Author: Danielle Citron

1

Introducing Guest Blogger Michael Coenen

I am thrilled to welcome aboard Professor Michael Coenen as a guest blogger. Professor Coenen joined the LSU Law Center faculty in 2013, having previously served as a Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. He holds an A.B. in Music froheadshot2m Princeton University, and a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was an Articles Editor for the Yale Law Journal. After graduating from law school, he clerked for Judge Guido Calabresi of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Michael teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, federal courts, criminal procedure, and administrative law.

His recent publications include:

Of Speech and Sanctions: Toward A Penalty-Sensitive Approach to the First Amendment, 112 Colum. L. Rev. 991 (2012)

Constitutional Privileging, 99 Va. L. Rev. 683 (2013)

Spillover Across Remedies, 98 Minn. L. Rev. 1211 (2014)

Rules Against Rulification, 124 Yale L.J. (forthcoming 2015).

5

Carrie Goldberg: IT’S CLEAR: CREATING AMATEUR PORN WITHOUT A PARTICIPANT’S KNOWLEDGE IS ILLEGAL IN NY

This post is by Carrie Goldberg who is the founding attorney at C. A. Goldberg, PLLC in Brooklyn, New York focusing on litigation relating to electronic sexual privacy invasions. She is a volunteer attorney at The Cyber Civil Rights Initiative and its End Revenge Porn campaign.Carrie

Earlier this year, the New York City tabloids and “Saturday Night Live” poked fun at a story about a handsome former Wall Street financial advisor who, after being indicted for recording himself having sex without the women’s permission, blamed the taping on his hyper-vigilant “doggie cam.”

Last week the story re—emerged with an interview by two of the three 30-something year old victims complaining that they’d been wrongly portrayed by the media and the defendant’s high profile criminal team as jealous stalkers when in reality their energetic efforts to reach him was upon discovery of the videos and centered around begging him to destroy them. The humiliation sustained during the ongoing criminal process, such as being forced to view the sex videos alongside the jurists, is palpable.

Many New Yorkers may be unaware that recording yourself having sex without the other person’s knowledge constitutes a sex crime in the state (NY Penal § 250.45) and also breaches our federal video voyeurism laws (18 USCA § 1801). With the proliferation of smart phones and tablets enabling people to­ secretly videotape sexual encounters – including apps that allow for stealth recording – this law is increasingly violated. The harm to victims is palpable and real. It’s deeply humiliating to be turned into an object of pornography without consent.

In 2003, then-Governor George E. Pataki signed New York’s unlawful surveillance statute, known as Stephanie’s Law, making it illegal to use a device to secretly record or broadcast a person undressing or having sex when that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The statute is named for Stephanie Fuller, whose landlord taped her using a camera hidden in the smoke detector above her bed. Read More

0

Blair-Stanek on Intellectual Property Law Solutions to Tax Avoidance

My colleague Andrew Blair-Stanek has a creative and interesting new article Intellectual Property Law Solutions to Tax Avoidance, forthcoming UCLA Law Review. Check out the abstract:

Multinational corporations use intellectual property (IP) to avoid taxes on a massive scale, by transferring their IP offshore for artificially low prices. Economists estimate that this abuse costs the U.S. Treasury as much as $90 billion each year. Yet tax policymakers and scholars have been unable to devise feasible tax-law solutions to this problem. This Article introduces an entirely new solution: change IP law rather than tax law. Multinationals’ tax-avoidance strategies rely on undervaluing their IP. This Article proposes extending existing IP law so that these low valuations make it harder for multinationals subsequently to litigate or to license the IP. For example, transferring a patent for a low price to a tax-haven subsidiary should make it harder for the multinational to demonstrate the patent’s validity, a competitor’s infringement, or entitlement to any injunctions. The low transfer price should also weigh toward lower patent damages and potentially even a finding of patent misuse. Extending IP law in such ways would deter multinationals from using IP to avoid taxes. Both case law and IP’s theoretical justifications support this approach, which also has the counterintuitive benefit of encouraging the flourishing of creative professionals such as inventors and authors.

0

Introducing Guest Blogger Babak Siavoshy

I’m thrilled to welcome back as a guest blogger Babak Siavoshy, who is a Non-Resident Fellow at Georgetown’s Center on National Security and the Law, and a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties team at Palantir Technologies.* Before joining Palantir, Babak was a fellow and supervising attorney at the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the UC Berkeley School of Law, where he counseled public interest clients on digital civil liberties and intellectual property matters.

Prior to joining Berkeley Law, Babak worked on consumer privacy issues for California Attorney General Kamala Harris, and as an associate at O’Melveny & Myers LLP in Washington D.C. While at O’Melveny & Myers Babak co-wrote the Respondent’s merits brief before the Supreme Court in the GPS-tracking case United States v. Jones.

