Intellectual Property Law

PRO IP and Silence of the Profs?

By Tim Armstrong, Derek Bambauer, and William McGeveran.

The House and Senate easily passed, and President Bush signed, the PRO IP Act. Some commentators have been critical of the Act (Public Knowledge, TechCrunch, Declan McCullagh) - but to no avail. However, IP profs (at least, those who blog) have been pretty quiet about the Act. I can conceive of at least three possible reasons for this:

1. Public choice problem - IP profs know they just aren’t that influential with Congress, compared to industries (such as movies and music) with a significant economic stake. Tilting at windmills isn’t a good use of time.
2. No big deal - the Act doesn’t make enough substantive changes to IP law (focusing mostly on counterfeit trademarks and setting up a new IP bureaucracy in the federal government) to rally profs to the barricades. It’s not much of a windmill, anyway.
3. Advancing the ball - the Act is actually a good idea. Windmills can be useful things.

I’d be interested to know what you think.

Full post as published by Info/Law on October 14, 2008 (boomark / email).