into Canada. Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge. In addition, there were, particularly in the days before satellite communication and cellular phones, persons who could genuinely be ignorant of the law due to distance or isolation. For example, in a case in British Columbia, four hunters were acquitted of game offenses where the law was changed during the period they were in the wilderness hunting. Another case, in early English law, involved a seaman on a clipper before the invention of radio who had shot another. Although he was found guilty, he was pardoned, as the law had been changed while he was at sea. Although ignorance of the law, like other mistakes of law, is not a defence, a mistake of fact may well be, depending on the circumstances: that is, the false but sincerely held belief in a factual state of affairs which, had it been the case, would have made the conduct innocent in law.

An express trust is a trust created "in express terms, and usually in writing, as distinguished from one inferred by the law from the conduct or dealings of the parties." Property is transferred by a person (called a trustor, settlor, or grantor) to a transferee (called the trustee), who holds the property for the benefit of one or more persons, called beneficiaries. The trustee may distribute the property, or the income from that property, to the beneficiaries. Express trusts are frequently used in common law jurisdictions as methods of wealth preservation or enhancement. Terms. Law generally requires only a simple formality to create an express trust. In certain jurisdictions, an express trust may even be established orally. Typically, a settlor would record the disposition, where real property is to be held in trust or the value of property in trust is large. Where legal title to property is being passed to a trustee, a "deed of settlement" or "Trust Instrument" (for jurisdictions that do not recognise Deeds) may be used. Where property is to continue to be held by the person making the trust, a "declaration of trust" will be appropriate. Often, a trust corporation or more than one trustee is appointed to allow for uninterrupted administration of the trust in the event of a trustee's resignation, death, bankruptcy or incapacity. Additionally a Protector may be appointed who, for example, is authorized to appoint new trustees and to review the trustees' annual accounts. To be valid at common law, a trust instrument must ascertain its beneficiaries, as well as the res (a Latin term meaning "thing") or subject matter of the trust, unless it is a charitable trust which does not provide specific beneficiaries. To be valid in equity, a trust must satisfy the following elements: 1. Property or rights of a kind which can be the subject of a trust 2. A declaration of trust or disposition on trust by a person legally competent to create a trust 3. Certainty of property and objects (trust must be administratively workable 4. Compliance with requirements regarding evidence 5. Compliance with rule against remoteness of vesting (rule against perpetuities and rule against inalienability of income for longer than the perpetuity period) Common forms of express trust. Bare trust. property transferred to another to hold for example for a third person absolutely. May be of use where property is to be held and invested on behalf of a minor child or mentally incapacitated person. Life Interest trust. the income from property transferred is paid to one person, "the life tenant" (for example a widower), during their lifetime and thereafter is transferred to another person (who may take absolutely or a second life interest according to the terms of the trust, in the second case a third beneficiary would come into play). The trustees may have power to pay capital as well as income to the life tenant. Alternatively, they may have rights to transfer ("appoint") property to other beneficiaries ahead of their entitlement. Discretionary trust. the trustees may pay out income to whichever of the beneficiaries they, in the reasonable exercise of their discretion, think fit. They will normally also have the power to pay out capital. They may have extensive powers, even to add new beneficiaries, but such powers may normally only be exercised bona fide in the interests of the beneficiaries as a whole. Discretionary trusts must not be indefinite and are subject to 'the rule against perpetuities'. In New South Wales, the time prescribed is a statutory period of 80 years from the date the disposition takes effect.