Babak served as a law clerk to the Honorable John T. Noonan, Jr., on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. He is a graduate of UC Berkeley, earning bachelor’s degrees in English and in philosophy in 2004, and a law degree in 2008.

Babak blogs on law and technology issues here and here.

*Babak’s guest posts and academic work represent his own views, and not necessarily those of his employer.

 

1

Introducing Guest Blogger Harry Surden

I’m thrilled to welcome aboard Professor Harry Surden who will be guest blogging with us. Professor Surden is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Law School where he teaches intellectual property law and technology law. Professor Surden is a former software engineer, and as such, his research is focused at the intersection of law and technology. He writes about intellectual property law (with a substantive focus on patents and copyright), information privacy law, legal informatics and legal automation, and the application of computer technology within the legal system.

Prior to joining Colorado Law, Professor Surden was a resident fellow at the Stanford Center for Legal Informatics (CodeX) at Stanford Law School, and he is currently an affiliated faculty member at Stanford’s CSurdenHarryPhotoodeX center. He was previously a software engineer at Cisco Systems and Bloomberg Financial Markets. He holds a J.D, from Stanford Law School and a B.A. from Cornell University.

More information about Professor Surden can be found on his home page here, and his Twitter is @HarrySurden .

Professor Surden’s recent publications include:

Machine Learning and Law 89 Washington Law Review 87 (2014)

Technological Cost as Law in Intellectual Property 27 Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 135 (2013)

Computable Contracts 46 U.C. Davis Law Review 629 (2012)

Efficient Uncertainty in Patent Interpretation 68 Washington and Lee Law Review 1737 (2011)

Structural Rights in Privacy 60 SMU Law Review 1605 (2007)

 

0

Introducing Guest Blogger Brad Greenberg

I’m delighted to welcome aboard as a guest blogger Brad A. Greenberg who is the Intellectual Property Fellow at Columbia Law School’s Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts and a Visiting Fellow at the Yale Information Society Project. He writes primarily about intellectual property and media law, with an emphasis on legal questions raised by new technologies; his scholarship draws on a previous career as a newspaper reporter. His current project, which Greenberg photorecasts technology neutrality as an at times undesirable, and often unachievable, feature of legislative drafting, explores why the 1976 Copyright Act has adapted so poorly to technological development.

His recent publications include

Copyright Trolls and Presumptively Fair Uses, 85 U. Colo. L. Rev. 53 (2014)

DOMA’s Ghost and Copyright Reversionary Interests, 108 Nw. U. L. Rev. 391 (2013)

The Federal Media Shield Folly, 91 Wash. U. L. Rev. 437 (2013)

More Than Just a Formality: Instant Authorship and Copyright’s Opt-Out Future in the Digital Age, 59 UCLA L. Rev. 1028 (2012)

1

Marin Levy’s Judging Justice on Appeal in YLJ

Professor Marin Levy has a superb review of Injustice on Appeal: The United States Court of Appeals in Crisis written by my colleague William Reynolds and William Richman. Professor Levy is spot on when she says that “[o]ver the past thirty years, no one has contributed more” to the study of the federal judiciary and its crisis of its crushing workload “than two court scholars together—William M. Richman and William L. Reynolds.” As she notes: “Through a series of critical articles,Richman and Reynolds were able to pinpoint the precise effects of the caseload crisis, both on litigants and the system as a whole. Furthermore, they were able to show the interplay of these various effects, providing a holistic account of the problem in a way that no one else had done.” In her view, their “recent book, Injustice on Appeal: The United States Courts of Appeals in Crisis, stands as a culmination of their earlier work, bringing together vital analysis of the caseload crisis, the ways in which appellate review has suffered as a result of that crisis, and potential solutions. More broadly, Injustice on Appeal stands as one of the most comprehensive and thoughtful accounts of the largest problem facing the federal judiciary today.”Injustice on Appeal

In her review published in the Yale Law Journal, Prof. Levy concludes:

The story of Injustice on Appeal is one of ever-shrinking resources—the courts of appeals have had to perform the same set of critical functions with fewer and fewer means per appeal to do so. Yet there is another story here as well about the resources of the academy. Legal scholars in general spend a great deal of time devoted to theory and doctrine. And yet, we spend relatively few resources on studying the institutions that make up our legal system, particularly on the twin positive and normative questions about how they actually function and how they should function. Richman and Reynolds’s work serves as a call to arms for the academy to take up these critical inquiries.

