Author: TSA Press

Every
so
often,
I
get
asked
by
a
representative
of
one
investment
firm
or
another
to
give
an
overview
of
the
patent
litigation
ecosystem.
Lately,
I
have
taken
to
describing
to
such
audiences
how
patent
litigation
in
the
U.S.
market
has
come
to
resemble
a
slice
of
pizza,
albeit
a
slice
where
the
sauce
is
both
thinly
spread
and
tastes
a
little
weak.
The
dough
and
crust
holding
up
the
slice?
More
than
ever,
that
is
volume
nuisance-value
cases
brought
by
prolific
NPEs.
That
delicious
buffalo
mozzarella
imported
from
Italy?
Those
are
the
high-value
pharma
cases,
the
occasional
competitor
cases,
or
the
rare
funded
NPE
case
that
makes
it
through
the
gauntlet
that
is
the
litigation
funding
diligence
process.
And
the
less-than-robust
layer
of
sauce?
Those
are
the
smaller
competitor
cases,
or
the
non-nuisance
value
NPE
disputes.
If
you
squint
you
can
see
them,
but
they
are
increasingly
harder
to
come
by
in
modern
patent
litigation.
For
a
variety
of
reasons,
led
by
the
fact
that
such
cases
just
don’t
meet
the
damages
threshold
to
justify
funding,
while
also
being
too
risky
to
self-fund
in
this
age
of
IPR
challenges
and
defendants
emboldened
to
stretch
cases
to
the
breaking
point
before
settling.

You
may
not
agree
that
the
pizza
slice
analogy
works.
But
I
think
the
above
remains
a
pretty
comprehensive
and
accurate
picture
of
what
the
state
of
play
is
in
the
modern
patent
litigation
realm.
In
a
welcome
twist,
however,
at
least
one
nonpracticing
entity
has
generated
success
by
coming
at
the
challenge
of
generating
licensing
revenue
in
a
different
way.
I
am
speaking
about
IP
Value,
which
made

news
in
August
for
taking
on
a
large
(approximately
5,000)
patent
portfolio
from
Intel.
That
acquisition,
which
included
Intel
patents
in
a
variety
of
technology
areas,
continues
IP
Value’s
long-running
history
of
major
patent
acquisitions
from
pedigreed
operating
companies.
According
to
the
company,
IP
Value
owns
and
manages
licensing
for
over
12,000
patents.
A
sizable
portfolio,
by
any
reckoning.
(For
disclosure
purposes,
I
have
introduced
clients
to
IP
Value
in
the
past.
I
also
had
a
welcome
conversation
with
IP
Value’s
Executive
VP,
Partnerships
and
Acquisitions,

Keith
Wilson,
in
advance
of
this
column,
as
well
as
the
opportunity
to
review
some
prepared
background
material
provided
by
the
company.)

Indeed,
IP
Value’s
approach
in
many
ways
mirrors
the
licensing
approaches
of
the
most
successful
IP
owners,
from
Microsoft
to
Qualcomm
and
others
—
namely,
to
combine
deep
technical
expertise
with
a
large
and
varied
pool
of
patents
available
for
licensing.
That
is,
of
course,
by
design,
helped
along
by
IP
Value’s
healthy
financial
performance.
As
the
Intel
transaction
demonstrates,
operating
companies
with
large
patent
portfolios
who
are
interested
in
licensing
—
but
perhaps
not
interested
in
running
an
active
licensing
operation
—
have
come
to
view
IP
Value
as
a
viable
contributor
to
their
licensing
efforts.
In
fact,
IP
Value’s
original
assignments
often
took
the
form
of
acting
as
a
licensing
agent
for
large
patent
owners,
as
opposed
to
acquisition
of
the
underlying
assets
as
in
the
Intel
transaction.
Either
way,
IP
Value’s
recipe
of
being
an
option
for
large
patent
owners
to
work
with
has
held
up.