Marriage is an institution that is historically filled with restrictions. From age, to gender, to social status, various restrictions are placed on marriage by communities, religious institutions, legal traditions and states. Marriage age. The minimum age at which a person is able to lawfully marry, and whether parental or other consents are required, vary from country to country. In the U.S. the minimum age for marriage without parental and or judicial approval is 18 except for Nebraska (19) and Mississippi (21); but most states allow exceptions to the general minimum age in some circumstances (see Marriage age in the United States). In England and Wales the general age at which a person may marry is 18, but 16- or 17-year-olds may get married with their parents' or guardians' consent. If they are unable to obtain this, they can gain consent from the courts, which may be granted by the Magistrates' Courts, or the county or High Court family divisions. Gender restrictions. Legal, social, and religious restrictions apply in all countries on the genders of the couple. In response to changing social and political attitudes, some jurisdictions and religious denominations now recognize marriages between people of the same sex. Other jurisdictions have instead "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships", while additional others explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages. In 1989, Denmark became the first country to legally recognize a relationship for same-sex couples, establishing registered partnerships, which gave those in same-sex relationships "most rights of married heterosexuals, but not the right to adopt or obtain joint custody of a child". In 2001, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. As of date, marriage between same-sex couples is legally performed and recognized in 34 countries, namely the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, Brazil, France, Uruguay, New Zealand, Luxembourg, the United States, Ireland, Colombia, Finland, Malta, Germany, Australia, Austria, Taiwan, Ecuador, United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Chile, Switzerland, Slovenia, Cuba, Mexico and Andorra. Civil union, civil partnership, domestic partnership and registered partnership statuses offer varying legal benefits of marriage. As of 5 June 2023, countries that have an alternative form of legal recognition other than marriage on a national level are: Bolivia, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Montenegro and San Marino. Further religious conflicts. These developments have created a political and religious reaction in some countries, including in England, where the Church of England, after long debate, officially banned blessings of gay couples by Church of England clergy, and in the United States, which continues to experience conflicts, based upon religious grounds. Kinship restrictions. Kinship is two people that are related by blood or adoption, such as brother, sister, mother, father, aunt, uncle etcetera. No European country prohibits marriage between first cousins. The U.S. is the only western country with cousin marriage restrictions. Societies have often placed restrictions on marriage to relatives, though the degree of prohibited relationship varies widely. In most societies, marriage between brothers and sisters has been forbidden, with ancient Egyptian, Hawaiian, and Inca royalty being prominent exceptions. In many societies, marriage between first cousins is preferred, while at the other extreme, the medieval Catholic Church prohibited marriage even between distant cousins.

The idea–expression distinction or idea–expression dichotomy is a legal doctrine in the United States that limits the scope of copyright protection by differentiating an idea from the expression or manifestation of that idea. Unlike patents, which may confer proprietary rights in relation to general ideas and concepts per se when construed as methods, copyrights cannot confer such rights. An adventure novel provides an illustration of the concept. Copyright may subsist in the work as a whole, in the particular story or characters involved, or in any artwork contained in the book, but generally not in the idea or genre of the story. Copyright, therefore, may not subsist in the idea of a man venturing out on a quest, but may subsist in a particular story that follows that pattern. Similarly, if the methods or processes described in a work are patentable, they may be the subject of various patent claims, which may or may not be broad enough to cover other methods or processes based on the same idea. Arthur C Clarke, for example, sufficiently described the concept of a communications satellite (a geostationary satellite used as a telecommunications relay) in a 1945 paper that was not considered patentable in 1954 when it was developed at Bell Labs. Legal origins and status. Philosophically, there is disagreement about the distinction between thought and language. In the past it was often thought that the two could not be separated, and so a paraphrase could never exactly reproduce a thought expressed in different words. At the opposite extreme is the view that concepts and language are completely independent, so there is always a range of ways in which a concept can be expressed. In the United States, the doctrine originated from the 1879 Supreme Court case of Baker v Selden. The Supreme Court held in Selden that, while exclusive rights to the "useful arts" (in this case bookkeeping) described in a book might be available by patent, only the description itself was protectable by copyright. In later cases, the Supreme Court has stated that "unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given only to the expression of the idea—not the idea itself," and that "copyright's idea or expression dichotomy 'strike a definitional balance between the First Amendment and the Copyright Act by permitting free communication of facts while still protecting an author's expression.'" In the English decision of Donoghue v Allied Newspapers Limited (1938) Ch 106, the court illustrated the concept by stating that "the person who has clothed the idea in form, whether by means of a picture, a play or a book" owns the copyright. In the Australian decision of Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Company Limited v Taylor (1937), Latham CJ used the analogy of reporting a person's fall from a bus: the first person to do so could not use the law of copyright to stop other people from announcing this fact. Today, Article 1.2 of the European Union Software Directive expressly excludes from copyright ideas and principles that underlie any element of a computer program, including those that underlie its interfaces. As stated by the European Court of Justice in SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Limited, "to accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolize ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development." Scènes à faire. Some courts have recognized that particular ideas can be expressed effectively only by using certain elements or background. The French name for this doctrine is Scènes à faire. Therefore, even the expression in these circumstances is unprotected, or extremely limited to verbatim copying only. This is true in the United Kingdom and most Commonwealth countries.

