It might be the dog days of summer, but the legal blogosphere was fairly active, thanks in part to Ted Stevens, Denise Howell and George W. Bush. The last of whom ate with his mouth open. And that’s just plain rude.
Before getting to these and other exciting topics – sorted somewhat logically, we will take a brief “quick look” review at the week in antitrust and economics, the usual focus of this blog (other than the 2006 World Cup).
QUICK LOOK REVIEW
AntitrustProf Blog reports on the antitrust challenge to the agreement regarding DFW/Love Field. What I find interesting is not the antitrust challenge to the agreement between the Cities of Dallas and Forth Worth, Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, and the DFW Board which allocates gate spaces, allows fly through ticketing from Love Field for Southwest, and relaxes the Wright Amendment within eight years. What I find interesting is that the plaintiffs appear to be using the antitrust laws to challenge the city of Dallas’ decision to use its eminent domain power to acquire and then demolish the plaintiffs’ Love Field terminal. I know we live in a post-Kelo v. City of New London world but a city using eminent domain power to limit competition on its own airfield seems particularly cynical and unwelcome.
If you have not read my co-blogger Manfred Gabriel’s analysis of Microsoft’s new 12 antitrust tenets, you have missed out on one of this week’s must reads. Manfred closely reads the new tenets and asks important questions such as “Notice the careful distinction between ‘computer manufacturers,’ ‘customers,’ and ‘users.’ I wonder what it means that end users are free only ‘ultimately’ to choose software. How many mouse clicks will it take to exercise your Windows freedom?”
The intersection of patent and antitrust law has been a major issue in antitrust law for several years, particularly pharmaceutical patents. At In The Pipeline, Derek Lowe notes that “drug industry profits” are “pretty much all based on wasting assets” and wonders if “the current patent terms [are] too short, too long, or on target?” Jane Galt at the excellent economics blog Asymmetrical Information answers “Pharma patents seem just about right to me, particularly since they lose a huge amount of their run time to FDA trials.” The comments to both posts are also worth reading.
Finally, and speaking of the pharmaceutical industry, the Patent Baristas have a lengthy and detailed post – Are There Competitive Problems in Pharmaceutical Markets? The FTC says “Yes” – about the testimony of a FTC commissioner and a generic drug company executive before a Senate committee this week.
RULE OF REASON
Bag And Baggage
It appears that at least 50% of all blawgs have commented on Reed Smith’s firing of Denise Howell of Bag and Baggage. Of particular note, Justin Patten of Human Law responds to Robert Ambrogi’s question “Do cutting-edge, creative lawyers have a place in mainline firms?” by answering “In my view, the answer to this question is no.” Speaking of Ambrogi, he asks a number of interesting questions and collects blawg posts on the subject too.
J. Craig Williams of May It Please The Court asks “Whatever the reason, what was Reed Smith thinking? I don’t know about Denise’s rainmaking, but she’s certainly a forward thinker and more than creative. There was a ripple in the fabric of the Internet the day that decision was made.”
David Maister takes a slightly contrarian view: “Is it really possible, as many (including Denise) would hope, that an organization can offer a Chinese menu of work choices and benefits (take one from column A, one from column B and so on), I doubt the practicality. “
Dennis Kennedy speculates that Reed Smith is either 1) slimming down for a merger, 2) made a bad business decision, or 3) having financial problems.
The Project for Attorney Retention’s blog, Up To PAR, sadly notes that “I wish I could say that Denise is unique, but she is only visible. Almost every week, PAR hears from another mother-attorney who has been let go or has seen the writing on the walls and knows it is time to paste a smile on her face and tell everyone that she really wants to spend some time at home with her little ones.”
Sen. Stevens
Sen. Stevens’ claim that the internet is a series of tubes about to be clogged continues to be blawg gold. Last week, Ernie Svenson said that Sen. Stevens would “probably do well with people who’ve had full frontal lobotomies.” Marty Schwimmer at the Trademark Blog comments on the Ted Stevens Fan Club MySpace page (which was taken down for over 40 hours by MySpace) and worries about the power of “a policing ‘bot (or human supervision thereof) … to take down the site for 40 hours.”
