While not favorable to Lemley and Cotropia, eg
It's unfortunate not knowing about patent copying only because knowing could engender even woollier thinking, and an even more theoretical paper, than Cotropia and Lemley were able to write this round. But not knowing doesn't stop the determined duo, who really want to make something of patent copying. Because without that, a paper about the topic would seem, well, senseless.
there is an interesting exchange in the comment section -->
[Babel Boy]: Speaking of idiocy: why do people keep citing Lemley? We would all be far better off if he were simply ignored. You see the sort of mess Moore's online fame has led to.
[Patent Hawk]: Whatever one may think of Mark Lemley's work product, give him credit for prolifically creating work product, much of it, at the least, thought provoking.
The response reminds IPBiz of the circumlocutions that appeared on Patent Hawk related to Lemley naming Gary Boone the inventor of the integrated circuit. See the post
Did Mark Lemley name Gary Boone as the inventor of the integrated circuit? . Note that the prolific work containing that error ("Patenting Nanotechnology") thanked Chris Cotropia, Bhaven Sampat, and Michael Martin. How "thought provoking" are flagrant historical errors ?
Note the Jan. 25 IPBiz post mentioning the Lemley/Cotropia business: