92 Texas L. Rev. See Also 171
Professor Heinzerling responds to Daniel Farber and Anne Joseph O’Connell’s article on how the current state of administrative law has diverged from the classical model exemplified in the Administrative Procedure Act.
Deborah A. Widiss
92 Texas L. Rev. See Also 145
Professor Widiss responds to Matthew Chrisitansen and William Eskridge’s empirical study of congressional overrides.
Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss
92 Texas L. Rev. See Also 131
Professor Dreyfuss responds to Daniel Hemel and Lisa Ouellette’s article on alternative strategies for encouraging innovation apart from patents and prizes.
92 Texas L. Rev. See Also 121
Professor Galbraith responds to Curtis Bradley’s article on treaty termination.
Mark A. Lemley
92 Texas L. Rev. See Also 107
Professor Lemley responds to Ted Sichelman’s article calling for the removal of “make whole damages” and other “private law” remedies from patent law.
92 Texas L. Rev. See Also 67
Professor Brubaker responds to James Pfander and Nassim Nazemi’s article interpreting the federal Anti-Injunction Act of 1793.
Christopher R. Leslie
92 Texas L. Rev. See Also 53
Professor Leslie responds to Avishalom Tor’s article explaining Behavioral Antitrust and addressing the common mistakes that are made by scholars.
92 Texas L. Rev. See Also 45
Professor Burstein responds to Ted Sichelman’s critique of his article by elaborating on his views regarding commercial incentives to intellectual property.
92 Texas L. Rev. See Also 35
Professor Sichelman responds to Michael Burstein’s article debunking the common assumption that information is always nonexcludable and is always a homogeneous asset
Thomas F. Cotter
92 Texas L. Rev. See Also 25
Professor Cotter responds to Ted Sichelman’s article on structuring patent remedies to promote innovation rather than to make individual patentees “whole.”