Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Berkeley Technology Law Journal

Abstract

I will start by posing the two major questions at stake: should there be any third-party protection at all, and if so, what should it look like? Since Professor Epstein focused most of his attention on the latter point, I will spend my time more on the former. To answer that general question, I intend to proceed in the following four steps. First, having agreed with Professor Epstein's critiques of Professor Kerr's technological neutrality and ex ante clarity rationales for scrapping third party protection, I will add two critiques of my own. Second, in the spirit of reconciliation, I will provide an alternative defense for denying third-party protection; but then, in a revived spirit of partisanship, I will turn to attack my own rationale. Third, with lingering pique, I will critique Professor Epstein's alternative approach. Fourth and lastly, I will present in the hopeful and ingenuous manner of an assistant professor some thoughts on how to conceive of a viable third-party protection doctrine.

First Page

1239

Volume

24

Publication Date

2009

Download

Share

COinS