Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal is proud to announce the first installment of a new feature to the journal and our web space, “Double Blind Justice.”
Double Blind Justice (hereinafter “DBJ”) applies a scientific and experimental approach to outstanding issues in the areas of intellectual property and science law. For each issue presented, two practitioners, professors or other interested parties will be given the opportunity to provide a test or standard that they believe balances interests and provides sound policy. Our “subjects” will then apply the test to approximately five to ten hypothetical examples. The hypos will be provided by journal members and also sourced from the legal community through ongoing “calls for hypos.”
Each installment will publish the two tests and the outcomes of the hypotheticals alongside each other. We will typically select subjects with somewhat different interests so our “results” may be slightly different. Or they may have complete agreement. Nobody knows. You will have to check in with DBJ to find out.
We are doing this for many reasons. We believe that most of the commentary on current issues is polemicized, predictable and can be adequately addressed by amicus briefs. We think a fresh, fun, and creative approach to legal scholarship is needed. Although we intend to publish the results in our journal, we recognize that internet publishing has superceded traditional media for legal scholarship and feel that this change in media provides us the freedom to experiment with new and different formats for presenting analysis.
Chief Justice Roberts has recently commented that there is a disconnect between legal scholarship and the profession of law and that the subject matter presented in law reviews is of not of much help to the bar.* We intend to address his concerns by providing a practical (and sporting) approach to legal scholarship that draws upon the experience of the profession.