Coordinators

Other Contributors

About Us

www.clpblog.org

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen's Consumer Justice Project, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Drahozal Paper: Arbitration Innumeracy | Main | Call for Papers for AALS on Response to Debt Crisis Extended »

Wednesday, August 08, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b7a769e20177440134e7970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judge Alsup's "Identify Your Shills" Order:

Comments

Richard Peterson

I believe this is an interesting offshoot from the Apple v. Samsung case, where the lead Samsung attorney, the mighty Quinn bullied a northern district court judge and seemingly attempted to influence the jury (or at least those who influence the jury) like some politico D.A.

Interesting move. Next Judge Alsup will want the social network map of interlocking corporate license agreements, a move I totally support. I think the article title captures the intent.

What is disturbing is that many news papers are scrubbing their comments, the last bastion of free speech. -Pseudonymous, not anonymous-

Seth Finkelstein

I think the problem is in what you say here:

"Presumably federal appellate judges and even federal district judges (or their law clerks, more likely) will simply read the cited material and give them the persuasive authority that is inherent in the arguments, without any need to look for the hidden biases that might be revealed by financial information."

The phrase "inherent in the arguments" is where it goes awry. Abstractly, in the most rarified theory, it shouldn't matter if one is an industry shill or not - and say, a paper on smoking and cancer from a tobacco company should be evaluated purely on its merits or or lack thereof. Pragmatically, being a paid corporate shill is a pretty good proxy for an argument being deceptive. So with finite resources, in practice we apply heuristics rather than investigate everything from first principles.

peter

"could include any blogger who carries Google ads".....or.....doesn't.

In what way does "paid money to comment about the case publicly" translate into "any blogger who carries Google ads"? Simple answer. It doesn't, so please stop trying to ready someing out of nothing and pretend its clever.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31