More on Open Access Scholarship
Susan Crawford blogs (natch) Mike Carroll’s talk to law review editors on the importance of open access principles to the… Read More »More on Open Access Scholarship
Law & Technology
Volume as Meaning
I was intrigued by Mike’s post on NWLS’s Colloquy, particularly this aspect of the comments policy: All comments must be… Read More »Volume as Meaning
Copyright’s Environment
J.B. Ruhl, at Jurisdynamics: One reason for my interest in complex systems is my field of interest for teaching and… Read More »Copyright’s Environment
Is Too Scholarship
Finally, a law review stakes a claim: blogging is too scholarship. Via Larry Solum, I find Northwestern’s “Colloquy,” “the first… Read More »Is Too Scholarship
What’s the Question in KSR v. Teleflex?
Not what’s the legal issue, and not what are the questions the Supreme Court is reviewing in KSR v. Teleflex. Instead: What’s really at stake? My answer: the skilled artisan.
Read the exchange between Polk Wagner (Penn) and Kathy Strandburg (DePaul) now online at PENNumbra. As I read these pieces, and as I’ve read a little of the briefing on both sides, what strikes me is that opponents of the teaching/suggestion/motivation (TSM) standard for nonobviousness are using their argument to plead for reviving a meaningful investigation of the skilled artisan in patent cases. TSM is a stalking horse for something else. PHOSITA has gone missing, you might say, and they want PHOSITA to return.
More below the break.