Why is SCOTUSblog posting about Lexmark and its attorneys missing the cert. petition deadline in a $100 million case?
For my first substantive post I begin with what is, to me at least, a genuine mystery: why is SCOTUSblog posting about Lexmark and its attorneys having missed the deadline for filing a cert. petition in a $100 million case? It recently did so here.
Before reading this on SCOTUSblog, I had not heard of them missing the deadline nor, I suspect, had more than a handful of lawyers heard of it. Because of SCOTUSblog’s wide readership, many attorneys, particularly appellate attorneys at major firms who closely follow SCOTUSblog, now know of this embarrassing incident suffered by Lexmark and its attorneys.
The question is: why? Why is this posted on SCOTUSblog? I’ve looked at the SCOTUSblog posts in the two weeks preceding this one, and it doesn’t seem relevant to anything that was being covered. That is, it’s not information that needed to be set forth to correct an earlier post. For example, SCOTUSblog did not earlier report that the Supreme Court had denied certiorari in the case, and then need to correct that report with the actual facts (that Lexmark's petition had never been filed, because it was submitted after the deadline).
The SCOTUSblog post explains that a reader e-mailed a tip with this information, but that doesn’t explain anything, unless SCOTUSblog reprints everything readers e-mail, which I doubt.
So as best I can tell, it’s just a shot out of the dark about Lexmark and its attorneys blowing a $100 million case by being negligent. Even Lexmark’s opponent, Static Controls, had more class than that in mentioning on its website that the U.S. Supreme Court would not be reviewing the case. It did not even hint at the apparent negligence. See here and here.
There’s no good way to say this without seeming critical, and maybe there’s some good explanation for the post that is eluding me, but I simply don’t understand why bloggers at a firm that at least promotes itself as one of the leading firms in the United States in U.S. Supreme Court litigation would dump on a Fortune 500 corporation and its attorneys for their apparent negligence in failing to meet the deadline for a cert. petition.
Can anyone explain this post? Does anyone think it makes any sense at all? Does anyone think it sheds any light on SCOTUSblog or its bloggers generally? The floor is open. I really don’t know what to make of this post. I hope readers will share their comments, however they view this post, either pro or con.
posted by Unknown at 12:36 AM
22 Comments:
How about: It's about the Supreme Court and it's interesting?
I agree. As anyone who cares to actually read the post will see, in it TG merely summarized and linked to a Business Week article mentioning one detail about the Lexmark v. Static Controls case. Yet I don't see Cowboy starting an "anti-Business Week" blog. Could there be an agenda here?
Also justifying the post, TG noted that it's "a closely watched DMCA case involving a claim for more than $100 million," showing it wasn't some trivial case upon which TG was inexplicably lavishing attention, but a noteworthy case, the sort of thing most bloggers choose to blog about.
Finally, the entire post is only five lines long. That Cowboy read this post and wasn't able to understand it, or saw in it some deep mystery, or perhaps conspiracy, or somehow thought TG was giving huge emphasis to this point, provides all the indication anyone needs of the value of his blog. Only bias, or stupidity, or both can explain such a post.
Cowboy, congratulations on your so-called "first substantive post."
Isn’t it obvious Goldstein made the post as part of his bid to get major companies like Lexmark as clients?
Goldstein might think highlighting the negligence of Lexmark’s current counsel and using it to embarrass Lexmark is a good way to do that. Surely Lexmark will now realize it needs Goldstein as its counsel. Also, the post reminds Fortune 500 companies generally of the need to hire a specialist like Goldstein who won't make these kinds of mistakes.
I think it's called comparative advertising. With his awesome track record, all Goldstein needs to do is get their attention to win their business. Long ago, I recall, Goldstein candidly acknowledged he launched SCOTUSblog in the first place mainly to promote his firm and the work his firm is doing, not out of any inclination to provide some public service.
In all seriousness, I'm not saying it's a reasonable judgment for Goldstein to think such a post would in some way help as part of his effort to promote his firm specializing in U.S. Supreme Court litigation. He probably didn't consider the blowback potential, or at least the decorum factor. But no one's saying Goldstein's got great judgment, and such a judgment on his part would explain his post as well aligned with the main purpose of his blog.
I think my brother Jack is missing the point. For ordinary bloggers, say, law students, it might be enough that something's about the Supreme Court and it's interesting. Such bloggers operate under few constraints.
