Minnesota Law Review Headnotes 94:2 (May 2010)
The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce the spring edition of our new online companion journal, Minnesota Law Review Headnotes. In addition to serving as the online archive of the Law Review‘s print articles, available in PDF format, Headnotes also features original, online-only Response articles in which prominent academics respond to the articles the Law Review publishes. Comment fields are available at the end of each Response, and readers are encouraged to provide feedback.
In this issue of Headnotes:
Ralph Hall (University of Minnesota Law School) responds to Richard Epstein’s article, Against Permititis: Why Voluntary Organizations Should Regulate the Use of Cancer Drugs. In Right Question, Wrong Answer, Professor Hall argues that while he agrees with Professor Epstein’s assessment of the problems with the FDA drug approval process, he disagrees with his proposed solution. Professor Hall argues that Professor Epstein’s solution—to reduce the FDA to an advisory/information role after Phase I testing—devalues the mission of the FDA and has already been rejected by the body politic. Instead, Professor Epstein contends that the solution to problems with the FDA drug approval process is to work to improve and optimize the system, not to eliminate it.
Aaron Perzanowski (Wayne State University Law School) responds to David Fagundes’s article, Property Rhetoric and the Public Domain. In In Defense of Intellectual Property Anxiety, Professor Perzanowski expresses skepticism about two assumptions underlying the argument for embracing property rhetoric to promote the public domain. This argument assumes, first, public recognition of social discourse theory as an account of property and, second, rhetorical advantages of social discourse theory that are comparable to those of more familiar notions of private property. Perzanowski concludes that the simple intuitive appeal of Blackstonian property cautions against styling the struggle for balanced copyright and patent policy as a debate over competing property interests.
Ted Sampsell-Jones (William Mitchell College of Law) replies to Professors Cribari and Judges’s article, Speaking of Silence: A Reply to “Making Defendants Speak“. In On Silence, Professor Sampsell-Jones argues that their theory of the Self-Incrimination Clause, which relies on intuition to determine which practices are necessary to “test the prosecution” in criminal cases, is lacking in both textual support and practical utility. As a result, he concludes that their defense of Griffin v. California is unconvincing.