Yes,
more
than
a
handful
of
operating
companies
worked
with
NPEs
of
various
sizes
in
order
to
add
some
punch
to
their
licensing
efforts.
But
standard
operating
company-NPE
transactions
tend
to
involve
much
fewer
patents
than
the
many
thousands
of
patents
Intel
just
transferred
to
IP
Value,
and
for
good
reason,
since
many
NPEs
are
most
interested
in
generating
licensing
revenue
using
the
litigation
cudgel
as
a
primary
mechanism
for
beating
leaves
off
the
alleged
infringer
money
tree.
And
there
are
only
so
many
patents
you
can
bring
to
bear
in
a
litigation,
even
if
your
strategy
involves
filing
multiple
cases.
Here
again,
IP
Value
goes
about
its
business
a
bit
differently.
Not
only
has
it
demonstrated
that
it
can
and
will
take
on
large
numbers
of
patents
in
a
single
transaction,
but
it
has
also
publicly
declared
its
preference
for
litigation
as
a
licensing
tactic
of
last
resort.
In
fact,
a
recent
IAM

piece
on
the
company
points
out
that
in
over
20
years
of
operation,
IP
Value’s
“entities
have
filed
just
32
litigation
actions
since
2008.”
(In
contrast,
there
are
some
NPEs
for
whom
32
litigation
filings
represent
an
active
month’s
work.)
For
sure,
IP
Value
has
gone
the
litigation
route
on
occasion,
if
only
because
there
is
often
no
other
alternative
when
faced
with
an
unwilling
potential
licensee.
But
so
have
the
other
major
patent
holders
it
models
itself
on,
who
sometimes
find
themselves
even
suing
customers
(e.g.,
Qualcomm
v.
Apple)
in
order
to
protect
their
licensing
revenue
stream.

For
companies
with
large
patent
portfolios,
it
is
easy
to
see
the
appeal
of
partnering
with
IP
Value,
particularly
where
there
is
an
interest
in
divesting
a
large
number
of
patents.
By
now,
the
company
has
shown
that
its
business
model
can
generate
licensing
revenue,
even
without
following
an
expensive
and
uncertain
litigation-first
approach.
More
importantly,
IP
Value’s
investment
in
building
out
its
in-house
technical
team
can
be
an
important
driver
in
terms
of
helping
to
unlock
the
full
potential
of
a
patent
portfolio.
So
too
is
IP
Value’s
ability
and
willingness
to
invest
heavily
in
third-party
technical
analysis
of
addressable
products
for
licensing.
It
can
be
difficult
at
times
for
in-house
IP
counsel
to
develop
a
deep
understanding
of
where
the
most
valuable
assets
may
reside
in
a
given
portfolio.
Offloading
those
patents
to
IP
Value,
which
will
be
very
motivated
to
identify
any
potential
bulwark
assets,
can
therefore
be
an
attractive
alternative
to
going
it
alone.
Moreover,
as
IP
Value’s
experience
in
working
with
potential
licensees
deepens,
the
potential
value
of
IP
Value’s
relationships
could
also
work
in
the
original
patent
owner’s
favor.
If
only
because
potential
licensees
often
have
a
negative
initial
reaction
when
asked
to
license
a
robust
patent
portfolio
for
meaningful
money
—
especially
when
that
approach
is
made
by
a
former
or
current
competitor.
Having
a
third
party
like
IP
Value
make
the
approach
could
soften
the
blow
and
lead
to
more
productive
conversations
early
on.

Ultimately,
it
is
important
for
all
IP
owners
and
their
lawyers
to
maintain
an
understanding
of
what
the
varying
licensing
approaches
are
in
the
marketplace.
While
not
everyone
can
become
a
Qualcomm,
or
even
an
IP
Value,
having
an
appreciation
for
the
fact
that
there
is
no
single
answer
to
the
challenging
question
of
how
to
generate
licensing
revenue
can
be
very
useful.
In
a
challenging
environment
for
patent
owners,
present
times
included,
being
able
to
learn
from
other
licensing
models
can
spur
creative
thinking
about
how
best
to
approach
an
existing
licensing
conundrum.
In
the
meantime,
we
can
expect
that
IP
Value
will
continue
to
look
for
opportunities
to
demonstrate
its
unique
approach
to
patent
value
creation.

Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at
gkroub@kskiplaw.com
or
via
Twitter:

@gkroub.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.

---

Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of



Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and Markman
Advisors
LLC,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or
follow
him
on
Twitter: @gkroub.

You
know
Supreme
Court
season
is
right
around
the
corner
because
the
justices
are

coming
out
of
the
woodwork
to
give
speeches
on
their
deep
thoughts.
Fresh
off
of
Friday’s
John
Roberts
speech
—
a
desperate
attempt

to
insist
the
Supreme
Court
is
still
legitimate
despite
cruelly
taking
away
rights
from
over
50%
of
the
country’s
population
—
Elena
Kagan
spoke
at
Temple
Emanu-El
in
New
York.

And
she
pretty
much
has
the
exact
opposite
take
on
the
Court’s
legitimacy,
saying,
“Judges
create
legitimacy
problems
for
themselves
…
when
they
instead
stray
into
places
where
it
looks
like
they’re
an
extension
of
the
political
process
or
when
they’re
imposing
their
own
personal
preferences.”
Because
she
knows
that
legitimacy
is
earned
and
when
nakedly
political
decisions
happen
—
remember
the
institution
is
supposed
to
be
above
the
fray,
hence
those
infernal
lifetime
appointments
—
that
directly
impact
the
health
and
wellbeing
of
people,
well,
a
hit
to
legitimacy
is
probably
the
least
of
the
reactions
you
can
expect.

As

reported
by
MSN,
her
comments
seemed
to
respond
directly
to
the
Chief:

“Simply
because
people
disagree
with
an
opinion
is
not
a
basis
for
questioning
the
legitimacy
of
the
court,”
Roberts
said.

The
chief
justice
has
been
a
consistent
defender
of
the
court’s
legitimacy
against
complaints
that
the
court
is
not
much
different
from
the
political
branches
of
the
government.

But
Kagan
said
the
court
risks
damaging
its
own
legitimacy
when
big
changes
in
the
law
follow
changes
in
the
court’s
membership.

The
public
has
a
right
to
expect,
she
said,
“that
changes
in
personnel
don’t
send
the
entire
legal
system
up
for
grabs.”

She’s
right,
of
course.
But
let’s
also
be
upfront
about
the

Dobbs
decision.
It’s
not
*just*
disagreeing
with
a
decision
but
being
deeply
offended
that
the
change
in
personnel
can
strip
people
of
rights
that
were
established
precedent
for
50
years.
And
we
KNOW
Roberts
knows
this,
that’s
why
he
wrote
a
concurrence
in

Dobbs
rather
than
join
the
majority.
It’s
why
Roberts
tried
to
convince
a
fellow
conservative
to
sign
onto
his
decision
and
what

fuels
the
speculation
that
someone
on
the
right
was
behind

the
leak
of
the
draft

Dobbs
decision
in
the
first
place.

But
Roberts
is
really
hoping
he
isn’t
presiding
over
the
Court
that
history
will
say
ended
the
legitimacy
of
the
institution.
Kagan
knows
better.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
(@Kathryn1).

Six
years
ago,
I
wrote
an
article,
“How
I
Used
My
Law
Degree
To
Get
Out
Of
Law,”
in
the
HuffPost.
I
was
a
contributor
to
the
platform
and
at
the
very
beginning
of
my
full-time
journey
from
lawyer
to
entrepreneur.
That
article
set
the
wheels
in
motion
for
me
to
openly
share
my
story
with
the
world
—
that
yes,
you
can
leave
law
and
find
success
in
doing
something
else
that
you
love.

Since
then,
I’ve
responded
to
hundreds
of
messages
from
dissatisfied
or
frustrated
lawyers
who
want
to
do
something
else
with
their
legal
career
besides
traditional
practice
at
a
law
firm.
I
know
that
feeling
—
all
too
well
—
in
addition
to
the

sentiments
that
my
parents
reiterated
to
me,
“Choose
a
job
you
will
love,
and
you
will
never
have
to
work
a
day
in
your
life.”

