Author: Danielle Citron

1

Introducing Guest Blogger Harry Surden

I’m thrilled to welcome aboard Professor Harry Surden who will be guest blogging with us. Professor Surden is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Law School where he teaches intellectual property law and technology law. Professor Surden is a former software engineer, and as such, his research is focused at the intersection of law and technology. He writes about intellectual property law (with a substantive focus on patents and copyright), information privacy law, legal informatics and legal automation, and the application of computer technology within the legal system.

Prior to joining Colorado Law, Professor Surden was a resident fellow at the Stanford Center for Legal Informatics (CodeX) at Stanford Law School, and he is currently an affiliated faculty member at Stanford’s CSurdenHarryPhotoodeX center. He was previously a software engineer at Cisco Systems and Bloomberg Financial Markets. He holds a J.D, from Stanford Law School and a B.A. from Cornell University.

More information about Professor Surden can be found on his home page here, and his Twitter is @HarrySurden .

Professor Surden’s recent publications include:

Machine Learning and Law 89 Washington Law Review 87 (2014)

Technological Cost as Law in Intellectual Property 27 Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 135 (2013)

Computable Contracts 46 U.C. Davis Law Review 629 (2012)

Efficient Uncertainty in Patent Interpretation 68 Washington and Lee Law Review 1737 (2011)

Structural Rights in Privacy 60 SMU Law Review 1605 (2007)

 

0

Introducing Guest Blogger Brad Greenberg

I’m delighted to welcome aboard as a guest blogger Brad A. Greenberg who is the Intellectual Property Fellow at Columbia Law School’s Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts and a Visiting Fellow at the Yale Information Society Project. He writes primarily about intellectual property and media law, with an emphasis on legal questions raised by new technologies; his scholarship draws on a previous career as a newspaper reporter. His current project, which Greenberg photorecasts technology neutrality as an at times undesirable, and often unachievable, feature of legislative drafting, explores why the 1976 Copyright Act has adapted so poorly to technological development.

His recent publications include

Copyright Trolls and Presumptively Fair Uses, 85 U. Colo. L. Rev. 53 (2014)

DOMA’s Ghost and Copyright Reversionary Interests, 108 Nw. U. L. Rev. 391 (2013)

The Federal Media Shield Folly, 91 Wash. U. L. Rev. 437 (2013)

More Than Just a Formality: Instant Authorship and Copyright’s Opt-Out Future in the Digital Age, 59 UCLA L. Rev. 1028 (2012)

1

Marin Levy’s Judging Justice on Appeal in YLJ

Professor Marin Levy has a superb review of Injustice on Appeal: The United States Court of Appeals in Crisis written by my colleague William Reynolds and William Richman. Professor Levy is spot on when she says that “[o]ver the past thirty years, no one has contributed more” to the study of the federal judiciary and its crisis of its crushing workload “than two court scholars together—William M. Richman and William L. Reynolds.” As she notes: “Through a series of critical articles,Richman and Reynolds were able to pinpoint the precise effects of the caseload crisis, both on litigants and the system as a whole. Furthermore, they were able to show the interplay of these various effects, providing a holistic account of the problem in a way that no one else had done.” In her view, their “recent book, Injustice on Appeal: The United States Courts of Appeals in Crisis, stands as a culmination of their earlier work, bringing together vital analysis of the caseload crisis, the ways in which appellate review has suffered as a result of that crisis, and potential solutions. More broadly, Injustice on Appeal stands as one of the most comprehensive and thoughtful accounts of the largest problem facing the federal judiciary today.”Injustice on Appeal

In her review published in the Yale Law Journal, Prof. Levy concludes:

The story of Injustice on Appeal is one of ever-shrinking resources—the courts of appeals have had to perform the same set of critical functions with fewer and fewer means per appeal to do so. Yet there is another story here as well about the resources of the academy. Legal scholars in general spend a great deal of time devoted to theory and doctrine. And yet, we spend relatively few resources on studying the institutions that make up our legal system, particularly on the twin positive and normative questions about how they actually function and how they should function. Richman and Reynolds’s work serves as a call to arms for the academy to take up these critical inquiries.

Ultimately, Richman and Reynolds have provided a great deal for court scholars following in their wake. They have carefully and thoughtfully delineated the largest problem facing the federal judiciary in the past several decades—one that affects tens of thousands of litigants each year. With the quality of overall judicial review in doubt, it is for the academics to carefully study—using both qualitative and quantitative tools—the use of court practices. From judicial voting rules to visiting judges, from mediation to staff organization, there are numerous areas ripe for academic review about how to improve judicial review. In Injustice on Appeal, Richman and Reynolds have laid the groundwork; it is up to the next generation of court scholars to find the way.