As Howard Bashman was perhaps hinting at in wondering whether SCOTUSblog's entry into the Supreme Court nominations area could cause problems, SCOTUSblog in a different situation. SCOTUSblog is run by lawyers who also run one of the leading Supreme Court firms in the country. Heck, not just one of the leading firms: according to their website (www.goldsteinhowe.com) (emphasis added), they're "the nation’s only Supreme Court litigation boutique."
It's inevitable, though possibly not entirely fair, that when one of the lawyers at such a firm posts something like what Tom Goldstein posted a few days ago, people will wonder which hat he or she was wearing in making the post.
As to this particular post, was Tom Goldstein just noting something "interesting" about the Supreme Court? Or was he purposely running down other lawyers who screwed up and filed a cert. petition late? Not so easy to tell. Right, Jack?
Jill,
Well, I suppose one should wonder then, when Bashman opines that a prominent Supreme Court litigator might be too influential to talk about Supreme Court nominations, whether he is really attempting to ratchet up the credibility and influence of bloggers in general. After all, his is "the Web's first blog devoted to appellate litigation." By taking pot shots at Goldstein, isn't he really just trying to increase his own influence? Which hat was he wearing?
Frankly, I think that the "influence" of bloggers is really only a credible subject in the eyes of other bloggers. As TG readily admits, the influence of what he says about nominations or anything else can't really be understated. His blog is a source of information about the Supreme Court, so anything about the Supreme Court is fair game. If his firm really has an interest in something, he tends to disclose it.
Even in the post in question, I think the headline was something like "There but for the grace of god go us," acknowledging that a simple mistake like missing a filing deadline could be made by anyone. Indeed, I think TG posted about a similar case where a deadline was missed by David Boies - TG's former boss. Or maybe that was Bashman. If it was Bashman then I'm sure he was just trying to run down the appellate competition.
I think Cowboy’s making too much of this single post by Tom Goldstein, but I disagree with Deaniac. Like Cowboy I find the post puzzling, possibly troubling -- although more because of its title than anything in the body of the post. Unlike Jack, I don’t think the title of the post helps Goldstein; I think it makes it more problematic for him. I do not want to make too much of this. Goldstein’s post probably would not have been puzzling or controversial had it been worded slightly differently. The post would have had much less of a flavor of, “these other lawyers blew a $100 million case by filing their cert. petition late,” if in the post Goldstein had:
(1) Not mentioned the $100 million point, but instead had truncated the description of the case to simply: “a closely watched DMCA case . . .” (so as not to get people dwelling on a lawyer causing a client to lose $100 million by filing late); and
(2) Not titled the post, “There but for the grace of God.” The problem with the title is thta it suggests Goldstein is focusing on the negligence -- it makes it seem the negligence is the main subject of the post, though quite possibly that was not intended. It’s not clear what exactly Goldstein’s suggesting in using this title. Is he saying he could easly have done the same thing, filing a cert. petition in a $100 million case late, but so far he’s been lucky? As in, “There but for the grace of God go I?” In other words, is Goldstein trying to be modest about his record of competence in filing on time to date, putting it down to luck? I can’t really see why he’d be suggesting that (saying he meant, as Jack suggests, "There but for the grace of God go us" has the same problem, because Goldstein would be suggesting that he could easily make a mistake like this). Or is Goldstein suggestng plenty of lawyers make this kind of mistake (could that be true?), so one should put in perspective the mistake Lexmark’s attorneys made? As in, “There but for the grace of God go you?” That is, is Goldstein trying to say that the average attorney, but not him, could make such a mistake, so it’s not very noteworthy, and no one should be too critical of the Lexmark attorneys? Such a suggestion is the only alternative to “There but for the grace of God go I” (or "us") that I can think of. By saying in the title only, “There but for the grace of God,” Goldstein leaves ambiguous what he’s saying. Of course, that title could be something Goldstein simply included in jest, and with little thought, but that would mean Goldstein was in some fashion making light of the predicament encountered by other lawyers in having filed late, which does not seem like a favorable interpretation of the post, so I’m trying to avoid embracing that explanation.
As I said, I think Cowboy’s making too much of this single post. And maybe by commenting on it, I too am making too much of it. My only point is that Deaniac goes too far in concluding Cowboy's post is the obvious product of bias and/or stupidity. And Jack’s pointing to the title of the post just adds to the complication. I read SCOTUSblog regularly and like a lot of material on it, yet I find this post on Lexmark difficult to understand, and problematic.