Ultimately, Richman and Reynolds have provided a great deal for court scholars following in their wake. They have carefully and thoughtfully delineated the largest problem facing the federal judiciary in the past several decades—one that affects tens of thousands of litigants each year. With the quality of overall judicial review in doubt, it is for the academics to carefully study—using both qualitative and quantitative tools—the use of court practices. From judicial voting rules to visiting judges, from mediation to staff organization, there are numerous areas ripe for academic review about how to improve judicial review. In Injustice on Appeal, Richman and Reynolds have laid the groundwork; it is up to the next generation of court scholars to find the way.

Professor Levy has made her own formidable contributions to the discussion that Profs. Reynolds and Richman have been engaging in for a better part of 30 years. Her work includes “Judging the Flood of Litigation,” 80 U. Chi. L. Rev (2013), “Judicial Attention as a Scarce Resource: A Preliminary Defense of How Judges Allocate Time Across Cases in the Federal Courts of Appeals,” 82 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 401 (2013), “The Mechanics of Federal Appeals: Uniformity and Case Management in the Circuit Courts,” 61 Duke L. J. 315 (2011), and “The Costs of Judging Judges by the Numbers,” 28 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 313 (2010) with Kate Stith & Judge José A. Cabranes. Those interested in figuring out how to solve the problems facing the judiciary will do well to follow her work.

0

Introducing Guest Blogger Meghan Ryan

I am thrilled to introduce Professor Meghan Ryan who will be guest blogging with us this month. Professor Ryan, who is Assistant Professor of Law at SMU, teaches and writes at the intersection of criminal law and procedure, torts, and law & science. Her current research focuses on the impact of evolving science, technology, and cultural values on criminal convictions and punishment, as well as on civil remedies.

Professor Ryan received her A.B., magna cum laude, in Chemistry from Harvard University in 2002. In 2005, she earned a J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of Minnesota Law School, where she was a member of the Order of the Coif and received the American Law Institute-American Bar Association Scholarship and Leadership Award. She was also a member of both the Minnesota Law Review and the Minnesota Journal of Global Trade.

After graduation, Professor Ryan clerked for the Honorable Roger L. Wollman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. She also worked as Prof Ryanan associate in the trial group at the Minneapolis-based law firm of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, where she focused her practice on commercial and intellectual property litigation, as well as on white collar defense and compliance. Additionally, Professor Ryan has conducted research in the areas of bioinorganic chemistry, molecular biology, and experimental therapeutics at the Mayo Clinic and the University of Minnesota. Prior to joining the SMU faculty, Professor Ryan was a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, where she taught Criminal Law, Criminal Process, and Sales.

Professor Ryan’s fascinating work includes:

Science and the New Rehabilitation (work in progress).

Juries and the Criminal Constitution, 65 Ala. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2014).

Finality and Rehabilitation, 3 Wake Forest J.L. & Pol’y __ (forthcoming 2014) (invited symposium contribution)

Death and Rehabilitation, 46 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1231 (2013).

The Missing Jury: The Neglected Role of Juries in Eighth Amendment Punishments Clause Determinations, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 549 (2012).

Proximate Retribution, 48 Hous. L. Rev. 1049 (2012).

Remedying Wrongful Execution, 45 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 261 (2012).

Judging Cruelty, 44 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 81 (2010).

Does the Eighth Amendment Punishments Clause Prohibit Only Punishments That Are Both Cruel and Unusual?, 87 Wash. U. L. Rev. 567 (2010).

Does Stare Decisis Apply in the Eighth Amendment Death Penalty Context?, 85 N.C. L. Rev. 847 (2007).

Can the IRS Silence Religious Organizations?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 73 (2007).

Role of Carboxylate Bridges in Modulating Nonheme Diiron(II)O2 Reactivity, 42 Inorganic Chemistry 7519 (2003) (with Miquel Costas, et al.).

0

Fourth Annual Book Review Issue of the Tulsa Law Review Available Online

Professor Ken Kersch and Professor Linda McClain recently announced that the fourth annual book review issue of the Tulsa Law Review (Volume 49, No. 2, Winter 2013) is now in print and available online. At the Tulsa Law Review’s website, you will find a Table of Contents, the List of Books Reviewed, and PDFs of all of the review essays. As the Preface to the issue indicates, at Professor Sandy Levinson’s and Professor Mark Graber’s request, Profs. Kersch and McClain assumed the co-editorship of the annual book review issue over a year ago, with the aim of building on their strong foundation in launching the series and publishing three superb issues. Volume 49 includes twenty-five essays by law professors, political scientists, historians, and sociologists reviewing forty-nine significant law-related books. The issue carries forward an interdisciplinary conversation that demonstrates the special value of the book review essay as a uniquely informative form of scholarship. Those interested in ordering a print copy should contact the new Editor-in-Chief, Jacob Damrill, at jacob-damrill@utulsa.edu