Gideon's Promise is back - my buddy Westling (the inverterate liberal criminal defense lawyer) is blogcasting again. And he's disagreeing with me, which is okay.
8:53:18 PM
It's the stupid network, stupid - one thing you've got to love about the Internet is that it is a stupid network. The intelligence is at "the edges," as they say. But what does that really mean? After reading this blurb by Isenberg and Weinberger I understand it much better. Not that it makes me optimistic about the future of the Internet, but at least I see where the dark shadow is coming from.
8:00:18 PM
Priscilla Owen, we hardly knew you - looks like another 5th Circuit nominee will go down in flames. Political flames, that is. If that happens, she will be the first nominee ever to fail to win confirmation despite having (1) a unanimous well-qualified rating from the ABA, and (2) having been granted a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Well, there's a first for everything. But this isn't the first time that politics has wagged the dog, and it won't be the last. Official voting is on Thursday, for whatever that's worth.
5:31:36 PM
Monopoly power & copyright - Doc Searls points to a great quote in footnote 13 of the Betamax case, but he left out the string cites, which are pretty stark support for the quote itself. Here is the Supreme Court's quote and the cites -
While the law has never recognized an author's right to absolute control of his work, the natural tendency of legal rights to express themselves in absolute terms to the exclusion of all else is particularly pronounced in the history of the constitutionally sanctioned monopolies of the copyright and the patent. See, e. g., United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 156 -158 (1948) (copyright owners claiming right to tie license of one film to license of another under copyright law); Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123 (1932) (copyright owner claiming copyright renders it immune from state taxation of copyright royalties); Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 349 -351 (1908) (copyright owner claiming that a right to fix resale price of his works within the scope of his copyright); International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 298 U.S. 131 [464 U.S. 417, 433] (1936) (patentees claiming right to tie sale of unpatented article to lease of patented device).
Yep. You give someone a monopoly and usually they start looking for ways to leverage that power. The law's job is to make sure the power stays limited. That's what the Eldred case is all about. Hopefully the Supreme Court will remember footnote 13, although I'm sure Lessig will remind them at oral argument if they forget.
1:57:18 PM
Arbitration - Can an employer require you to agree to it to get the job? Sam Heldman has written a nice post answering the question and explaining the reason for the law. I found it interesting that Sam believes that arbitrators are often more sympathetic to employees than are judges.
1:39:42 PM
Reparations anyone? - a federal lawsuit was filed in New Orleans against various companies who supposedly insured slaves as property for plantation owners or used their labor to build financial dynasties. The suit was filed on behalf of about 200 Louisiana residents identifying themselves as descendants of African slaves. "We are representing the 35 million Africans who are struggling as a result of slavery," genealogist and spokeswoman Antoinette Harrell-Miller said. "As Sept. 11 approaches, we will mourn for the lives lost in last year's terrorism attacks, but no one has ever mourned the loss of lives in the transatlantic slave trade and the lynchings and the terrorist attack that we as African descendants have had to endure under 240 years of slavery." [Story Link]