I'm going to do my best on this blog to just let people comment, and restrict myself to main posts, but I want to register my objection to the comment of 5:46 p.m. by "Jack Elsehow" regarding Howard Bashman.
Beyond the fact that the commentator is attacking someone who is not a SCOTUSblogger, I have a particular problem with this sentence, in the third and final paragraph: "I think TG [Tom Goldstein] posted about a similar case where a deadline was missed by David Boies - TG's former boss. Or maybe that was Bashman. If it was Bashman then I'm sure he was just trying to run down the appellate competition."
My assumption is that Jack is being snide, and he in fact recalls that Bashman posted about David Boies missing a deadline. If so, and if it's somehow relevant to discussing of my main post, please supply a link to where Bashman did this. Otherwise, please don't insinuate someone took a certain action if it's not true. It would be helpful to have at least that level of decorum in the comments.
Cowboy’s insisting on hyperlinks, so I’m obliging him with lots of hyperlinks in this post.
The theory of “Real Smart Guy” (see above comments, around noon) that “Goldstein made the post as part of his bid to get major companies like Lexmark as clients” only works if the attorneys who filed Lexmark’s cert. petition late aren’t themselves Supreme Court specialists like Goldstein. Right?
I mean, if they’re Supreme Court specialists too, then Goldstein’s post highlighting their blowing a $100 million case by filing the cert. petition late wouldn't show if you’ve got a big-money case, you need to hire a specialist like Goldstein who has the experience and skill needed to read the rules and look at a calendar and figure out when the cert. petition’s due. It would tend to suggest, if anything, that even hiring a Supreme Court specialist won’t guarantee you’re safe. So I looked up who were counsel for Lexmark in the case.
It’s good news for Goldstein.
Judging from who were counsel in the case at the Sixth Circuit stage (unless someone else was added later) it seems Lexmark relied on attorneys who are Supreme Court newbies, not seasoned veterans like Goldstein and his fellow SCOTUSbloggers. The Sixth Circuit decision is here. It lists the following nine attorneys as representing Lexmark. Presumably all of them are involved in what would appear to have been negligence, because if any one of the nine had been able to figure out the due date of the cert. petition, this embarrassing situation apparently would not exist. Per Cowboy’s new mandate, I’ve included links to all the lawyers and law firms. Maybe some readers will want to contact them about their newfound notoriety, courtesy of Goldstein et al.
From the firm of BANNER & WITCOFF, Chicago office:
1. Christopher J. Renk
2. Binal J. Patel
3. Jason S. Shull
4. Timothy C. Meece
From the firm of BANNER & WITCOFF, D.C. office:
5. Joseph M. Potenza
6. Bradley C. Wright
From the firm of STOLL, KEENON & PARK:
7. Charles E. Shivel, Jr.
8. Steven B. Loy
9. Hanly A. Ingram
Oh, and don’t overlook:
10. Vinny Cole, the general counsel of Lexmark. Too bad he, too, apparently wasn’t able to figure out the due date of his company’s cert. petition in a $100 million case.
At least thanks to Goldstein’s post, lawyers nationwide now know about Lexmark’s goof and, as an added benefit, Mr. Cole and others at Lexmark know next time they’d better hire Goldstein.
Cowboy, I hope you’re satisfied I included enough hyperlinks. I sure wouldn’t want to go around insinuating something about someone without being able to back it up.
Good god. This is my last comment on this ridiculous blog.
Here is the post where Bashman links to an article about Boies missing a deadline. And while we're at it, here is Bashman reporting on Boies getting an ethics complaint. I was being sarcastic when I suggested that by making the former post Bashman intended to run down the competition. Both articles are news about an appellate attorney and as such qualify as news about appellate litigation and therefore are fair game for Bashman. Similarly, a post about someone missing a Supreme Court filing deadline is fair game for TG's blog because it's about the Supreme Court, which is the subject of the blog.
Watching the authors of posts here argue in similarly circular and long-winded style, I now believe that at least some of the commenters are socks for the blogger. This entire exercise is meant to create the appearance that there is a "discussion" about TG when in realitity it's all in the blogger's head. Either "Cowboy" and his socks are deliberately making straw men or they are just dumb. I'll no longer contribute to this lunacy.
Brilliant comment, Jack. I don’t know, or care, about your Bashman references. (Why does everyone talk about him so much?)
