Cognitive Dissonance Monday Link Sausages

• This is so, so wrong that it can only be Monday. Someone has updated haggis to be more marketable.
• Here's another reason to avoid loud, clicky keyboards on laptops (even better than that I'll take a bloody sledgehammer to it if you're typing away on a redeye while I'm trying to sleep): they enable a listener to know what you're typing. Admittedly, this is not exactly a late-breaking news story... but the current fad for "chiclet" keyboards is just making things worse.
• Professor Kleiman laments that "[T]he only actual journalist left on TV works for the Comedy Channel." Of course, that assumes that the "press" was given its guarantee of "freedom" in the First Amendment for some reason other than, say, corporate profits flowing toward a furriner. How come immigration reform never considers Aussie "media barons" as a disfavored group of immigrants?
• Just the cognitive dissonance of these two items showing up in adjacent tabs on Monday morning is enough to make me wonder what the universe is up to: Ghandi as a sex-crazed maniac b/w premature sequelization (and that's the short link in the publication!). Then a major piece on art forgery show ups in the next tab over... at the same time I'm rereading The Recognitions, and pondering some of the goofy excesses of academic fashionability while the actual market for academics in the humanities sucks so much, is far too much. Or perhaps just typical for a Monday.
• The proper use of Twitter as a medium for fiction.
• Professor Crouch provides some insight into comparative patent reversal rates at the Federal Circuit. The short version is that reversal rates at the Federal Circuit are not substantially greater from reversal rates in any other complex litigation matter. The problem is that a patent case isn't supposed to be "complex litigation"... and therein lies a tale in itself. Bluntly, the only real solution is to get more scientists and engineers onto the federal bench in the first place, which is going to require lowering the hostility toward them at the top law schools (both in the admissions process and among the faculty when it comes time for recommendations for those all-important first jobs). And, in turn, that's going to require more law-school faculty — and, in particular, deans and chairs of hiring committees — who have been inside a working laboratory less than two or three decades ago. I don't see it happening.
• Professor Rebecca Tushnet notes that "real-person fiction" is a more-complex legal creature than one might expect. So, of course, is common courtesy... and, it seems to me, that's what should be considered in many RPF efforts: Whether the effort itself implies a courtesy to the RP; and, if so, whether that courtesy was followed. But, I emphasize, that's should be considered, not must be (or legally must be) determinative. It's not an easy issue; that's why it's fun.