In contract law, rescission is an equitable remedy which allows a contractual party to cancel the contract. Parties may rescind if they are the victims of a vitiating factor, such as misrepresentation, mistake, duress, or undue influence. Rescission is the unwinding of a transaction. This is done to bring the parties, as far as possible, back to the position in which they were before they entered into a contract (the status quo ante). Taxonomy. Rescission is used throughout the law in a number of different senses. The failure to draw these crucial distinctions is productive of serious confusion. Although Judicature legislation has been enacted throughout the common law world, and jurisdictions vary in their recognition of a distinct body of law known as equity, reference to the jurisdictional origins is still important for the purposes of exposition. "Rescission" in the sense of termination. Rescission in this sense is not the focus of this article. Where a contract is terminated, obligations under the contract are only discharged prospectively; the contract is not rendered void ab initio. Rescission in the sense of termination covers two key situations: First, where a party to a contract exercises an express right of termination, he or she is sometimes said to have exercised a right to rescind the contract. Secondly, where a party is faced with a repudiation, the party can elect to terminate the contract; this too has often been referred to as an election to rescind. "Rescission" at common law. Rescission at common law (as distinct from rescission in equity) is a self-help remedy: historically, the common law courts simply gave effect to the rescinding party's unequivocal election to rescind the contract. Rescission at common law is only available for fraudulent misrepresentations and duress. Rescission renders the contract void ab initio, and courts will only grant rescission under common law if the parties can be restored to their original positions prior to the formation of the contract ("restitutio in integrum"). Courts of Equity exercised a jurisdiction to effect rescission where restoring the parties to the contract to their pre-contract positions was not possible at common law. "Rescission" in equity. Rescission is available in equity's exclusive jurisdiction in a wide range of situations. For example, where there has been an innocent but material misrepresentation, a breach of fiduciary duty, unconscionable conduct, or equitable fraud. In court. Rescission is an equitable remedy and is discretionary. It is used as a synonym for termination at law. A court may decline to rescind a contract if one party has affirmed the contract by his action, or a third party has acquired some rights or there has been substantial performance in implementing the contract. To improve chances of being granted rescission, parties may do well to describe those circumstances which may give rise to an entitlement to terminate, as was done in Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd. Furthermore, because rescission is supposed to be imposed mutually upon both sides to a contract, the party seeking rescission normally must offer to give back all benefits he or she has received under the contract (an "offer of tender"). The US state of Virginia uses the term "cancellation" for equitable rescission. Furthermore, a minority of common law jurisdictions, like South Africa, use the term "rescission" for what other jurisdictions call "reversing", "overturning" or "overruling" a court judgment. In this sense, the term means to be set aside or made void, on application to the court that granted the judgment or to a higher court. Applications to rescind a judgment are usually made on the basis of error or for good cause.

Entrapment is a practice in which a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a "crime" that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit. It "is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer or state agent". Police conduct rising to the level of entrapment is broadly discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, is available as a defense against criminal liability. Sting operations, through which police officers or agents engage in deception to try to catch persons who are committing crimes, raise concerns about possible entrapment. Depending on the law in the jurisdiction, the prosecution may be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped or the defendant may be required to prove that they were entrapped as an affirmative defense. In the practice of journalism and whistle-blowing entrapment means "deceptive and trust-breaking techniques ... applied to trick someone to commit a legal or moral transgression." United States. In the United States, two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests. The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime. The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime. Contrary to popular belief, the United States does not require police officers to identify themselves as police in the case of a sting or other undercover work, and police officers may lie when engaged in such work. The law of entrapment instead focuses on whether people were enticed to commit crimes they would not have otherwise considered in the normal course of events.