You’re obviously right there’s only one lawyer in the whole country who argues in a “circular and long-winded style.” Cowboy. So he must be writing all the comments. Including this one.
That some of us, including me, have well-known pseudonyms which preexist the blog means nothing. That, of course, must be just part of the elaborate effort to create a false appearance of a “discussion.”
Particularly suspicious, as you point out, is the notion anyone at all would want to participate in “a ‘discussion’ about TG.” Everyone knows he’s a nobody! A nothing!
Sorry to see you hit the road, Jack. I’ll miss your creative spelling (“realitity”? some Freudian slip? what would Jill think?). And your incisive analysis. So long, Jack. We hardly knew ye.
Jack is missing the obvious in thinking only one blogger, or at most a small group of bloggers, is commenting on this blog. Obviously the commentary is part of the vast right-wing legal conspiracy specializing in personal invectve which Goldstein blogged about here: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/03/how_bitter_will.html. And here: http://tribeponnuru.blogspot.com.
With Larry Tribe already knocked out as a plagiarist who uses ghostwriters and who published some fibs about his first Supreme Court argument, to boot, Goldstein is obviously the liberals’ last hope to stop this right-wing conspiracy to radically alter the Court by replacing Chief Justice Rehnquist with a conservative jurist. It makes sense all the conspirators Goldstein unmasked would now turn their attention to Goldstein, the able fellow who first discerned and revealed the conspiracy.
(I've decided I should try to comment on a semi-regular basis, perhaps every day or so, rather than wait to do a main post in which I comment on comments. Doing that might give too much prominence to my own comments, and suggest they deserve more attention than the underlying comments I'm responding to. I will try to reserve the main posts for introducing entirely new topics.)
Jack, I now see based on your last comment that your comment about Bashman was intended as sarcasm. I thought you were attacking Bashman, but not backing up yoru attack. I haven't yet checked your links or otherwise researched it, but I accept your explanation that you think neither Bashman nor Goldstein did anything unfair in linking to any stories involving apparent/alleged slipups by any attorneys. I stand corrected regarding the intent of your post. Thank you for providing the links.
No, Jack, I haven't been posting comments on my own blog under one or more pseudonyms, as you suggest, though I suppose there's little I can do to disabuse you or others of the notion if you are inclined to think that. However, if I were a random reader of the blog I'd take very seriously the comments of "Real Smart Guy" as to why your suggestion is implausible.
There's a valid germ to your reaction, however. To maintain the coherence of this blog (whatever coherence it might aspire to), I urge commentators to adhere to a "one pseudonym per person" policy. Also, please do not post under both a pseudonym and under "Anonymous." Here's my personal impression of who may be in violation of that policy. I intend it not as criticism (I only now articulated the policy) but as an illustration that Jack has a point in thinking at least some people may be double-posting (I frankly do not know what a "sock" is, but maybe that is the relevant term for people who post under more than one name):
1. Based on the content of the posts (particularly their lack of conciseness) and other information available to me, I am virtually certain "J. Thompson" and "Goldfinger" are the same person. I believe "J. Thompson" started out somewhat neutral in the comments, and then decided to be more hostile to Tom Goldstein, and picked "Goldfinger" as an amusing name matching that stance. If this is what led to Jack's sense that there are multiple posts arguing in the same circlear/long-winded style, I agree with Jack on this. "J. Thompson" and "Goldfinger" seem very similar. I see little effort to hide the similarity.
2. I strongly suspect, but am not sure, that the main early "Anonymous" comment, here (first comment), which was very, very critical of Tom Goldstein, was posted by someone who has continued posting under a pseudonym. I would be surprised if someone so negative toward Goldstein wouldn't post after the first time. If I had to guess, I’d say it’s "Oddjob," and that the original "Anonymous" picked this name after someone started posting under "Goldfinger," as Goldfinger is a character in one of the Bond movies, and so is Oddjob. Actually, I think they may both have been in the same movie, either "Goldfinger" itself or another movie in which Goldfinger appeared. If it's not "Oddjob," it may be "Real Smart Guy." But I can only speculate.
3. I'm almost positive "Jill Elsehow" isn't a person separate from the other commentators, but is only a name someone picked specifically to answer Jack's posts, posing as Jack's brother, as in "Jack and Jill." I hope we've seen the last of that pseudonym.
