Intellectual Property Law

AIG Execs Entitled to Lawyers? Documents, Appeals Court RulesABA Journal Daily News

Today I had the rare honor of not only attending a Supreme Court argument, but also spending an hour and a half with Justice Scalia, the Court?s second most senior Associate Justice.

Those of you who are familiar with American jurisprudence are probably familiar with Justice Scalia?s reputation as an extremely conservative justice who is a strict originalist when it comes to constitutional interpretation. For those that are unfamiliar with the different schools of thought in constitutional interpretation, originalist believe that the terms of the United States Constitution should be interpreted as they were intended at the time they were ratified. The critical question asked by originalist is, ?What would a reasonable person at the time of ratification have understood these words to mean?? (For a look at opposing schools of thought Google ?interpretivists? and/or ?living Constitution.?)

While the bulk of my time with Justice Scalia was focused on matters that are largely unrelated to video games, I did take this rare opportunity to ask the Justice his feelings concerning recent state video game legislation. In particular, I asked him whether as an originalist he believed that state laws banning the sale of mature-rated video games to minors ran afoul of the First Amendment.

(more?)

Full post as published by IP Law Daily on February 20, 2008 (boomark / email).