Larry Lessig's Post-Mortem On Eldred
from the kicking-himself-unnecessarily dept
Submitted by someone who prefers to remain anonymous is this fascinating article written by Professor Larry Lessig about why he thinks he lost the Eldred case concerning Congressional powers to continually extend the length of copyright protection. He goes into the details of why they argued the case the way they did, and how they were trying to influence the various justices. He is extremely hard on himself (more than he should be) for what he believes were mistakes that he made. He blames himself for not following the advice of other lawyers (with more Supreme Court experience) to make the outcome of the case seem more important. Instead, he claims, he approached it more like a scholar and a professor than a lawyer. No matter what your opinion on the case, it’s an interesting look into the process. Also, for almost anyone who has ever wished they’d said something different at one point or another in their lives, they’ll understand Lessig’s feelings about the way he wishes he had responded to certain questions.
Comments on “Larry Lessig's Post-Mortem On Eldred”
… sounds like Eric Eldred has a very good malpractice case he could file against Lessig.
As Lessig himself admits: “the case could have been won … should have been won …” and wasn’t won because his own mistakes as an attorney lost it. That’s just about the textbook definition of malpractice.
Imagine a doctor saying: “That guy I operated on could have lived, should have lived, but my mistakes as a doctor caused him to die.”