Like most patent practitioners, I am very pleased with President Obama’s recent nomination of a new Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  The nominee is David Kappos, vice president and assistant general counsel for intellectual property at IBM.  Kappos has over 20 years of intellectual property experience and manages IBM’s patent and trademark portfolios.  Worth noting is that each year, IBM obtains more U.S. patents than nearly any other company. 

In Kappos’s capacity as VP and assistant general counsel for IP at IBM, his views on many substantive patent law issues are well known.  For example, he is not a fan of pure business method patents (preferring, for example, the machine-or-transformation test).  He also generally supports harmonization efforts, including “opposition-like” post-grant review procedures.  His opinions on such issues have been praised by many and criticized by some.  Interestingly, some have also criticized his nomination for not emphasizing his potential to fix various problems of the USPTO, but instead focusing on his knowledge of the patent system in general. 

I, on the other hand, am relieved that his nomination has been surrounded by discussions of his general knowledge of the patent system. 

Irene’s post and Kali’s post got me thinking: What is it that interests me about copyright law? The answer is somewhat surprising, given that I specialize in copyright law: nothing, per se. I’m not especially attracted to the doctrine of copyright law more than a number of other subjects, such as torts or contracts or even securities regulation. Indeed, as cocktail party conversation goes, I always cringe a little when I say I specialize in copyright, because it often leads to a discussion of some particular controversy in which I am forced to admit at the end that I have no idea what the answer is, as the statute is vague and there are cases on both sides (or maybe no cases at all). At least there are answers to what constitutes insider trading.

What interests me about copyright is not copyright law in itself, but copyright law as a subject. Over the past few years, I’ve come to realize that my interest in copyright law and Internet law predates law school. It’s part of my general interest in ideological transitions, and in particular turbulent ideological transitions. I’m interested in copyright law for the same reason I’m interested in vigilantes and alterations in foreign policy and systems accidents.