Clark Asay

IP Law Professor and Lawyer:

[Clark Asay @cdasay]

Interested in some pro bono work. Former tech trans attorney @ WSGR & Amazon w experience in open source, contracts, product counseling & IP generally (not patent prosecution). If you or someone you know has needs in these areas but no means, DM me & we'll see if we're a match.

[Clark Asay @cdasay]

@davidjsmith1232 Go to Angelica's for lunch

[Clark Asay @cdasay]

@davidjsmith1232 you say that with Dok just sitting there, waiting for his glorious return, Dave.

[Clark Asay @cdasay]

Check out my colleagues @williamsxlucy' and @dcarolinanunez's essay on @jackbalkin's blog about their birthright citizenship article: https://t.co/s1RZyRRbEO

[Frank Fagan @iFrankFagan]

https://t.co/SfCIpj6UOF #AILaw #AIGovernance

[Clark Asay @cdasay]

Very insightful essay: Repairing the Ruins: Why AI Can’t Replace Education | National Catholic Register https://t.co/REd3paJ1bP

[Clark Asay @cdasay]

Had a great time at @BerkeleyTechLJ and @ColumbiaLaw Kernochan Center's symposium on the 50th anniversary of the 1976 Copyright Act. Thanks to @PamelaSamuelson, Peter Menell, @mollysvh, @ErikStallman, Richard Fisk, and others for a great event!

[Clark Asay @cdasay]

Banger from two of my colleagues @williamsxlucy and @dcarolinanunez. @byul

[Lucy Williams @williamsxlucy]

The debate over birthright citizenship has focused on the words "subject to the jurisdiction." But the Constitution's answer isn't hiding in those five words alone — it's woven throughout the entire document. A thread on @dcarolinanunez and my new paper: https://t.co/ItfWMHRjnU

[Lucy Williams @williamsxlucy]

The debate over birthright citizenship has focused on the words "subject to the jurisdiction." But the Constitution's answer isn't hiding in those five words alone — it's woven throughout the entire document. A thread on @dcarolinanunez and my new paper: https://t.co/ItfWMHRjnU

[Clark Asay @cdasay]

@brianlfrye 😂😂😂

[Daniel Schwarcz @Dschwarcz]

🚨 New Paper Alert 🚨
Perhaps the most pressing question facing the legal community is how AI affects human legal reasoning. Our new co-authored draft provides the first empirical evidence directly addressing that question. https://t.co/7X4OKp7uMW

[Clark Asay @cdasay]

I agree with all of this except the last sentence. You're still thinking in most cases of AI use, at least in situations where you're using it to enhance what you're doing rather than just pure substitution.

[Charlotte Alter @CharlotteAlter]

Shout it from the rooftops!!! Research is thinking. Outlining is thinking. Writing is thinking. Any portion of that done by AI is less thinking done by you.

[Charlotte Alter @CharlotteAlter]

Shout it from the rooftops!!! Research is thinking. Outlining is thinking. Writing is thinking. Any portion of that done by AI is less thinking done by you.

[Michael Showalter @MikeJShowalter]

Incredible

[Aaron Moss @copyrightlately]

The Supreme Court just rewrote the rules for contributory copyright infringement. What it all means for secondary liability, the DMCA safe harbor, and the pending AI output cases—up now on Copyright Lately:
https://t.co/RJRTjdiysw

[Pamela Samuelson @PamelaSamuelson]

Cox wins its Supreme Court case and Sony Music’s $1 billion dollar judgment for contributory infringement is vacated. Not enough to know some users will infringe if Cox provides them with broadband service

[Clark Asay @cdasay]

@jpfishman @FordhamLawNYC Congrats, Joe!

[Clark Asay @cdasay]

@OrinKerr I've had RAs draft stuff that I didn't use and I still made them coauthors

[Clark Asay @cdasay]

@MikeJShowalter Btw, I was responding to what I perceived to be the process from the original post. I use Claude everyday. I recently was able to make a breakthrough on an empirical project that had laid dormant for years because human beings couldn't overcome some hurdles. Amazing!

[Clark Asay @cdasay]

I wonder if the "author" would let me review the draft, make a few updates here and there, approve the rest, and become a co-author?

[Orin Kerr @OrinKerr]

An attorney writes to me about the mostly AI-written law review article he had accepted this spring, now forthcoming in the flagship law review of a Top 50 law school. A draft of the article is now up on SSRN.

According to the attorney:

" Last month I used Claude to assist in drafting a new article . . . . I drafted this article in about 15 hours. In 2022 I published an article of similar length that took around 150 hours."

The attorney adds:

"I used Claude the way I’d use a junior associate—as a first drafter, sounding board, and research assistant. Most of the article, including the entirety of the title, abstract, and intro, is mine from the keyboard up. And anything Claude contributed that made it to the final version is there because I reviewed it, agreed with it, and chose to sign my name to it. This is no different than how I’d review an associate’s draft and then take responsibility for the finished product."

The attorney adds:

"That first draft was by no means file ready, but it was better than what I would’ve received from the vast majority of BigLaw associates. I was blown away, and have since started my own appellate and litigation practice in an effort to replicate these productivity gains for client work."

Your thoughts?

I know the attorney's name, and the journal, and I have checked out the article, but I figured that, at least for now, I would hold that back.

[Clark Asay @cdasay]

@HoffProf @scholasticaLR Their denial of your request definitely makes me feel better about my privacy interests. I know our law review is almost certainly relieved as well.

[Clark Asay @cdasay]

@MikeJShowalter Nice to meet you, too! I'm reading your response as a rejection of my co-authorship offer? Probably for the best--no one considers me much of an authority on originalism.