Jay P. Kesan, David L. Schwartz & Ted Sichelman
90 Texas L. Rev. See Also 97
Professor Colleen Chien recently developed an innovative and important model that relies on a patent’s “after-acquired” characteristics to predict the chances that the patent will be involved in litigation. This comment critiques Professor Chien’s model by identifying certain weaknesses, including that its dataset is limited to 1990 patents and its sample size may be too small to be sufficiently representative, as well as a number of endogeneity concerns. Additionally, we seek a more precise definition of data regarding the patent owner, further categorization of reexamination data, and research into the timing of transfer. Finally, we question her policy recommendations given these weaknesses and propose areas of further inquiry.
David Listokin & Siona Listokin-Smith
90 Texas L. Rev. See Also 285
Professors Listokin and Smith-Listokin respond to David Kohtz’s proposals to improve historic preservation tax breaks.
90 Texas L. Rev. See Also 75
Professor Petherbridge focuses on the claim that a model, identified in Professor Chien’s article, can be used to predict whether a patent is likely to be asserted against an innovation. Using assumptions generous to the model, Professor Petherbridge generates a test that improves the probability of accurately assessing whether a patent will be litigated. He also identifies a number of practical problems with Professor Chien’s model, including that the model captures false positives that render implementation of the model burdensome. Professor Petherbridge next asks whether there is a “lurking variable” that can better explain the model’s results and whether the data generated by the model is practically useful. While Professor Petherbridge identifies these misgivings with Professor Chien’s article, he notes that the article has identified certain acquired characteristics that may make predicting patent litigation an easier task.
Diane H. Mazur
90 Texas L. Rev. See Also 145
Professor Diane H. Mazur adds context to Deborah N. Pearlstein’s analysis in The Soldier, the State, and the Separation of Power.
Peter M. Shane
90 Texas L. Rev. See Also 87
Professor Shane responds to the framework for cybersecurity protections developed in Mr. Thompson’s note. For reasons of practicality and comprehensiveness, Professor Shane argues that this framework is insufficient, and he identifies current issues that suggest larger problems that confront the cybersecurity enterprise. Professor Shane notes that the current cybersecurity climate is more serious than suggested by Mr. Thompson, with criminal enterprises becoming increasingly sophisticated and damaging to networks. This climate is also characterized by an absence of effective policy caused by overlapping bureaucracies, conflict between the military and private sectors, private control of networks, and a lack of governmental understanding of the problem.
Professor Shane concludes by identifying his proposal for a national commission to consider public needs and technical expertise in formulating an approach to cybersecurity.
James J. Brudney
90 Texas L. Rev. See Also 205
Professor Brudney responds to Widiss’s article on Congressional override of judicial statutory interpretation.
Robert C. Bird
90 Texas L. Rev. See Also 63
Professor Bird responds to Ms. Lindsey Mills’s Note, Moral Rights: Well-Intentioned Protection and its Unintended Consequences, applauding her reasoned criticisms of moral rights, particularly the right of integrity, but noting some misgivings based on her discussions of a Canadian moral rights case and artistic destruction. Professor Bird concludes with an appeal to pragmatism in light of “artistic doomsday rhetoric” against moral rights protections in American law.
Charles A. Sullivan
90 Texas L. Rev. See Also 157
Professor Charles A. Sullivan responds to Professor Widiss’s article on Congressional override of judicial interpretation of statutory law.
Alfred L. Brophy
90 Texas L. Rev. See Also 55
Professor Brophy responds to the ongoing dialogue concerning Professor Calabresi and Ms. Rickert’s article with his reactions to their originalist argument that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits sex discrimination as a matter of original public meaning. He observes a tension between original meaning and original intent and argues that original public meaning may differ from the Framers’ “original expected applications.” Professor Brophy continues by asking a series of questions to ascertain how the Framers identified, how original meaning is established, and whose meaning governs. Professor Brophy then observes how the Reconstruction-era amendments were construed broadly at the time and how by the Civil War, Americans had viewed the Constitution as a set of broad principles rather than a “mere set of words.” Brophy concludes by suggesting potential applications of the Calabresi and Rickert argument.
Christopher R. Leslie
90 Texas L. Rev. See Also 171
Professor Christopher R. Leslie responds to Stephen Fraser’s argument that the Department of Justice should use antitrust amnesty as a model for the creation of FCPA self-reporting incentives.