http://trademarkblog.disqus.com/enThu, 02 Jul 2009 22:20:14 -0000http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2009/06/wading-into-the-posnerhot-newslinking-brouhaha.html#comment-12057084<p>Read Danny Sullivan't take on News Corp's attack on Google</p><p><a href="http://daggle.com/googles-love-for-newspapers-how-little-they-appreciate-it-443" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://daggle.com/googles-love-for-newspapers-how-little-they-appreciate-it-443">http://daggle.com/googles-l...</a></p>iWarwickThu, 02 Jul 2009 22:20:14 -0000http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2009/06/wading-into-the-posnerhot-newslinking-brouhaha.html#comment-12030700<p>Well said . . . I hope Bill Patry might be willing to come out of his blogging exile to provide the world with his opinion.</p>T. D. RuthThu, 02 Jul 2009 09:52:54 -0000http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2009/06/wading-into-the-posnerhot-newslinking-brouhaha.html#comment-11942079<p>Some other links at Overlawyered:<br><a href="http://overlawyered.com/2009/06/bar-linking-to-or-paraphrasing-copyrighted-materials/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://overlawyered.com/2009/06/bar-linking-to-or-paraphrasing-copyrighted-materials/">http://overlawyered.com/200...</a></p><p>and Slashdot (read at 5, some of the comments are quite excellent):<br><a href="http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/OkhdMyP91zQ/Judge-Thinks-Linking-To-Copyrighted-Material-Should-Be-Illegal" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/OkhdMyP91zQ/Judge-Thinks-Linking-To-Copyrighted-Material-Should-Be-Illegal">http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/...</a></p><p>and Abovethelaw:<br><a href="http://abovethelaw.com/2009/06/morning_docket_062409.php" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://abovethelaw.com/2009/06/morning_docket_062409.php">http://abovethelaw.com/2009...</a></p><p>What bothers me most about Posner's comment is that it's so fundamentally inconsistent with his entire body of jurisprudence on the topic of economic efficiency. If we take the ascendancy of the Chicago school as proved (evidence <i>Leegin</i>, which showed that Alito and Roberts are just as in the tank for big business as Scalia and Kennedy always have been), one might assume that the solution providing lower transaction costs would always prove victorious, not just in Posner's court, but in the SCOTUS as well.</p><p>What Posner appears to be missing is that the whole freaking point of the internet is to eliminate transaction costs. If newspapers can't compete with free, it's idiocy to argue that the answer should be to raise the cost of free.</p><p>This little story proves its own case- all the relevant commentary about Posner's comment so far has been online. And it's nice the Posner left the comments on for his post, because people haven't been shy about telling him exactly what they think of his proposal :-D</p>steveTue, 30 Jun 2009 14:06:46 -0000