The Jan. 6 Committee Subpoenas Trump

Clarence Thomas has thoughts about Prince.

By and

What options does the former president (and his legal team) have in response to the subpoena? Did Judge Ho’s response to critics mollify Sarah’s concerns? And what does Clarence Thomas think about Prince? Plus: how early should you get in line for a chance at attending a Supreme Court hearing?

–Andy Warhol Foundation v. Lynn Goldsmith

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By and
Comments (41)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Jim S

    So that very weird moment when I hit play and there is a seductive woman’s voice and I think it is Sarah and I am completely confused 😛.

    It was the Outback commercial of course.

    Collapse
  2. Kaja_anne

    Sarah.. Deepest condolences for your family's loss.

    Collapse
  3. General Darden

    @Sarah - Losing a member of the family is a real emotional journey, so thanks for sharing about Zoey/Zoo.

    @David - I think you are unnaturally optimistic about the proposition that an era of public intolerance is over or at least on the wane. I wish you would cite more evidence for this, because I sure do see it playing out.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Paul Hoover

    (not an email) I'm sorry for your loss, Sarah. But there are lots and lots of shelter kitties out there who would love to come home with you for a chance to fill the void!

    Collapse
  5. Emma Busby

    David and Sarah, I thought you might be interested to know that the e-mail I most recently received regarding federal student debt relief included a section with the following information:

    “If you don’t want debt relief, you have until November 14 to opt out. Here’s how:

    If you would like to opt out of debt relief for any reason, including because you are concerned about a potential state tax liability, contact your loan servicer no later than November 14 and tell them that you are not interested in receiving one-time student debt relief.”

    Can’t wait to see how this affects standing!

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Danieltakash

    Great episode, as usual, but two important points I want to make regarding copyright.

    First, David is (most likely) correct that the reason Blood and Honey was made when it was is because Winnie the Pooh entered the public domain. A wrinkle to your commentary Blood and Honey: Though I am not aware of any litigation surrounding the film, the trailer does show Pooh wearing the red shirt you see in Disney movies. The problem is that Red Shirt Pooh is likely a separate work/character for the purposes of copyright law. The same is true for Mickey--even though Steamboat Willie Mickey Mouse will enter the public domain soon, there are several other expressions of him that will remain locked away for some time.

    Second is a point you made about licensing fees in reference to Google v. Oracle. This is something that annoyed me about your commentary on Google v. Oracle when the decision came out. It is true that Google was in negotiations with Oracle and those broke down, and Google decided to make fair use of the code anyway. Not a great look, and Thomas did make a point about that in the dissent. But I think too much hay is made of this. Copyright law is (among other things) a minefield, and very often people will seek a license as a CYA (cover your ass) maneuver to prevent any litigation--even if they think the use is either fair or the elements being used aren't protectable. In the context of patents, you often see companies creating "patent pools" where they agree to license patents to other members of the pool to prevent any litigation that may arise from the use of a patent. You also see companies amassing large patent portfolios not because they intend to exercise those rights, but as a deterrent against someone who may sue *them* for patent infringement, as it is possible that the latter has accidentally infringed on the former's patents. Essentially, it's a mutually assured destruction strategy. You saw this strategy at work in patent war between Sonos and Google (though Google really whiffed it there--the equivalent of all your ICBMs blowing up on the launch pad).

    TLDR: Just because someone licensed (or tried to license) something doesn't mean they think they're making use of the work/invention in a way that would otherwise be infringement.

    Collapse
  7. Kraig Rucker

    As a layman who listens to Supreme Court oral arguments for fun (I’m really fun at parties), I winced a few times listening to Lisa Blatt’s argument in the case. Other advocates at times seem very chummy and seem to take some liberties while arguing (Like Paul Clement), but she seemed to boarder on irreverent and almost disrespectful at times. Her tone at times seems condescending to the justices. Am I the only one who felt that way while listening?

    Collapse
    1. General Darden

      You are not the only one.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    MattA

    So what I hear you saying is, an official AO linesitting party is a real thing coming up?

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Kevin C. Smith

    I believe pets are proof God exists, and He loves us.

    ❤️ Sarah.

    Collapse
    1. Helbock

      God gave use animal pets to help us survive life and learn more about love.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Trevor Reid

    Okay did I hear David’s phrase right. I know he said something like: “he could have the Michael Jordan of attorneys…” Why did he not say “he could have the LeBron James of attorneys…” I think this an slip of the tongue acknowledgement that he really in his heart of hearts knows that MJ is the GOAT.

    Collapse
    1. Sean O

      I was hoping I wasn't the only one who noticed that

      Collapse
Load More