That
specific
Confucius
quote
sat
in
a
frame
and
hung
on
the
wall
in
my
dad’s
office
for
more
than
15
years,
and
it
became
the
impetus
for
me
to
seek
out
my
own
career
happiness
and
fulfillment.
To
him,
it
meant
that
while
every
day
wasn’t
perfect,
doing
work
should
bring
you
energy
and
joy.

If
you’ve
reached
a
career
crossroads,
whether
you’re
at
the
beginning,
middle,
or
tail
end,
ask
yourself:
is
it
the
environment
or
the
work
that’s
truly
the
root
of
the
issue?
For
example,
you
might
not
fit
in
with
the
culture
of
Biglaw,
but
you
might
thrive
in
an
in-house
environment.
You
might
enjoy
the
work
of
complex
M&A
transactions
but
feel
more
at
ease
if
it’s
not
contingent
on
the
billable
hour
or
high-volume
work.

It
takes
a
special
type
of
personality
to
thrive
in
a
law
firm
environment,
especially
in
a
highly
competitive
and
cutthroat
one
such
as
Biglaw.
I
knew
early
on
it
wasn’t
for
me
based
on
my
own
negative
experiences.
And,
while
I
excelled
at
smaller
and
midsized
firms
tackling
big
motions
and
hearings,
the
billable
hour
debilitated
me.
Firms
said
they
didn’t
have
strict
billable
hours,
but
the
reality
was
quite
different:
if
you
didn’t
bill
more
than
200
hours
per
month,
you
were
questioned.
Vacations
were
also
nonexistent
and
frowned
upon.
A
sick
day
just
meant
working
from
home
and
still
being
expected
to
bill
12-plus
hours
a
day.
I
was
simply
a
cog
in
the
wheel
permeating
an
unsustainable
way
of
life.

It
wasn’t
until
I
gained
a
glimpse
of
what
in-house
counsel
work
entailed
that
I
truly
thrived
and
felt
the
career
love,
along
with
collaboration,
leadership,
and
a
human-first
culture
that
I
yearned
to
encounter.
For
the
first
time
in
my
legal
career,
I
took
a
vacation
without
guilt
and
without
question.
I
brainstormed
with
colleagues,
and
we
worked
in
a
copacetic
fashion
rather
being
gaslighted,
disrespected,
and
undermined.
I
worked
closely
with
other
leaders
in
the
business
and
became
exposed
to
various
personalities
that
worked
for
the
common
good
of
the
business.

I
share
this
because
if
law
firm
life
isn’t
for
you,
consider
exploring
other
legal
environments
that
might
offer
you
something
different
before
you
decide
to
exit.
This
means
networking
with
lawyers
who
are
corporate
counsels
or
in
other
nontraditional
legal
roles
such
as
contracts
managers,
compliance
officers,
or
even
legal
and
management
consultants.
Find
people
who
are
where
you
want
to
be
(or
may
want
to
be)
now,
five
years
from
now,
and
10
years
from
now.
They
will
have
different
insights
at
different
steps
in
the
journey.
In
doing
so,
you
can
explore

alternative
legal
careers
as
compared
to
traditional
practice.
Remember,
you
have
wide
access
to

networking
with
these
professionals
on
LinkedIn.
Take
advantage
of
it.

Additionally,
there
will
be
common
themes
you
find
within
your
legal
career
that
speak
to
your
strengths
and
the
parts
of
your
work
you
enjoy
the
most.
For
example,
in
high
school,
I
spent
my
weekends
competing
at
local,
state,
and
national
debate
tournaments.
In
college,
I
did
pro
bono
writing
and
tutoring.
In
law
school,
I
took
electives
that
were
focused
on
writing
and
analysis.
In
my
legal
career,
I
was
always
the
designated
brief
writer
and
deeply
enjoyed
the
process
of
researching
and
writing
the
dispositive
and
discovery
motions,
and
then
arguing
them
in
court.

