IPSC, opening plenary

IPSC at DePaul
 
Opening Plenary Session
 
Tributes to Benjamin Liu & Greg Lastowka, much-missed
colleagues who passed away in the last year.
 
Roberta Kwall, DePaul University College of Law
 
Changes in law school in last 15 years—rankings are more
set.  Money is tight.  Teaching loads are increasing, not just
numerically but in scope/areas other than IP. 
Affects ability to do scholarship. 
Schools may want us to work on the side: consistent w/ making our
students practice ready.  How do we keep
doing our scholarship?  Shari Motro, Scholarship Against Desire: authenticity
in legal scholarship.  Not shooting from
the hip, but doing the groundwork/getting an advanced degree if needed for the
breadth of knowledge you want to have. 
We won’t be judged in the future on the quantity of our work.  Need a safe, nurturing place to listen
without planning a response; the wisdom of the group will go up.

The key to successful scholarship is the ability to reinvent oneself, like
Madonna: true of scholarship venues as well as scholars.
 
Peter Yu, Texas A&M University School of Law
 
History: lots of schools were starting IP programs; one way
to maintain leadership is to bring scholars together, and bring schools
together as IPSC sponsors.  Importance of
creating community despite costs.
 
Mark Lemley, Stanford Law School
 
Size of IP community has grown a lot. Dramatic expansion in
subject matter from mostly ©—only 5 people have taught patent law longer than
Mark L and Dan Burk.  Lateral expansion
is good result: trade secret & design are newest additions.  Expansion in methodology, in particular empirical
work. 
 
Not so good things: increasing divide into more polarized
camps among scholars, not just practicing lawyers.  High protectionist group has their
conferences and low protectionists have theirs; paying less attention to the
other side, and that’s a worrisome thing. 
Perhaps result of real world importance of what we do—people are looking
for answers that support them and seek ideological scholarship.  But introduction of politics into IP
scholarly community is worrying.  Also
worrying: growing role of money. Resource constraints are important; but it’s
also a function of the real world relevance/politics: some people would like to
spend lots of money to get the answer they want.  That connection is becoming more clear.  You can have $ if you can demonstrate that
patent holdup isn’t a problem in the telecom industry, or if you can show that
intermediary liability is too great. 
Politics + money isn’t good for society at large and it’s not good for
the IP community.  Like the internet +
anonymity: can really mess things up.
 
What is to be done? 
IP community has long history of cohesiveness, talking to each
other.  That makes us the envy of most
other scholarly communities.  Robin
Feldman & Lemley are working on a statement of principles for taking money
for scholarship. 
 
Graeme Dinwoodie, University of Oxford Faculty of Law 
 
Mentoring of junior colleagues as an objective, pretty early
on. Advancement of ideas/development of scholarly community.  Social interactions make inevitable
professional disagreements an ordinary part of the interaction, rather than
tense (cf. constitutional law) and encourages new members of the community to
be willing to disagree.  New
internationalism: international participants, access to international
scholarship.  More scholarship is
occurring pre-tenure, which is a good thing without a research-based doctoral
agree. But many of the pretenure positions are short, and there’s tremendous
pressure to present at IPSC as well as to produce law review articles.  Given vast amount of info, do you have to
choose between reading, writing, and thinking? 
Encourage younger colleagues to attend/participate w/out need to present
and write; that may require deans to rethink allocation of travel funds.
 
Mike Madison: Publication styles tied to book chapters,
journal articles, etc.  What’s changed?
 
Lemley: Definite move towards the blog post (heh),
online/short/less footnoted article, which is in many respects a good thing;
law reviews traditionally bloat from need to explain everything to second year
law students. If you can assume a base of knowledge and get to the interesting
point quickly, that’s great. But “don’t write long articles” is no better than “don’t
write short” as a rule. New rule of no longer than 25,000 words privileges
certain kinds of scholarship and not others. 
How do we evaluate ideas in short/nontraditional forms?  Dennis Crouch has had big impact on patent
scholarship, mostly by writing short summaries/items of interest to the
academic world. Won’t today get hired at top school for that, which is a real
issue.  It’s a move with substantial
costs and substantial professional benefits. 
We are breaking out of traditional molds in various respects—more peer
reviewed journals; interdisciplinary publishing. But ways in which ideas are
communicated through smaller quicker responses are not ways the legal academy
is (yet) willing to recognize.
 
Kwall: Social media revolution has changed how we think and
write in our daily lives.  But when you’re
writing high impact scholarship, even if you’re going to be taking your article
and spinning it to editorials [or amicus briefs!] those have to be based on the
careful groundwork of your more thorough scholarship.  [For me, it goes both ways—having a series of
blog posts on, say, Dastar, enables
me to go back and identify trends/things that interest me theoretically.]  That can benefit your institution: being
featured in media is in some ways better for reputational effect than just
writing law review articles, but you can’t do media successfully without
scholarship.
 
Dinwoodie: We’ve lost a little bit in having space to work
through ideas; we need to be more pluralist about what’s good scholarship in
methods, place of publication, etc. Should be less hesitation for young
scholars to think about books than 15 years ago.  Online availability of chapters, at least, is
making the ideas in a book capable of reaching more places than it was.
 
Yu: When he started, advice was to not write a book until
you’ve been publishing for 10 years. The book he’d write now would be very
different than the book he would have written starting out.  Think about what type of book you want to
write—now he’s in a better position/more experienced.
 
Q about blogging: what’s the best way to avoid being taken
over by trolls/have a productive conversation? 
James Grimmelmann says blog in your own space.
 
Lemley: never read the comments.  Ironclad rule.  [Not so true of Livejournal, sigh.]  Discussion format has to be small group of
repeat players whom you know.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/1IQ2OHg

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s