Sunday, March 23, 2008

Pinocchios for intellectual property professors?

Michael Dobbs of the Washington Posthas been covering an account by Hillary Clinton of a trip to Bosnia:

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
--Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.

Dobbs doesn't think so:

The Pinocchio Test

Clinton's tale of landing at Tuzla airport "under sniper fire" and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.

Maybe we should handing out Pinocchios to certain statements of intellectual property professors. Would Obama get a derivative Pinocchio for having Lemley as advisor? One commenter at patenthawk wrote:

There is so much hinky about Obama. From a patent perspective, him having Mark Lemley as advisor speaks volumes. If his big offset for lack of experience is judgment...

[Contrary to Lemley, Gary Boone didn't invent the integrated circuit and the inventors of the transistor did NOT think its uses were limited to hearing aids. Further, contrary to Lemley, Robert Clarke never said every continuation application resulted in a patent. In passing, Susan Haack wrote in 36 Stetson Law Review 789, 794 (footnote 29) (citing the brief of Chubin) that law review editors (actually cite checkers) check every citation and footnote [!] As Kenny Nolan sang: I like dreamin', closing my eyes and feeling fine.]

There is also a Sikahema in the Hillary business:

The First Lady's schedule, released on Wednesday [March 19] and available here, confirms that she arrived in Tuzla at 8.45 a.m. and was greeted by various dignitaries, including Emina Bicakcic, (whose name has mysteriously been redacted from the document.)

Separately, IAM has some discussion of Jon Dudas and fee diversion.


Frank Rich wrote in Hillary’s St. Patrick’s Day Massacre:

That Mrs. Clinton’s campaign kept insisting her Bosnia tale was the truth two days after The Post exposed it as utter fiction also shows the political perils of 20th-century analog arrogance in a digital age. Incredible as it seems, the professionals around Mrs. Clinton — though surely knowing her story was false — thought she could tough it out. They ignored the likelihood that a television network would broadcast the inevitable press pool video of a first lady’s foreign trip — as the CBS Evening News did on Monday night — and that this smoking gun would then become an unstoppable assault weapon once harnessed to the Web.

The Drudge Report’s link to the YouTube iteration of the CBS News piece transformed it into a cultural phenomenon reaching far beyond a third-place network news program’s nightly audience. It had more YouTube views than the inflammatory Wright sermons, more than even the promotional video of Britney Spears making her latest “comeback” on a TV sitcom. It was as this digital avalanche crashed down that Mrs. Clinton, backed into a corner, started offering the alibi of “sleep deprivation” and then tried to reignite the racial fires around Mr. Wright.

The Clinton campaign’s cluelessness about the Web has been apparent from the start, and not just in its lagging fund-raising. Witness the canned Hillary Web “chats” and “Hillcasts,” the soupy Web contest to choose a campaign song (the winner, an Air Canada advertising jingle sung by Celine Dion, was quickly dumped), and the little-watched electronic national town-hall meeting on the eve of Super Tuesday. Web surfers have rejected these stunts as the old-school infomercials they so blatantly are.

UPDATE. Crouch on the Clintons:

On Hillary Clinton-->
Those qualities do not communicate well through television for some reason. On TV, Clinton seems by turns icy, contrived, hysterical, sentimental, bitter, manipulative and self-righteous. In short, dehumanized by the mysterious dictates of technology, she takes on qualities that most people hate.

Perhaps because of the way camera lights hit the planes of her face and the tinny distortions of her voice imposed by television microphones, something apparently evil happens. Part of Richard Nixon's comeback strategy was to overcome what was done to him by the defining force of TV when he was bilked of the presidency in 1960 then humiliated by losing a run for governor of California in 1962.

Hillary Clinton has never been able to figure that one out.

IPBiz notes, unlike Al Gore, Nixon did not file a law suit over voting irregularities in Illinois and Texas. Further, the evidence
on the underlying merits of the Florida suggest Gore did lose. One will never know about Illinois and Texas in 1960.


Post a Comment

<< Home