Each
of
these
examples
point
back
to
my
strengths
and
passion
for
analysis,
writing,
and
public
speaking
—
all
of
which
are
present
in
my
current
work.
Writing
has
been
my
forte
for
as
long
as
I
can
remember.
I
expanded
that
skill
set
in
a
different
arena:
professional
writing
and
coaching.
This
has
required
me
to
continue
to
advance
and
deepen
that
skill
set
through
my
own
professional
development
and
training
(such
as
getting
certifications
in
resume
writing,
career
coaching,
and
personal
branding
to
elevate
my
skills).

The
other
side
to
this
is
that
running
my
own
successful
writing
and
coaching
business
isn’t
easy
or
glamorous
—
I
work
an
unbelievable
number
of
hours
to
consult
with
potential
clients,
coach
current
clients,
and
write
their
resumes,
bios,
and
LinkedIn
profiles.
These
aspects
of
running
a
business
were
pieces
I
had
to
acclimate
to
and
were
the
deciding
factors
for
why
I
remained
a
solopreneur
instead
of
scaling
up
to
run
a
business
with
a
team
(the
latter
is
more
common
in
my
industry).
If
you’re
thinking
of
going
solo
or
opening
your
own
business,
talk
to
someone
who’s
done
it
and
has
been
successful
at
it,
financially
and
professionally,
for
seven
or
more
years.
Find
out
the
good,
the
bad,
and
the
ugly.

Have
a
question
about
finding
happiness
or
joy
in
your
legal
career?
Feel
free
to

connect
with
me
on
LinkedIn.

---

Wendi
Weiner
is
an attorney,
career
expert,
and
founder
of The
Writing
Guru,
an
award-winning
executive
resume
writing
services
company.
Wendi creates
powerful
career
and
personal
brands
for
attorneys,
executives,
and
C-suite/Board
leaders
for
their
job
search
and
digital
footprint. She
also
writes
for
major
publications
about
alternative
careers
for
lawyers, personal
branding,
LinkedIn
storytelling,
career
strategy,
and
the
job
search
process. You
can
reach
her
by
email
at wendi@writingguru.net,
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn,
and
follow
her
on
Twitter @thewritingguru.  

Skip
to
main
content

*
Whose
Flight
Is
It,
Anyway?:
Lawsuit
aims
to
enforce
minimum
seat
sizes
among
airlines.
Looking
at
you
Spirit
and
Frontier.
[Reuters]

*
Remember
Independent
state
legislative
theory?
That’s
still
a
thing,
and
it
looms
darker
than
before.
Like
fair
elections?
Pay
attention. 
[Common
Dreams]

*
The
DOJ
subpoenaed
over
30
people
related
to
Trump’s
mucking
about.

Somebody
is
gonna
fold,
and
Twitter
will
be
ablaze.
[CNN]

*
Reporting
sexual
assault
is
hard
enough
as
is
without
the
risk
of
a
kit
being
used
against
you.
[The
Guardian]

*
Sotomayor
has
temporarily
weighted
in
on

the
nuanced
question
of
if
Yeshiva
University
has
a
religious
right
to
discriminate
against
their
student’s
affiliations.
This
is
a
good
primer.
[Vox]

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Legitimate
institutions
don’t
go
around
bragging
how
they’re
legitimate
because
it
is
understood.
Illegitimate
institutions,
however,
really
like
to
yell
and
scream
about
their
authority.
Think
about
it,
in
elementary
school
the
green
substitute
teacher
would
urgently
raise
their
voice
in
a
futile
bid
for
the
class’s
attention
yet
the
battle-axe
from
across
the
hall
that
probably
taught
your
grandmother
could
silence
the
class
with
a
single
look.
You
can’t
convince
people
of
your
legitimacy,
it
is
earned.

