Is being disagreeable something you were taught at home, a genetic predisposition, or is it something you learned in college/business? Whichever it may be (I rather doubt the first), you have learned it well.

You have opinions re copyright law and that is entirely appropriate. Unfortunately, the tide of the law is in the opposite direction, and all the economic arguments in the world by you, economists, and some in academia are not going to change that anytime soon. TPB can launch all the protests it wants, but at some point in time it is likely to start facing some real legal challenges, and not just those from local prosecutors in Sweden. So many of its supporters are so focused on Swedish law, as interpreted by TPB, that they do not fully appreciate the potential application of other national laws that can profoundly impact TPB.

Nutty is an adjective, and in the context of Boldrin and Levine particularly apt. While I chose to use that particular adjective, some of my colleagues have used words far stronger in criticizing “Against Monopoly”. In all candor, when I first read it I was struck by its “wiki-like” content.

Of course I do express opinions, but not when it comes to what the law “is” or “should be” (other than to agree that the DMCA is a tad draconian, a view shared by the majority of my peers). When a law is misstated I will speak up. For example, your criticism of a Judicial Conference publication was in at least one significant legal respect plainly wrong. While copyright law is a federal matter and subject to federal preemption (other than pre-1978 works still under state statutes), states still retain leeway to enact related legislation. Contrary to your constant refrain, at least two states have enacted legislation under which unauthorized copying is a criminal act under their “theft” provisions.

“Patent Deform” is not a phrase I coined. It was in use long before I sat down to analyze the legislation before Congress. Were you even modestly familiar with the policies (MPEP), regulations (37 CFR) and laws (Title 35, US Code) now on the books, as well as the relevant jurisprudence at all levels of our federal courts, I daresay you would much better understand why the proposed reforms are little more than meaningless window dressing. But don’t take my word for it. Try reading many of the presentations made by other steeped in the law, including the members of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and particularly Judge Michel. Now, you will find a few academics like Lemley, Rai, Noveck, etc. who heap praise on these so-called reforms, but they are generally a quite small, but vocal, minority. None of these “new-wave” academics even come close to legal experts of the stature of persons such as Chisum re patents, Nimmer re copyrights, Milgrim re trade secrets, and numerous others who have devoted their careers to the objective study of law.

As for the Bessen/Meurer book, it is clearly subject to the first sale doctrine, so sending me your copy is in no way problematic. Of course, once I have read it I would certainly return it to you.

With kindest regards I remain..

Sincerely yours,

MLS