Land trust: A private, nonprofit organization that, as all or part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisition, or by its stewardship of such land or easements; or an agreement whereby one party (the trustee) agrees to hold ownership of a piece of real property for the benefit of another party (the beneficiary). Offshore trust: Strictly speaking, an offshore trust is a trust which is resident in any jurisdiction other than that in which the settlor is resident. However, the term is more commonly used to describe a trust in one of the jurisdictions known as offshore financial centers or, colloquially, as tax havens. Offshore trusts are usually conceptually similar to onshore trusts in common law countries, but usually with legislative modifications to make them more commercially attractive by abolishing or modifying certain common law restrictions. By extension, "onshore trust" has come to mean any trust resident in a high-tax jurisdiction. Personal injury trust: A personal injury trust is any form of trust where funds are held by trustees for the benefit of a person who has suffered an injury and funded exclusively by funds derived from payments made in consequence of that injury. Private and public trusts: A private trust has one or more particular individuals as its beneficiary. By contrast, a public trust (also called a charitable trust) has some charitable end as its beneficiary. To qualify as a charitable trust, the trust must have as its object certain purposes such as alleviating poverty, providing education, carrying out some religious purpose, etc. The permissible objects are generally set out in legislation, but objects not explicitly set out may also be an object of a charitable trust, by analogy. Charitable trusts are entitled to special treatment under the law of trusts and also the law of taxation. Protective trust: Here the terminology is different between the UK and the USA: In the UK, a protective trust is a life interest that terminates upon the happening of a specified event; such as the bankruptcy of the beneficiary, or any attempt by an individual to dispose of their interest. They have become comparatively rare. In the US, a 'protective trust' is a type of trust that was devised for use in estate planning. (In another jurisdiction this might be thought of as one type of asset protection trust.) Often a person, A, wishes to leave property to another person B. A, however, fears that the property might be claimed by creditors before A dies, and that therefore B would receive none of it. A could establish a trust with B as the beneficiary, but then A would not be entitled to use of the property before they died. Protective trusts were developed as a solution to this situation. A would establish a trust with both A and B as beneficiaries, with the trustee instructed to allow A use of the property until they died, and thereafter to allow its use to B. The property is then safe from being claimed by A's creditors, at least so long as the debt was entered into after the trust's establishment. This use of trusts is similar to life estates and remainders, and is frequently used as an alternative to them. Purpose trust: Or, more accurately, non-charitable purpose trust (all charitable trusts are purpose trusts). Generally, the law does not permit non-charitable purpose trusts outside of certain anomalous exceptions which arose under the eighteenth-century common law (and, arguably, Quistclose trusts). Certain jurisdictions (principally, offshore jurisdictions) have enacted legislation validating non-charitable purpose trusts generally. QTIP Trust: Short for "qualified terminal interest property". A trust recognized under the tax laws of the United States which qualifies for the marital gift exclusion from the estate tax.

