October 18, 2010. In case, you couldn't tell, this is parodying scenes from The Social Network. If you're too lazy / cheap / busy / tired / disdainful to watch it, you can get the short version via this trailer or the much longer version by reading the script (PDF). It's a good movie, and you can see my thoughts about it on my infrequently-updated blog.
Anyhow, this episode has a few things that need explaining for my non-law school reading friends (why are you reading this again?):
The Law Review at just about any school is exclusive. Not so fun. But it does lead to a better life.
The idea for a webcomic about rabbits (and a duck) in law school is not copyrightable, since copyright protects expression, not ideas. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2006). Nor is it patentable (probably) as it's not a "useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2006). Moreover, there's prior art. While I may have been the first to use rabbits and a duck, I didn't make the first law school webcomic.
Boalt Law no longer exists. It is now called the UC Berkeley School of Law or something like that. I think I may have established that the rabbits went to some other law school at some point. Oh well, continuity error. Whoops.
U.S. federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction and can only hear cases involving federal questions or complaints where a citizen in one state sues a citizen in another state over an amount greater than $25,000. In this case, Brown Rabbit would deny that there is any federal question (assuming Negligent Lop didn't bring a copyright or patent claim -- and it'd be silly if he did). See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2006). He would also insist that the amount in controversy was less than $75,000 (trust me, Tort Bunnies is currently not raking in the dough) and that both he and Negligent Lop were in the same state (California I guess). See id. § 1332.
Also, no, Brown Rabbit is not meant to resemble me in any way. He's acting more like a Mark Zuckerbunny in this comic.
Comments