Missouri Law Review Patent Law Writing Competition: $5,000 Award

The Missouri Law Review announces a student writing competition in association with its annual Symposium to be held February 25, 2011, at the University of Missouri School of Law. Submissions should fit with the symposium topic of "The Patent Jurisprudence of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit." The winner will be awarded a $5,000 cash prize.

Eligibility: Submissions should follow the format of a case note or law summary cited in Bluebook style and must be submitted by January 14, 2011, via email to umclawrev@missouri.edu with the subject line "Patent Law Writing Competition." The submission must be between 20 and 30 pages and have at least 125 footnotes. The submission should be unpublished, and the author must be willing to publish the work in the Missouri Law Review. The competition is limited to current law students studying in a U.S. J.D. program. Current members of the Missouri Law Review are excluded from participating. Send questions to the Missouri Law Review at umclawrev@missouri.edu.

Deadline: Friday, 1/14/2011

Award: $5,000

29 thoughts on “Missouri Law Review Patent Law Writing Competition: $5,000 Award

  1. I’m not sure I agree on the idea of South Durham as a “dumping ground” for such projects. I tend to think the presence of Southpoint has made residential more desirable around it, not less.

  2. I don’t think quoting Wikipedia on any legal topic is not the best idea.

    This lovely double negative was brought to you by professional dissertation writers.

  3. Funny, considering Newton was dead long before Maxwell gave us his laws…

    That’s true, but for a long time people believed Maxwell’s equations were incorrect because they were not invariant under Galilean (Newtonian) relativity. That is to say, Newton and Maxwell disagreed, and people assumed Newton was right.

    Turns out his equations were Lorentz invariant, which is even better. But even Maxwell was long dead before anybody appreciated the significance of that.

  4. “nobody (except Newton) questions their authority”

    Funny, considering Newton was dead long before Maxwell gave us his laws…

    Newton – 1643-1727
    Maxwell – 1831-1879

  5. District Attorney Graham of Philadelphia writes to THE TIMES concerning the statement telegraphed from that city and published here on the 4th inst. touching the rumored withholding from publication by him of letters affecting State Treasurer Boyer of Pennsylvania, H says:

    The Law Society

  6. You can even quote Wikipedia

    Good luck with that. You might as well quote blog comments as far as that source has any authority.

    I thought for sure you got that Kappos memo Jules.

  7. One possible topic would be preamble law, given its timeliness considering possible CAFC en banc review.

    CAFC Jurisprudence: The Subjectivity of Life, Meaning, and Vitality

    CAFC Jurisprudence: Patent Claim Preambles, Their Divergences and Parallels to the US Constitution

    You can even quote Wikipedia on the Preamble of the Constitution: “Due to the Preamble’s limited nature, no court has ever utilized it as a decisive factor in case adjudication,[3] except as regards frivolous litigation.[4]”

  8. You have never actually read a physics paper, have you?

    I have, on occasion. They may need footnotes for academic purposes, or as a shortcut to re-deriving something that has been done before but isn’t immediately obvious, but physics stands on its own merits.

    I’ve never seen anyone footnote Maxwell’s equations. Have you? Maybe it’s because he had the good sense to name them after himself.

  9. IANAE–

    You have never actually read a physics paper, have you?

    Your post was hilarious! Keep it coming.

  10. Even papers on logic have footnotes…

    Yes, in the study of logic you have to footnote because other people’s views and theories on logic are generally more important and authoritative than your own reasoning, just as they are in law.

    Not one reference in the original paper, I think.

    You don’t need footnotes in physics, because physics deals entirely with facts, objective observations, and deductive reasoning within axiomatic systems. In physics, you’re right if you’re right. It doesn’t matter who else agrees with you. Besides, a lot of what Einstein wrote that year was completely new.

    Also, you don’t have to footnote Maxwell’s equations because (1) everybody knows where they’re from, and (2) they’re so fundamental that nobody (except Newton) questions their authority.

  11. IANAE–

    Even papers on logic have footnotes…

    Check out Einstein’s “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”.

    Not one reference in the original paper, I think.

  12. That’s an avg of 4 footnotes per page just about.

    In an academic paper, it’s hard not to say four things per page that deserve a footnote. Pretty much everything you say has to be backed up by some authority, and for academic rigor you should be footnoting every single one. If you do it right, the most frequently-used word in your paper should be “ibid.”

    True, nobody wants to read your footnotes, either in academia or in real life. That’s why they’re not in the body of the text, and some people even bunch them together on the last page. They’re only there to show that you’ve done your research and you haven’t produced that most odious of documents – your own opinion based on nothing more than pure logic.

  13. I was just going to say

    The Patent Jurisprudence of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: FFFFFFFFUCK

    Or maybe

    The Patent Jurisprudence of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: How do they keep messing it up so badly?

    In all seriousness though, how is

    The Patent Jurisprudence of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: A Brief History

    “It’s funny how in law school, they ask for a minimum number of footnotes. I real life (magazine article), they give you a maximum number and tell you that no one wants to read them and they waste space.”

    lulz.

    No no, but seriously. This is a topic I could write a little book about.

    “125 footnotes”

    Are you shi t ting me? In 30 pages? J esus h krist. That’s an avg of 4 footnotes per page just about.

    “The competition is limited to current law students studying in a U.S. J.D. program. ”

    Could I just get my girl toy from down at GW to submit it and me collect the $$$ bills yo?

  14. Kind of an open-ended topic, isn’t it? Write anything about patents that has case law about it in the last thirty years.

    For a title, may I suggest “CAFC Jurisprudence: Deference, Schmeference”?

  15. Too bad about the formal requirements, otherwise you could just put a new cover on Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, or Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There.

    What is with the minimum footnote requirement?

    Is 125 or more footnotes the new sine qua non of legal scholarship?

Comments are closed.