A domestic partnership is a relationship, usually between couples, who live together and share a common domestic life, but are not married (to each other or to anyone else). People in domestic partnerships receive legal benefits that guarantee the right of survivorship, hospital visitation, and other rights. The term is not used consistently, which results in some inter-jurisdictional confusion. Some jurisdictions, such as Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S. states of California, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington use the term "domestic partnership" to mean what other jurisdictions call civil union, civil partnership, or registered partnership. Other jurisdictions use the term as it was originally coined, to mean an interpersonal status created by local municipal and county governments, which provides an extremely limited range of rights and responsibilities. Some legislatures have voluntarily established domestic partnership relations by statute instead of being ordered to do so by a court. Although some jurisdictions have instituted domestic partnerships as a way to recognize same-sex marriage, statutes do exist which provide for recognition of opposite-sex domestic partnerships in many jurisdictions. In some legal jurisdictions, domestic partners who live together for an extended period of time but are not legally entitled to common-law marriage may be entitled to legal protection in the form of a domestic partnership. Some domestic partners may enter into non marital relationship contracts in order to agree, either verbally or in writing, to issues involving property ownership, support obligations, and similar issues common to marriage. (See effects of marriage and palimony.) Beyond agreements, registration of relationships in domestic partnership registries allow for the jurisdiction to formally acknowledge domestic partnerships as valid relationships with limited rights. Overview. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, a Domestic Partnership, Same Sex Marriage or Civil Union are each separate and distinct legal concepts. The domestic partnership is a legal relationship between two people of the same or opposite sex who live together and share a domestic life, but are not married or joined by a civil union nor are blood relatives. It may be established by contract between the parties, but more often by registration according to procedures established by a state or municipal government. Benefits granted under a domestic partnership vary among different jurisdictions. Some accord full health benefits, others only a right of visitation. In still other jurisdictions, registered domestic partners are accorded a legal status similar to that of a married person with respect to matters of probate, guardianships, conservatorships, inheritance, protection from abuse, and related matters. Since the 2015 US Supreme Court's decision legalizing same-sex marriage, there have been fewer US domestic partnerships registered, but in many jurisdictions they are still allowed for couples of the same gender or different genders who do not want to marry but still would like to be eligible for certain benefits. Many couples opt for a domestic partnership after comparing the potential tax consequences of being married.

In 2011, United States business entities incurred $29 billion in direct costs because of patent trolls. Lawsuits brought by "patent assertion companies" made up 61% of all patent cases in 2012, according to the Santa Clara University School of Law. From 2009 through mid-2013, Apple Inc. was the defendant in 171 lawsuits brought by non-practicing entities (NPEs), followed by Hewlett-Packard (137), Samsung (133), AT&T (127), and Dell (122). Patent troll-instigated litigation, once mostly confined to large companies in patent-dependent industries such as pharmaceuticals, came to involve companies of all sizes in a wide variety of industries. In 2005, patent trolls sued 800 small firms (those with less than $100 million annual revenue), the number growing to nearly 2,900 such firms in 2011; the median defendant's annual revenue was $10.3 million. A July 2014 PricewaterhouseCoopers study concluded that non-practicing entities (NPEs) accounted for 67 percent of all patent lawsuits filed—up from 28 percent five years earlier—and though the median monetary award size has shrunk over time, the median number of awards to NPEs was three times higher than those of practicing companies. A 2014 study from Harvard University, Harvard Business School and the University of Texas concluded that firms forced to pay patent trolls reduce R&D spending, averaging $211 million less than firms having won a lawsuit against a troll. That 2014 study also found that trolls tend to sue firms with fewer attorneys on staff, in effect encouraging firms to invest in legal representation at the expense of technology development. The 2014 study reported that trolls tend to opportunistically sue firms with more available cash, even if the firm's available cash was not earned in the technology that is the subject of the patent lawsuit, and targeting the firms long before a product begins turning a profit, thus disincentivizing investment in new technologies. Emphasis became progressively focused on patents covering software rather than chemical or mechanical inventions, given the difficulty in defining the scope of software patent claims in comparison to the more easily defined specific compounds in chemical patents. A GAO study concluded that the proportion of patent lawsuits initiated by trolls hadn't changed significantly from 2007 through 2011, the GAO speculating that the raw numerical increase in both troll and non-troll instituted lawsuits may be due to the "inherently imprecise" language and a lack of common, standardized, scientific vocabulary in constantly evolving emerging technologies such as software. Software patents were described as "particularly prone" to abuse because software is "inherently conceptual", with research indicating that a software patent is four times as likely as a chemical patent to be involved in litigation, and a software "business method patent" is thirteen times more likely to be litigated. On June 4, 2013, the National Economic Council and Council of Economic Advisers released a report entitled Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation that found significant harm to the economy from such entities and made recommendations to address them. The report further stated: "Specific policies should focus on fostering clearer patents with a high standard of novelty and non-obviousness, reducing disparity in the costs of litigation for patent owners and technology users, and increasing the adaptability of the innovation system to challenges posed by new technologies and new business models, would likely have a similar effect today."