The work of Mark Lemley discussed at Patently=O

Within the post titled The Federal Circuit's Use of Legal Scholarship at Patently-O, one finds several comments about Mark Lemley.

On the one hand:

Perhaps the study is missing one important factor - an impartial and objective critique of the quality of the available legal scholarship in the patent domain.

Not to be overly harsh, but if Lemley is held to be typical, the Federal Circuit is better off being less likely than other circuit courts of appeals to use legal scholarship in its decision making.



On the other:

Perhaps the study is missing one important factor - an impartial and objective critique of the quality of the available legal scholarship in the patent domain.

The problem here is that valuations of the quality of particular legal scholarship is highly subjective. For instance, your disdain for Lemley's work is your opinion, but it may not reflect an objective evaluation of his scholarship.

And of the "Ending Abuse" paper in BULR:

If the "legal scholarship" that's going to be cited by the Federal Circuit includes junk like Lemley/Moore's paper on continuation practice, or crapola like Lerner/Jaffe, that would be unfortunate. That stuff is not "legal scholarship." It's ignorance.