Those crazy folks at Berkeley's J-school have finally produced their weblog: bIPlog. I originally wrote about the venture here.
They've done a fine job of summarizing recent intellectual property news, but have miles to go on the thought-provoking commentary front (What happened to the 750 word story assignments?). I think I would be happier if they just accepted providing fodder for the rest of the blog world and reducing information gathering costs is a fine objective.
The class debate on linking to other IP blogs -- should they be viewed as competitors or collaborators? -- reflects the institutional media bias towards containment, regulation, and control of information and its flow. Central to the idea of the blog and its usefulness is linking and the network effects that emanate from widespread distribution of information and ideas. bIPlog doesn't get that, and it is reflected in the reporting.
As I predicted, there is little use of source material; although there are some links to cases, they aren't analyzed. The reporting is largely an aggregation of other news stories and does little to invite public commentary because it doesn't offer much in the way of critical thought. There's a conflict between the profit imperative and stimulating the public mind. The more you stimulate them, they less they rely on you as a critical news source.
Like I said last time, collecting mainstream media news stories on IP issues isn't going to cut the mustard.
It's been about three and a half months since I put a mad tea-party online. In that time, I've had just short of 20,000 visits! Thanks to everyone for writing and encouraging me. I do really appreciate it.
I just opened a rejection letter from the Feds (I didn't want your stupid job anyways!). It was dated three weeks ago, yet only managed to get mailed yesterday. That's our Federal government at work: a smoothly operating efficient machine!
Now this is my kind of guide to law school!
Law School Insider, by Jeremy Horwitz, a Cornell alum, purports to give the inside scoop on law school. Topics covered include: "romance between classmates, closed-door law review elections, and freak events during job interviews." Oh yeah, it has some stuff about class and exams. But we like all the juicy bits -- like "behind-the-scenes dramas with professors!"*
I'd tell you more about it, but I haven't yet received my comp copy (ha-ha)!
* Next, on Behind the Scenes! Intrepid Alice butts heads with the irascible professor! Watch sparks fly as the titans battle in head-to-head combat!
Feelings of stress? Anger? Hurt? Despair? An indescribable yearning you just can't pin down? Slight twitching? Uncontrollable weeping?
Yes, you missed me! (Or you need serious medical treatment.) Fortunately, I'm back again! I apologize for my lengthy and silent absence, but my talents were required elsewhere this week! (Again, that whole law student bit.)
Now, back to business!
There isn't much time, but the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have agreed 8-1 to lose their virginity by the New Year. Ginsburg, in a strategic move to keep Scalia all to herself, was the lone dissenter. (Okay, okay, it's from the Onion.)
It brings a whole new meaning to the term "Most Valuable Justice". You know, no matter how they play the game, they're all winners. ;)
TPB, I don't really think the law deserves you.
The aptly named Morrison & Foerster recently jettisoned some of its pro-bono clients, Tibetan asylum seekers, in favor of the cash-wielding Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad.
Commitment to pro bono. That's the "MoFo Difference".
(Note to self: when naming company, be sure to pass along name to a 14-year old boy for all possible permutations before deciding.)
L Magazine says its 2002 Summer Associates Survey revealed the status quo was turned on its head this year.
Shockingly enough, the summer associates actually had to work! Not only was the conspicuous consumption of the typical summer less conspicuous (yet curiously not absent), summers were also faced with pesky little details like billing and competition from other associates. Horrors! To top it all off, they were even grateful for it! Just what is this world coming to?!
I would tell you more about it, but the charts have been removed from law.com to "verify that all survey responses were accounted for." Sounds suspicious.
Someone apparently neglected to tell the party-hearty professors at Georgetown that there exists a wide and expansive gulf between law student and law professor that should never, ever be bridged.
I'm relatively certain I'd rather have my thumbs screwed than to witness such a debacle from my 1L professors.
There is a double standard for women when it comes to professional clothing. On the one hand, anything besides a suit* is just too sexual for the office. On the other hand, pant suits aren't conservative enough.
Mixed messages, anyone?
Let me tell you, some bizarre transformation invariably occurs to women lawyers around here. They simply are unable to dress themselves (or brush their hair, which is an entirely different issue). I have seen the most hideous suits on the planet this fall. Pants, skirt, it didn't really matter. They were all horrible and unflattering.
My advice for your interview wear: 1) suits should be lined, 2) suits should be constructed out of non-distorting fabric (that means it doesn't stretch on the bias), 3) houndstooth looks good on very, very few women (mostly on society ladies at the Kentucky Derby), and 4) hawaiian floral print blouses look good with no suits.
Pleats are bad for just so many reasons. And for goodness sake, don't be caught dead wearing one of those suits from Express with the flare pant legs! That should at least be obvious!
*By the way, contrary to what the New York Times would have you believe, some of those "people" who might show up in short or tight skirts are indeed (infrequently) men. Just ask the folks down at Foley!
While I couldn't personally see myself really utilizing the resources on Transforming Practices, well, it might work for you. It's a website for a book for disillusioned attorneys that uses meditative/contemplative techniques to make you a happier lawyer. Like, um, Imagining Your Own Death.
Hey, if the shoe fits... I agree with the general goals of being happy & fulfilled people, but my way is entirely different. No mystical paths for me! I think it's a little off the wall to think of practicing law as a healing profession. Really, law & massage! Who knew? Can I take that class? Or at least get a foot massage?
O'Brien's campaign tanked tonight despite last minute campaigning by Clinton yesterday. He warned voters, ''Don't you be Nader-ed again!" Humorously enough, the O'Brien campaign took this warning to heart and pasted "Stein=Romney" signs to O'Brien's campaign posters. Even if all those who cast their votes for Stein picked O'Brien instead, it just wouldn't have helped.
And don't worry, we're still Taxachusetts! The state-wide ballot question that would abolish the income tax in Massachusetts was defeated tonight, but very narrowly (right now, 54-46). Curious, indeed!
Here's the day-after report on the tax question.
Choate dumped 13 associates this week (ahem, excuse me, they've 'realigned their staffing') in a cost-cutting move. Perhaps in response to growing concerns about big firms cutting loose incoming associates left & right, the firm left their incoming class of 21 unperturbed.
If I were one of them, I wouldn't be breathing a big sigh of relief or letting my resume fester in a drawer! In a nod to the continued depressed outlook for next year (and probably the year after), Herrick, Feinstein, a Manhattan firm, (along with at least 10 other unnamed firms) has rescinded offers for next year's summers. That one's so ridiculous I need to say it again: the firm took back the offers it just gave out.
This goes beyond mere incompetence in hiring projections. These firms are at least toeing the line - if not tromping all over it - of dishonesty and deceit. It is completely disingenuous for them to protest that they received higher than normal acceptance rates; anyone with half a brain knew that acceptances would be through the roof this year.
Of course, law students normally face some kind of sanction if they attempt this sort of thing. The firms that do it are invited back to campus year after year. After all, they do pay the career folks tidy little sums for the honor of interviewing their future layoffees!
I say we mix it up a little. Let law students renege on their offers! It does (obviously) happen in the real world! Students are beholden to the jobs they get in the fall semester of 2L and don't even know what else is out there. Law firms have little incentive to clean up their acts, in both hiring and providing appealing work environments. It just doesn't make sense to enforce these rather arbitrary standards on law students if law firms don't abide by any similar standards and the career offices can't or won't penalize firms for breaking the rules. Students wouldn't be hopping around on offers left and right and searching for a job the entire year. For the most part, everyone would stay put, but it would give students working for firms that have poor track records a chance to vote with their feet.