On
that
note,
on
Friday,
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
spoke
at
the
Bench
&
Bar
Conference
of
the
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
10th
Circuit.
And
you
could
tell,
despite
not
facing
a
midterm
election
himself,
the
Court’s

sinking
poll
numbers
were
on
his
mind.
As

reported
by
the
Washington
Post,
Roberts
used
his
time
to
defend
the
legitimacy
of
the
Court:

“The
court
has
always
decided
controversial
cases
and
decisions
always
have
been
subject
to
intense
criticism
and
that
is
entirely
appropriate,”
Roberts
told
a
gathering
of
judges
and
lawyers
in
Colorado
Springs.
But
he
said
that
disagreement
with
the
court’s
role
of
deciding
what
the
law
is
has
transformed
into
criticism
of
its
legitimacy.

“You
don’t
want
the
political
branches
telling
you
what
the
law
is.
And
you
don’t
want
public
opinion
to
be
the
guide
of
what
the
appropriate
decision
is,”
said
Roberts,
who
added,
to
laughter,
“Yes,
all
of
our
opinions
are
open
to
criticism.
In
fact,
our
members
do
a
great
job
of
criticizing
some
opinions
from
time
to
time.
But
simply
because
people
disagree
with
an
opinion
is
not
a
basis
for
criticizing
the
legitimacy
of
the
court.”

But,
here’s
where
we
know
John
Roberts
is
fibbing,
at
least
a
little
bit.

Everything
we
know
about
how
the
awful

Dobbs
v.
Jackson
Women’s
Health
decision
went
down
is
that
Roberts
*knew*
stripping
rights
away
from
folks
after
50
years
of
established
precedent
was
going
to
be
a
disaster.
That’s
why
he
wrote
a
death-by-a-thousand-cuts
concurrence.
It’s
why
there
are
rampant
rumors
that
Roberts
tried
to
convince
a
fellow
conservative
to
sign
onto
his
decision
and
what

fuels
the
speculation
that
someone
on
the
right
was
behind

the
leak
of
the
draft

Dobbs
decision.
Sam
Alito’s
majority

opinion
in
that
case
was

designed
to
be
a
flame-on
moment
to
display
the
power
of
the
Court’s
far-right
majority…
a
majority
which
was
totally
and
completely
*legitimately*
earned.

Except
not.

Because
while
for
many
people
overturning

Roe
v.
Wade
was
the
final
nail
in
Court’s
legitimacy
coffin,
something
was
rotten
in
Denmark
before
that.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
(@Kathryn1).

If
associates
are
smart,
they
will
take
what
work
they
can
and
make
themselves
busy.
If
things
do
get
worse,
firms
will
look
at
overall
productivity.
You
never
want
the
associate
who
always
has
time,
because
there’s
a
reason
for
it.
I
think
those
will
be
the
most
vulnerable
people.

—

Jeff
Lowe,
global
managing
partner
of
legal
recruiter
Major,
Lindsey
&
Africa,
offering
his
thoughts
to

Law.com
on
how
Biglaw
associates
can
keep
busy
to
avoid
possible
layoffs
should
the
economy
grow
worse.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

Twitter
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

This
week
on
John
Oliver,
the
host
takes
on
the
TV
show
that
launched
a
thousand
legal
careers:
Law
&
Order.
You
can
—
and
should
—
watch
the
full
rant
below,
but
the
premise
is
that
the
show
(and
other
similar
procedural
drams)
creates
a
skewed
view
of
the
police,
casting
them
as
crime-stopping
heroes,
when,
well,
that’s
not
the
case.

As
Oliver
notes:

“One
study
found,
viewers
of
crime
dramas
are
more
likely
to
believe
the
police
are
successful
at
lowering
crime,
use
force
only
when
necessary
and
that
misconduct
does
not
typically
lead
to
false
confessions.
Which
would
be
great
if
it
were
true,
but
if
you’re
watching
this
show,
you
probably
know
it
is
not.”

For
all
the
admitted
downside,
I
will
note
that
watching
reruns
of
Law
&
Order
absolutely
got
me
through
my
evidence
class
in
law
school.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
(@Kathryn1).