Prof. Michael Risch on “Paths or Fences”

Professor Michael Risch, of Villanova (congrats Wildcats, BTW!), has a review of “Paths or Fences: Patents, Copyrights, and the Constitution” up at Written Description. “Well-reasoned” is about the nicest thing one can possibly say about an article, and the rest of the review is similarly generous, thoughtful, and thought-provoking. Prof. Risch is also a frequent Twitter commentator on IP, at @ProfRisch.

Prof. Risch pushes back on two points that deserve a bit of elaboration. First, he is absolutely correct that not all fences constrain equally: there are brick fences, hurricane fences, cheap plastic garden fences, amazing border fences, and so forth. I suspect that there is a second-order dialogue going on here, both with the other co-equal branches and the public. For example, in Golan v. Holder, the court’s majority opinion could readily be shortened to four words: “Re-read Eldred v. Ashcroft.” The point, I suspect, was that litigants ought not to try to identify new “traditional contours of Congress” that the legislature might have altered, since there are only two: fair use, and the idea-expression dichotomy. The similar point to Congress was the inverse, though – leave sections 102(b) and 107 alone, and everything else gets rational review (= passes constitutional muster). [Added 10 Apr 2018, 8:55PM:┬áIt might help the paper to address when fences ought to be more iron-like versus Teflon-like, though I’m a bit scared of winding up in the “rules versus standards” literature, where far better minds than my own have foundered.]

The second point, which I need to play up, is that I suspect a paths or fences system would look quite different for a commentator committed to a natural rights / Hegelian / Kantian / personhood theory of property. There might well be places where the Court should be stringent in setting boundaries for the legislative under those rationales, but I think they would be differently located and divergently reasoned. Both of my core goals – information disclosure (patent) and generativity (copyright) – are pretty instrumental in nature. So, I have to make sure the paper’s claims are appropriately qualified based on the philosophical rationale one sees as most powerful for intellectual property.

Thanks again to Professor Risch!

Comments are closed.