Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearded One who wrote (18435)	4/12/1998 3:20:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Bearded One, not that I care to argue with Mr. Goodman, but it's true that a high level Judicial clerkship isn't a real job. It's worse. It's an honor and everything, but it's also a lot of work, among very bright and competitive people. You work long hours and don't get paid a lot, and you still got to look for a job when you're done. You have to be motivated by something other than money to go that route. I know many here think that's inconceivable, but such people exist. As for Harvard, the visiting law school appointments are usually job tryouts for people who've proven themselves academically elsewhere. Harvard doesn't operate like other universities, it hardly ever tenures junior faculty. Harvard Law has had a hard time tenuring anyone lately, the faculty has a big liberal/conservative divide and can't agree on anyone. They went through 10 years or more without hiring anybody permanently, I'm not sure if the string has been broken. Lessig is listed as a full Professor at Chicago, which isn't exactly a 2nd tier law school. Not like I'm in awe of credentials, bt I'm aware of how much work goes into a high level academic career. You have to be extremely smart, but you've got to be disciplined and highly motivated too. The payoff isn't money, it's getting to follow your own interests, with a lot of independence, in a intellectually challenging atmosphere. Everybody likes to be dismissive about academics, and I'm sure you can find plenty of tired old tenured guys in liberal arts at second rate state schools, who don't work very hard. There's no indication that Mr. Lessig comes from that kind of background. As for the general slur on lawyers and the law, we've been through it before. As far as I know, most high power law practice in the U.S. is centered on commercial litigation, not the tv liability lawyers everybody loves to hate. Microsoft does pretty good on that front, from what I see. Many would seem to prefer some kind of anarcho-objective wonder world, or the world of back room gov.-business deals Bill's always off trying to negotiate in the far east. If you can distinguish between the two. I guess the Microsoft line is that the proper role of the law is to define and enforce "intellectual property rights" properly. They're still working on that in China, I hear. I apologize for my Shirley Temple idealism on these matters, naive civic virtues and all that. Cheers, Dan.

To: Bearded One who wrote (18435)	4/15/1998 12:58:00 AM
From: Eugene Goodman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Bearded One I taught twice. In the first instance, as a graduate student, I taught a course that I had taken the year before. The second time I lectured on the work that I was doing full time. Teaching was never a huge work load. No, teaching is not work. Digging ditches in the New Jersey swamps during the summer for $ 0.50 per hour is work. Everything else is play. Is there any reason that the study or teaching of the Law is more difficult than Chemical Engineering or Computer Programming? It is not a sacred vocation. You do have to have very special people. Like the lawyers in Florida and Texas that have billed those States for billions of dollars for a few months of part time "work". One hears of the preparations for the Year 2000 by these pirana. The companies that have built computers or done software will be lucky to escape with any net worth. Doesn't the legal establishment have responsibilities that go along with their access to riches. Don't these lawyers have a responsibility to make all parts of the legal system work? Its most important part certainly does not. The latest Economist describes the scandalous state of the criminal bar in not assuring the indigent with adequate defence. The problem, apparently, is that the lawyers want to bill at their full rates rather than their marginal rates. As for Krugman, try this out; web.mit.edu The article that starts by discussing increasing returns [and turns into an academic whizzing contest ] is " The Legend of Arthur" At the end of this article there is a link to an article on path dependence. Qwerty is a poor foundation for the legal theory. Gene