Brian L. Frye

Sigh. Too true.

@brianlfrye.bsky.social and I will be celebrating it in two days!!!

“When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

The landlordism is wild.

Headed to @MaybellRomero’s first Bastard Film Encounter tonight!

Sure. I’m in favor of citation. I just don’t think it should be mandatory. We should cite out of love, not obligation.

Thanks! Yes, I wrote about it here, among other places. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... The upshot is that I think the possibility of helping readers is great, but doesn’t justify making attribution mandatory.

Heresy.

Marmite. By the spoon.

Here's a link to the @marklemley.bsky.social & @patentscholar.bsky.social essay. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

I just posted to @ssrn an essay titled Aspirational Attribution: A Response to Lemley & Ouellette, "Plagiarism, Copyright, and AI." papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

If we had conspired to make it happen, it wouldn’t have worked. That’s the secret.

All of the above! And more. It’s a gestalt.

You’d be surprised how lacking in rigor most 70 page articles are. It takes a lot of hot air to pump up 10 pages of content that much.

Indeed. It would be interesting to reflect on how it became the norm. The cynic in me suspects that part of the answer is that it makes it hard for practitioners & scholars in other disciplines to compete for prestige law journal placement.

I don’t even pull it out of the holster.

Because that’s what we tell our students legal scholarship is supposed to look like.

So then I ask them, if this essay were submitted to your law journal, would you accept it? They look puzzled. And then say no. Why not? Too short, not enough footnotes, too colloquial. So, why do law professors write long, boring articles with lots of footnotes?

True. But it’s our fault, or at we least we create the conditions that maintain the norm. A story: In my seminar, I assign Fred Rodell’s 1936 essay “Goodbye to Law Reviews.” The students love it. “So true! All the same problems still exist today! Too long! Too many footnotes!”

“She builds excitement.”

Also, the Supreme Court still does fact finding in all its original jurisdiction cases, although it usually appoints a special master.

Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1 (1794) Georgia v. Brailsford, Powell & Hopton

Jury empaneled by the court. See Georgia v. Brailsford (1794). supreme.justia.com/cases/federa...

There is such a thing as a Supreme Court jury. It’s just very rare. None in the last 200 years.

Yeah, I think that’s totally fair. And a question not really answered by the obvious precedent. There’s a pretty strong reliance interest here.

Or to put it another way, saying the government can’t refuse to register marks because it disapproves of their message doesn’t mean it has to affirmatively subsidize them.

I don’t think Iancu v. Brunetti is really on point b/c it’s about discrimination in a ministerial act, not providing funding. I’m pretty confident the court would say the government can condition ongoing funding on not supporting terrorist orgs, even if the speech is otherwise protected.

I think there’s a lot hanging on whether the court is willing to treat the conditions as a pretext for viewpoint discrimination, which I don’t think is a slam dunk. Maybe what we need is *more* “lochnerizing”?

I agree that the Court could distinguish Finley if it wants, but I also think it cuts pretty hard in favor of the position that conditional grants aren’t a 1a problem.

Interesting opinion from the CD Ca holding that BAYC NFTs aren’t securities, finding that Ps didn’t show an investment of money or a common enterprise, but did show reliance on the efforts of others. Right outcome, but the analysis is IMO pretty weak. www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/u...

What do you do with Finley v. NEA?