Professor Levy has made her own formidable contributions to the discussion that Profs. Reynolds and Richman have been engaging in for a better part of 30 years. Her work includes “Judging the Flood of Litigation,” 80 U. Chi. L. Rev (2013), “Judicial Attention as a Scarce Resource: A Preliminary Defense of How Judges Allocate Time Across Cases in the Federal Courts of Appeals,” 82 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 401 (2013), “The Mechanics of Federal Appeals: Uniformity and Case Management in the Circuit Courts,” 61 Duke L. J. 315 (2011), and “The Costs of Judging Judges by the Numbers,” 28 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 313 (2010) with Kate Stith & Judge José A. Cabranes. Those interested in figuring out how to solve the problems facing the judiciary will do well to follow her work.

0

Introducing Guest Blogger Meghan Ryan

I am thrilled to introduce Professor Meghan Ryan who will be guest blogging with us this month. Professor Ryan, who is Assistant Professor of Law at SMU, teaches and writes at the intersection of criminal law and procedure, torts, and law & science. Her current research focuses on the impact of evolving science, technology, and cultural values on criminal convictions and punishment, as well as on civil remedies.

Professor Ryan received her A.B., magna cum laude, in Chemistry from Harvard University in 2002. In 2005, she earned a J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of Minnesota Law School, where she was a member of the Order of the Coif and received the American Law Institute-American Bar Association Scholarship and Leadership Award. She was also a member of both the Minnesota Law Review and the Minnesota Journal of Global Trade.

After graduation, Professor Ryan clerked for the Honorable Roger L. Wollman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. She also worked as Prof Ryanan associate in the trial group at the Minneapolis-based law firm of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, where she focused her practice on commercial and intellectual property litigation, as well as on white collar defense and compliance. Additionally, Professor Ryan has conducted research in the areas of bioinorganic chemistry, molecular biology, and experimental therapeutics at the Mayo Clinic and the University of Minnesota. Prior to joining the SMU faculty, Professor Ryan was a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, where she taught Criminal Law, Criminal Process, and Sales.

Professor Ryan’s fascinating work includes:

Science and the New Rehabilitation (work in progress).

Juries and the Criminal Constitution, 65 Ala. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2014).

Finality and Rehabilitation, 3 Wake Forest J.L. & Pol’y __ (forthcoming 2014) (invited symposium contribution)

Death and Rehabilitation, 46 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1231 (2013).

The Missing Jury: The Neglected Role of Juries in Eighth Amendment Punishments Clause Determinations, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 549 (2012).

Proximate Retribution, 48 Hous. L. Rev. 1049 (2012).

Remedying Wrongful Execution, 45 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 261 (2012).

Judging Cruelty, 44 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 81 (2010).

Does the Eighth Amendment Punishments Clause Prohibit Only Punishments That Are Both Cruel and Unusual?, 87 Wash. U. L. Rev. 567 (2010).

Does Stare Decisis Apply in the Eighth Amendment Death Penalty Context?, 85 N.C. L. Rev. 847 (2007).

Can the IRS Silence Religious Organizations?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 73 (2007).

Role of Carboxylate Bridges in Modulating Nonheme Diiron(II)O2 Reactivity, 42 Inorganic Chemistry 7519 (2003) (with Miquel Costas, et al.).

0

Fourth Annual Book Review Issue of the Tulsa Law Review Available Online

Professor Ken Kersch and Professor Linda McClain recently announced that the fourth annual book review issue of the Tulsa Law Review (Volume 49, No. 2, Winter 2013) is now in print and available online. At the Tulsa Law Review’s website, you will find a Table of Contents, the List of Books Reviewed, and PDFs of all of the review essays. As the Preface to the issue indicates, at Professor Sandy Levinson’s and Professor Mark Graber’s request, Profs. Kersch and McClain assumed the co-editorship of the annual book review issue over a year ago, with the aim of building on their strong foundation in launching the series and publishing three superb issues. Volume 49 includes twenty-five essays by law professors, political scientists, historians, and sociologists reviewing forty-nine significant law-related books. The issue carries forward an interdisciplinary conversation that demonstrates the special value of the book review essay as a uniquely informative form of scholarship. Those interested in ordering a print copy should contact the new Editor-in-Chief, Jacob Damrill, at jacob-damrill@utulsa.edu

1

Clinical Law Review Workshop – Registration deadline is June 30, 2014

The Clinical Law Review will hold its next Clinical Writers’ Workshop on Saturday, September 27, 2014, at NYU Law School.

The Workshop will provide an opportunity for clinical teachers who are writing about any subject (clinical pedagogy, substantive law, interdisciplinary analysis, empirical work, etc.) to meet with other clinicians writing on related topics to discuss their works-in-progress and brainstorm ideas for further development of their articles. Attendees will meet in small groups organized, to the extent possible, by the subject matter in which they are writing. Each group will “workshop” the draft of each member of the group.

Participation in the Workshop requires the submission of a paper because the workshop takes the form of small group sessions in which all members of the group comment on each other’s manuscripts. By June 30, all applicants will need to submit a mini-draft or prospectus, 3-5 pages in length, of the article they intend to present at the workshopFull drafts of the articles will be due by September 1, 2014.