In conclusion, Jack, it seems clear there's some double-posting going on, which I hope stops because it's distracting for anyone actually interested in the substance of hte blog and comments. If in fact not many people are interested in commenting, I would rather have just a few active commentators who are all real, and committed to commenting (or even group blogging), rather than a larger apparent set of commentators, some of whom are not real, resulting in confusion and diminishing the blog generally.
By late tomorrow I will try to make another substantive post, dealing with a completely separate SCOTUSblog post. Like Goldstein's post about Lexmark, I do not understand why it was made. It strikes me as even more odd than Goldstein’s post on Lexmark, and arguably very unprofessional. The post isn't by Tom Goldstein, so hopefully my next substantive post will help steer the comments away from an "all Tom Goldstein, all the time" focus. This blog is about SCOTUSblog, as to which Goldstein is obviously a major blogger, but I would like the focus on the blog as much as possible on the substance of various SCOTUSblog posts, and SCOTUSblog generally.
Jack, if this blog isn't worth your time, I respect that decision, and thank you for the comments you did make. But if after looking at future posts and comments you're inclined to comment from time to time, your comments will always be welcome.
I haven't had the "pleasure" of dropping in on this blog since I left my comment yesterday morning. Like Jack, after reading the recent posts, I'm appalled. Unless the blog radically changes, I doubt hardly anyone will be commenting, or even reading it. I certainly won't be.
There's no effort by those critical of TG to deal with the substance of the comments left by me or Jack: that this was a minor post on a major Supreme Court case, the subject of TG's blog, and perfectly fair game, just as similar posts by Bashman were fair game. There's just nothing remotely wrong, or odd, about TG's post. For you to make this the subject of your first post is inane and simply destroys whatever credibility you might have started with (not much anyway).
All the commentators adverse to TG do is make jokes and call TG names. They apparently think they're clever and inflicting great damage, but since in the end no one much cares about this sort of material, it's irrelevant.
Some free advice: if you continue this blog (I think you and everyone else will soon tire of it) focus your posts on specific, concrete problems you see with specific points on SCOTUSblog, and state your objections in clear language. More posts saying, "What could possibly explain that post? I don't understand it!" will just drawn laughs, assuming anyone at all reads your blog.
At the risk adding to the ridiculousness of an already ridiculous blog, without doing something stupid like running out to rent the movie just to correct "Cowboy," I can say with a fair degree of confidence that at the end of "Goldfinger," he either dies or is arrested (I seem to recall the authorities taking him into custody, but that might be another Bond movie and another villian), and in any event Goldfinger never shows up in another movie. "Oddjob" is not only in the movie; he's Goldfinger's henchman, for God's sake! He's the short dude who throws the hat that cuts people's heads off. He's considerably more effective in his job than the "Oddjob" who appears on this blog. My recollection is he dies in the movie. But why am I wasting my time on this ridiculousness?
Nice try, Cowboy, on your "J. Thompson" conspiracy theory. So not as to disturb any mystery, I'll not comment on it. Perhaps it's just my interest in Goldstein motivating this, but I don't think you should move on to another SCOTUSblogger just yet. You should not leave the attack on Bashman unanswered. If you do, people will assume "Deaniac" is right that you made a spurious attack on Goldstein which he and "Jack Elsehow" destroyed, with no meaningful rebuttal, in part by arguing that what Goldstein did in posting about Lexmark's mistake was supposedly just like what Bashman did in posting about Boies. That will create an impression you're a hit-and-run blogger who's not credible and not worth reading.
At the risk of being characterized by Jack as "long-winded," let me say it seems to me Jack tried to backpedal after you called him on not providing links to support his accusation that Bashman unfairly attacked Boies. I think Jack's "defense" of Goldstein really amounts to: "maybe Goldstein's bad for embarrassing Lexmark's attorneys for blowing the deadline on a $100 million case, but Bashman's just as bad, so there." It's not a particularly effective defense, when you think about it, although if in fact Bashman was unfair in his postings, I guess that would tend to help Goldstein, as Bashman is a prominent blogger, and thus there wouldn't be anything unique about what Goldstein did, however unfair it was. I hope you look into the specifics of Bashman's coverage of Boies and rebut Jack's post, if you can. If you can't, at least admit that, so people will have a sense you're open to criticism, and to admitting you're wrong if you are. My view is Goldstein was tawdry in embarrassing Lexmark on blowing a $100 million case, and even referencing the negligence in the caption of his post by saying, "There but for the grace of God . . . .," as if he was crossing his fingers hoping he doesn't make a mistake like that. That strikes me as mean, and unnecessarily so, as Goldstein's post wasn't relevant to correcting any prior post on his blog. Bashman has always struck me as fair, and not mean, even though at times he'll make an amusing comment about someone. My impression is he's equally likely to make amusing, genuinely biting, self-deprecating comments about himself. One does not see that from Goldstein on Goldstein's blog; and from what else I've heard of him, he seems thin-skinned and defensive about himself to a fault. So I'd be surprised if Bashman has stooped to the level Goldstein, at least recently, has lowered himself to. I hope you'll take the time to analyze all of Bashman's posts on Boies (the two mentioned by Jack, and others if there are others) and not just leave matters abruptly hanging. I do not suggest you beat to death this one post by Goldstein, which already has been analyzed almost to death anyway, and risks boring people with the blog, but I would not leave Jack and Deaniac on Bashman unaddressed.
