Doug Lichtman Moving from Chicago to UCLA Law:

I'm thrilled to report that Doug Lichtman, a top law-and-technology scholar -- chiefly specializing in patent law and communications law -- is moving from the University of Chicago Law School to UCLA. We are just delighted to have him.

For a sample of Doug's work, see his latest, Irreparable Benefits, forthcoming this year in the Yale Law Journal; and Telecommunications Law and Policy, a textbook that he has cowritten with our coblogger Stuart Benjamin. He is also expected to be the winner of the coveted UCLA Law School Baby Face Award, though we have it on good authority that he's at least 23, maybe even 24.

English teacher:
Professor Volokh:

In terms of the "baby-face award," isn't it true that you personally haven't even had your tenth birthday yet?
1.29.2007 8:07am
ChiTechie (mail):
We're sad to see him go.
1.29.2007 8:08am
Eugene Volokh (www):
Well, since the day of my birth is, I'd think, a birthday, then I had my tenth birthday nearly three years ago. But I look much old than my birthdays.
1.29.2007 10:23am
LawMan 5000:
I am a U of C 3L and I never had a chance to take a class with Prof. Lichtman, but I know he is well liked and it is a loss to us.
1.29.2007 1:32pm
Tony D'Amato (www):
In "Irreparable Benefits," Professor Lichtman uses two concrete examples to show why, as he says, the theoretical part of his paper isn't just "mere semantics". The first is that of a patent holder of a certain chemical process who requests an injunction to prevent the defendant from using that process in the defendant's research. I do not understand what the harm is here. The defendant is only engaging in first-amendment-protected research, has not attempted to market any of his research, and certainly has not infringed the plaintiff's patent unless and until he attempts to use the fruits of that research for commercial benefit. (Einstein held many patents on refrigeration. For years, scientists traced these patent processes in order to study and learn the mechanisms of refrigeration. Could they all have been enjoined from tracing out Einstein's blueprints?)

Professor Lichtman's second example also involves the First Amendment. A civil-rights organization wants to stage a street march, but is denied a permit. Whatever the harm to the organization might be, it could be compensated in a later lawsuit by enough money to make the organization happy that it had been wrongfully denied the permit; the author's example is that the damages are ten times the loss, enabling the organization to engage in ten future marches to make up for the one that was enjoined.

But what if the temporal postponement causes irreparable harm? The example that springs to mind is John Kerrey's refusal to immediately answer the "Swift Boat" allegations that his Purple Heart medals in Vietnam were phony. (Kerrey's brilliant strategists thought the allegations would go away and no one would notice them.) Although he denied the allegations a few weeks later, the public in the meantime had become convinced that if the charges were false, Kerrey would have denied them immediately.

I may be missing something here, but it strikes me, on a quick read to be sure, that Professor Lichtman's entire paper is constructed upon two examples that crumble under common-sense scrutiny.
1.30.2007 12:11am