“Shit”
Thanks to President Bush, I have a legitimate excuse to curse during this blawg review. Quizlaw asks “if Brian Williams plays the above clip tonight on NBC’s national newscast, I wonder: Would the FCC fine NBC for airing a clip featuring the President of the United States using the word ’shit.’” Ann Althouse is more upset that the President was chewing with his mouth open: “He eats like that at an official affair? That’s only marginally acceptable at a backyard barbecue with your drunken friends.” Finally, Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine notes that the broadcast networks, if they had broadcast President Bush saying “shit,” would have been fined $325,000 “under the new ‘indecency’ legislation Bush himself just signed. He’s lucky the version that came to his desk no longer included similar fines for the speaker, not just the broadcaster.”
Lawyers on YouTube
There are two types of lawyer ads on YouTube generating buzz. The first is Alison Margolin’s video. The second is Leonard Neuman’s video. The first is, according to My Shingle’s Carolyn Elefant, the “coolest, most expertly executed marketing idea I’ve seen in a while.” And Professor Bainbridge calls it, in a good way, “pretty slick.” The second is, well, Quizlaw claims that “this personal injury lawyer has absolutely no right to his dignity. Indeed, Leonard Neuman (THE INJURY LAWYER), by posting his commercial on YouTube, has either sunk to a new low or he’s a freakin’ genius.” Speaking of YouTube, check out The Trademark Blog’s breakdown of the BoingBoing post on YouTube’s terms of service.
Lawyers Helping Lawyers
It seems like a good percentage of law-related blogging relates to improving one’s practical skills, improving a firm, and other “meta” topics. This week, Patently-O brings us details on “a patented method and apparatus for managing outside counsel.” What About Clients? highlights a little known statutory provision that can help you get around the need for a notarized affidavit. If you took a bar exam between 1997 and 2006 and took a Bar/Bri class might want to check out this Antitrust Review post. The Debt Collection Lawyer has all, and I mean all, the details about the Tools Of The Debt Collection Lawyer. Adam Smith, Esq., reviews recent writings and asks Is Your Firm An IT Pioneer, or A “Fast Follower?” And the questions keep coming from David Maister who asks Does The Network Work? Jim Calloway tells you why you need dual monitors. Finally, the Law Practice Management blog has some good advice on getting published.
Posts That Really Made Me Think
In addition to a few of the above posts, there were a number of posts that addressed, often in great detail, hot-button substantive legal and/or political issues. For example, Ross Runkel has a two part analysis (one, two) of the court decision striking down Maryland’s “Wal-Mart” law and why the decision is wrong. Patent attorney Russ Krajec suggests, perhaps against his own pecuniary interests, that a company’s competitive advantage may not lie in its patent portfolio.
There are also a number of very good, very detailed and thoughtful (and thought-provoking) posts about the inter-related issues of the war on terror, Iraq, the NSA and the war in Israel and Lebanon. Orin Kerr provides an excellent analysis of the court decision allowing the EFF to proceed against AT&T for participating in a NSA program. Marty Lederman at Balkinization had a banner week with a pair of posts on Geneva Convention and NSA-related issues (one, two). Kenneth Anderson’s Law of War and Just War Theory Blog responds to and elaborates on an Alan Dershowitz article “on the need to establish degrees of being a civilian in war and terrorism, with differing degrees implying different degrees of either participation and/or culpability, and hence different degrees of protection.” Intel Dump’s Dave Glaiver reviews Joseph Margulies’ book Guantanamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power. At the Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein writes about why Israel is attacking Christian neighborhoods.
Sports
As Antitrust Review has a soft spot for sports-related law and/or economics blogging, this blawg review closes with a pair of sport-related posts. The Sports Law Blog addresses the absurdity of testing golfers for steroids and The Sports Economists applies game theory to stage 13 of the Tour de France.
Blawg Review has information about next week’s host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.
Share on Facebook
RSS Feed
