ERISA’s underdeveloped civil enforcement mechanism, section 502(a), has generated extensive litigation. Judicially crafted strictures on the relief available to participants have arisen with respect to standing, scope of judicial review, causes of action, and remedies. While the Supreme Court has held those with a colorable claim to benefits have standing, precisely what that means has proven elusive. Judicial review of denied claims is strictly constrained. Court access requires that participants have exhausted internal review processes, and if the plan grants the administrator discretion to determine eligibility for benefits or construe the plan’s terms (which is virtually always), judicial review is restricted to a cursory scan for abuse of discretion. Deferential review survives even if the administrator is conflicted: lower courts are instructed to consider the conflict merely as one factor in and overall assessment of whether discretion was abused. Finally, the Court has held that ERISA does not permit the full panoply of damages one would expect in the aftermath of contractual or fiduciary breach. Consequential damages are unavailable for denied claims, and equitable relief for fiduciary breach is limited to what was typically available in equity in the days of the divided bench.

Generally, the political consensus at the beginning of the internet era was that platforms should have only limited liability under intellectual property law for content that users uploaded on these platforms.1 Now, however, the platforms are the center of gravity for the Internet, drawing in (for technical reasons and owing to network effects) all data streams in the respective ecosystems, for the benefit of the system leader controlling the platform. Furthermore, the contracts that system leaders conclude with business users, and which control their business relationship, not only normally grant the exclusive right to data generated on the platform to the platform provider but also generally neutralize any intellectual property rights held by the business user. Indeed, the system leaders are regulators of their respective ecosystems and use their system of contracts to control the ecosystems and exclude the use and importance of intellectual property rights. The platform or cloud provider contractually secures the right from the platform or cloud user, not only to store the data but also to analyze it and make use of it for the provider’s own benefit, and for the benefit of others in the ecosystem, on all connected markets. The platform providers thus become the masters of their respective data ecosystems; they do indeed hoard the data and generally do not trade or share the data.

Work with people seeking asylum brings unfamiliar experiences, challenges, rewards, and dilemmas. Resonances for the therapist and sharing the client’s pain and hopelessness can be distressing. Power, powerlessness and privilege are common themes. Facing the limits of our own compassion, and of what it is possible to do, can be hard. How can we ‘do differently’ and what new skills are needed? The work can be isolating, and exhaustion, burn out, vicarious traumatisation and other existential reactions can arise.Clinicians face many dilemmas, such as over boundaries, neutrality and self-disclosure, overt political action, and how to deal with different perspectives in the same organisation. What helps clinicians do well is a focus on reflection, and accessing supervision and other reflective spaces, such as Balint groups or solidarity teams. Pitfalls of not attending to our own responses are highlighted, as is the need to protect reflective spaces. Remote meetings make access easier for both training and peer support. Meetings in non-clinical settings with people who have sought asylum can also be enlightening.

Chapter 23 begins with the origins of the copyright first sale doctrine (Bobbs-Merrill v. Straus), then explores this concept in the context of software licensing and sales (Vernor v. Autodesk). It next extends these principles to trademark licenses (Au-Tomotive Gold v. Volkswagen). Next, it addresses the complex history of patent exhaustion (Adams v. Burke, Qunta v. LG). The issue of conditional sales and their continuing validity is explored through Impression Products v. Lexmark, which also features in the discussion of international exhaustion. International copyright exhaustion is discussed in view of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley. The chapter concludes with a discussion of international trademark exhaustion and gray market goods, exemplified by Nestle v. Casa Helvetia).

This chapter describes how device makers try to leverage intellectual property (IP) rights to restrict repair and why those assertions are, as a general rule, inconsistent with a proper understanding of the law. IP—in the form of copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets—offers manufacturers an arsenal of weapons in the war on repair. From a practical perspective, IP law allows firms to credibly threaten to enjoin, silence, and ultimately bankrupt anyone with the audacity to repair a product without permission. That’s true despite the fact that IP claims against consumers and repair providers rest on questionable legal foundations.

Key Learning Points

1. 1. Up to 45 per cent of critical care physicians report severe burnout.

2. 2. Up to 33 per cent of critical care nurses report severe burnout. The majority report at least one isolated symptom of burnout.

3. 3. Both personal and environmental factors are implicated as causal factors for burnout.

4. 4. Both individual- and organisational-level interventions are helpful, although organisational-level interventions have longer-lasting effects.

5. 5. It is our responsibility to look after our own health and to support colleagues in doing so.

In Beckett’s Murphy in Chapter 9, we find that the eponymous character’s quest for self-validation is an aspect of an autistic spectrum disorder and that it is his relentless attraction to patterns that draws him to Mr. Endon. In the game of chess between Endon and Murphy, it is the former’s refutation of any kind of analogy that spins Murphy out of himself and ultimately leads, in an absurd but also interconnected concatenation of small steps, to his death by a gas explosion in his garret. As in other works of Beckett, our attention is rivetted on the absurd semiotic of language itself as an aspect of hermeneutical delirium. This is closely tied to Murphy’s aporetic speech that is also part of his autistic syndrome. The failure to find a reflection of himself in the mind of Mr. Endon is what ultimately undoes Murphy’s sense of self-integration and triggers his rapid unravelling.