As in the previous Clinical Law Review Workshops, participants will not have to pay an admission or registration fee but participants will have to arrange and pay for their own travel and lodging. To assist those who wish to participate but who need assistance for travel and lodging, NYU Law School has committed to provide 10 scholarships of up to $750 per person to help pay for travel and lodging. The scholarships are designed for those clinical faculty who receive little or no travel support from their law schools and who otherwise would not be able to attend this conference without scholarship support. Applicants for scholarships will be asked to submit, with their 3-5 page prospectus, by June 30, a proposed budget for travel and lodging and a brief statement of why the scholarship would be helpful in supporting their attendance at this conference.  The Board will review all scholarship applications and issue decisions about scholarships in early July.The scholarships are conditioned upon recipients’ meeting all requirements for workshop participation, including timely submission of drafts.

Information about the Workshop – including the Registration form, scholarship application form, and information for reserving hotel rooms – is available on-line at:

http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/clinicallawreview/clinical-writers-workshop

If you have any comments or suggestions you would like to send us, we would be very happy to hear from you. Comments and suggestions should be sent to Randy Hertz at randy.hertz@nyu.edu.

— The Board of Editors of the Clinical Law Review

0

Welcoming Back Jeffrey Kahn to the Blog

This month, we are lucky to have Professor Jeffrey Kahn back with us for another guest blogging stint. Professor Kahn joined the SMU Law faculty in Fall 2006.  He teaches and writes on American constitutional law, Russian law, human rights, and counterterrorism.  In 2007-2008, he received the Maguire Teaching Fellow Award from the Cary M. Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility at SMU for his seminar, “Perspectives on Counterterrorism.”  In 2008-2009, he was named a Colin Powell Fellow of the John Goodwin Tower Center for Political Studies. In 2010, he received SMU’s Outstanding Faculty Award, a university-wide award given each year to a junior, tenurefaculty-kahn-track faculty member for excellence in teaching, curricular development, and scholarship.  In 2011, the year he was tenured and promoted to associate professor, he received the Law School’s Excellence in Teaching Award.

His latest research on U.S. legal topics focuses on the right to travel and national security law.  His most recent book, Mrs. Shipley’s Ghost: The Right to Travel and Terrorist Watchlists(University of Michigan Press, 2013), critically examines the U.S. Government’s No Fly List.  Among other publications, his articles have appeared in the UCLA Law ReviewMichigan Law Review, and the peer-reviewed Journal of National Security Law and Policy.

Professor Kahn has been incredibly busy since his last guest visit. This past fall, he was the third O’Brien Fellow-in-Residence at the Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism at McGill University’s Faculty of Law.  This semester, he is a Visiting Professor at Washington & Lee School of Law. Professor Kahn recently served as a testifying expert witness in the first federal trial of the constitutionality of the No Fly List and federal watchlist system.  The plaintiff, Rahinah Ibrahim, won the bench trial and the Justice Department decided not to appeal (having lost two prior appeals in the case to the Ninth Circuit). The paperback edition of his book on terrorist watchlists, Mrs. Shipley’s Ghost: The Right to Travel and Terrorist Watchlists(University of Michigan Press, 2013), is scheduled for release later this spring.

Professor Kahn’s latest work is a contribution forthcoming in a title in Springer’s Ius Gentium series edited by ABA President James Silkenat.  The essay evaluates Russian rule-of-law shortcomings through the lens of my experience as one of the experts selected by former Russian Constitutional Court Justice Tamara Morshchakova to contribute a report on the conviction of Russian oil oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was recently released.

 

 

0

Recommended Reading: Symposium on Minds, Brains & the Law

On his Neuroethics & Law Blog, Adam Kolber is hosting a book symposium from March 24-April 4 on Michael Pardo and Dennis Patterson’s Minds, Brains & the Law: Conceptual Foundations of Law & Neuroscience. His guest bloggers, who include Concurring Opinions alum (the brilliant) Amanda Pustilnik, will discuss the the fascinating issues Pardo & Patterson raise. Read Amanda’s post Norms & Neurons here.

 

2

Welcoming Back Guest Blogger Ryan Calo!

I’m thrilled to welcome back Professor Ryan Calo whose work on robotics, information privacy, and cyber law is as creative asCaloRyan it is cutting-edge. Professor Calo is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Washington and the inaugural faculty director of the Tech Policy Lab, an interdisciplinary research group that bridges the School of Law, Information School, and Computer Science and Engineering. He is also an affiliate scholar at the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society. Presentations over the last year include testifying before the United States Senate on the domestic use of drones and participating in the Federal Trade Commission workshop on the Internet of Things. His current project seeks to bridge cyberlaw with robotics.

His most recent publications include:

Ryan Calo, Digital Market Manipulation, 82 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2014)

Ryan Calo, Code, Nudge, or Notice?, 99 Iowa L. Rev. 773 (2014)

Welcome back, Ryan!