tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977297931731346524.post6026193208753107148..comments2024-03-26T13:13:25.033-04:00Comments on Written Description: Why the Best Law Review Articles Deserve PatentsLisa Larrimore Ouellettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18401005012430355377noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977297931731346524.post-59555315970569252872011-02-16T11:48:27.587-05:002011-02-16T11:48:27.587-05:00On § 101 utility requirement: I agree. I also thin...On § 101 utility requirement: I agree. I also think that sometimes that newest ideas are not easily transmittable to "professionals" working in the field. Articles along these lines may provide the foundations for new legal and constitutional doctrines, or begin to shift legal thinking on a topic in more subtle ways. Thus, I think the test of whether others within the academic field find the contribution to be useful is apt: other academics may be better than practitioners--who are often trying to argue cases from present standards--at spotting a foundation that may someday be useful to legal practice. <br /><br />Also, it's not always clear what the contribution of an article may be from the outset. Let's say that a scholar produces a theory of how constitutional change worked at one point in the nation's history. Professionals certainly take away an understanding of the dynamics of change at one point, and perhaps they may even use it to inspire current efforts. But maybe not. Maybe we just understand our legal or institutional processes better. Or maybe the article will be used or relied upon by professionals in unforeseen ways. Sometimes it takes time to figure out what, exactly, the contribution of an article will be.<br /><br />As for the disclosure requirements of § 112, I think the abstract is a brilliant invention. It forces writers to synthesize their claims and to provide a high-level road map. I wish that every journal would require one!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09105711880107731119noreply@blogger.com