This is turning into more work than I'd anticipated, but instead of posting on another SCOTUSblogger tonight, I will hold off on that. As Goldfinger has suggested, to tie up debate over the Lexmark post I will research and post on the Bashman point. I will also answer some of the other negative comments about my criticism of the Lexmark post. In so doing I expect to concede the validity of some of the criticism.
I will probably need to use a main post or two to do this, though I'd hoped to reserve main posts for new points. Readers who are bored with this topic, especially considering the Goldfingeresque level of detail necessitated (an understandable reaction) can simply ignore it and wait for the next topic, which should appear within a few days.
Goldfinger, I'd appreciate if you would e-mail me (CONCOWBOY at MAILCAN dot COM) if you have any interest at all in being part of a group blog, or at least helping with analysis of the Bashman point. I am quite pressed for time right now, and I fear losing momentum on this blog without help. That goes for anyone else interested in group blogging.
Apparently none of the pro-Goldstein forces, not even Tom Goldstein himself, can identify who's behind the conspiracy to attack him. First they guessed the National Review. Then they guessed Bashman. Now they’re guessing the "Greedy Clerks," or at least some, or at least one, of them. Who next will be identified as a possible conspirator?
Who cares?
I must say I like all this anonymous commentary. Liberals used the veil of anonymity to surface all sorts of (alleged) facts about the Supreme Court’s deliberations in Bush v. Gore. It was done through a Vanity Fair article anonymously quoting law clerks who'd broken their oath of silence. But don't worry. Anonymous comments, even by those sworn to silence, are okay, or at least they're okay with Goldstein.
After all, Goldstein's the one who complained on his blog that the Vanity Fair article was receiving "surprisingly little press attention" outside the Court. Goldstein's the one who, to drum up interest in this article which centered on the anonymous trashing of certain justices, went so far as to host the article for Vanity Fair in PDF format on his website. In posting, and plugging, the article Goldstein neglected to mention he represented the losing clients in both cases discussed in the article, and that the justices who were anonymously trashed in the article voted against his clients.
"Interesting," to quote Goldstein defender Jack Elsehow.
Because Goldstein's such a big fan of anonymous sourcing that makes conservatives look bad (there's not a link to be found on his blog about the blogosphere criticism of the unethical law clerks who were anonymous sources for the Vanity Fair article, just links supportive of the article), who could complain if conservatives saw a green light to anonymously make comments about Goldstein and his co-bloggers, at least if the comments are "interesting"?
Goldstein detractors probably have lots of "interesting" stuff to mention about him. That may be why Goldstein's trying to discredit this blog, in advance of further postings, with his latest conspiracy theory. Of course, priding himself on his reputation for being so fair and non-partisan and such, Goldstein says he has no idea "why there are people who’ve decided to go off about me personally, much less anonymously."
For all I know, Cowboy isn't even one of the Goldstein detractors, and he only cares about fair and balanced coverage of the Supreme Court generally. Then again, maybe he's trying to fake being fair and balanced and he set up the whole thing to "get" Goldstein. Maybe he's part of a conspiracy. Maybe he's even the leader of the conspiracy.
Who cares?
As long as comments are enabled, everyone should feel free anonymously to post any potentially "interesting" comments about Goldstein and his co-bloggers (at least comments of a factual nature which can be confirmed, as posting unconfirmable rumors will only give Goldstein ammunition to attack the blog.)
To quote Goldstein’s buddy Jack Elsehow, this could be "interesting."
As a card-carrying member of the anti-Goldstein conspiracy, it hurts to say this, but Cowboy, you owe Tom Goldstein an apology. Based on Goldstein's clarification in his comment of this morning, I now realize his Lexmark post was entirely proper, and my brother Jack was correct in his criticism of you.
Don’t you see? Goldstein wanted to help Lexmark which, he observes, was "concerned that the markets could mistakenly view the cert. denial as actually a decision on the merit." He realized he could help Lexmark by publicizing that its cert. petition was filed late. Lexmark was eager to be featured on his blog, even though it would embarrass its lawyers among appellate lawyers nationwide, because publicizing its incompetence would help its stock price. Indeed, Lexmark was "the one entity more than any other on the planet that wanted it known that the petition was denied because it was untimely . . . ." (Goldstein's odd choice of language suggests some “entity” elsewhere in our solar system may have wanted this even more. I'm not going to get into that one. The conspiracy theories Goldstein and has fans have articulated to date are complicated enough without getting into "X Files" territory.)
Even though Goldstein’s readership is, he admits, less than 1/1000th the readership of Business Week, which had already published about the late filing, Goldstein wanted to get the word out to all the market-moving Wall Street types who are avid readers of SCOTUSblog, but who for some reason don't read Business Week or any other business periodical that covers Lexmark. So that's why Goldstein posted about Lexmark blowing the filing deadline in a $100 million case.
You only got the wrong idea about his post, Cowboy, because to communicate some additional information -– that any lawyer (even him) could blow a $100 million case by not being able to figure out the due date -– Goldstein titled his post, "There but for the grace of God." That is, even though he posted this to help Lexmark's stock price, Goldstein titled it to call attention to the negligence of Lexmark's attorneys in blowing a $100 million case, rather than using a title that would be more boring but more to the point, like: "Lexmark v. Static Controls petition never considered by Court." To use my brother Jack’s language, a title like that wouldn't be "interesting."
I'm sure Goldstein's tightly reasoned, internally coherent explanation of this morning will clear up the debate over his Lexmark post to everyone’s satisfaction.
2 + 2 = ???
Goldstein still can’t add it up? Goldstein’s latest theory (which is, I should emphasize, just a theory) is that one or more people on “Greedy Clerks” are out to get him, or at least they’re up to pointing out he doesn’t quite live up to his reputation/PR. If that’s true, Goldstein realizes from the Vanity Fair article he hosted on his own website that clerks and ex-clerks aren’t in much of a position to make, in their own names, statements relating to their work. Yet Goldstein can’t figure out why clerks or ex-clerks would post anonymously about him?
Check out the long footnote in the Vanity Fair article Goldstein posted on his website (looks like Goldstein's taken down the PDF, but you can find it at the bottom of this HTML version, footnote 2, here: http://www.makethemaccountable.com/articles/The_Path_To_Florida.htm).
"The Court's proceedings are shrouded in secrecy, and the law clerks, who research precedents, review petitions, and draft opinions, are normally notoriously, maddeningly discreet. In addition, Rehnquist makes them all sign confidentiality agreements, then reiterates the point to them in person. A surprising number of clerks talked to Vanity Fair for this article, however."
Guess Goldstein finds it "maddening" to see the shoe on the other foot. His foot.
Funny Goldstein didn't complain about the anonymous comments by those who were breaking their oath of silence, but he's now complaining about anonymous comments about him, even though no one took an oath of silence not to give their opinion of Goldstein. He who lives by the anonymous comment . . . . (Or maybe, "There but for the grace of God . . . .")
I see. TG’s a left-wing hack. I guess that’s why Ken Starr recently appeared with him on an amicus brief.
Here: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/06/looking_ahead_t.html
And here (April 11): http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/04/10-week/index.html
Perhaps someone should alert Starr to this news.
SCOTUSBlog covers most of the Supreme Court cases, and a small subset of cert petitions that are in the pipeline but may or may not make it to the Supremes.
1. The most innocuous explanation is that Lexmark is an important IP case because it involves an interesting angle of the DMCA and the legality of a common business practice. Do a google search, and you'll see that the case has gotten a lot of press. If you take the post at face value, a reader told Goldstein that this important case had reached a conclusion.
2. Or you can read all sorts of crap into it about Goldstein trying to enhance his business by taking something of a cheap shot at potential competitors... whatever. I'm not sure what's so outlandish about a law firm using its website to drum up business.
There is probably valid substantive criticism to made of SCOTUSblog. I haven't seen it yet.
Post a Comment
<< Home