If she really believes the analysis in that piece she is downright incompetent as an IP lawyer. In fact many "copyright experts" predicted the outcome. And it does nothing to threaten copyright in software. All it does is allow for reimplementation of the API.
If she really believes the analysis in that piece she is downright incompetent as an IP lawyer.
No. Regardless of what she actually believes, she is one of the most highly accomplished and sought after IP lawyers in the nation, and a partner and a director at one of the top IP firms in the nations. She may be wrong, she may be even be evil, but she is not incompetent. It is more likely that you and she have different goals. If your logic leads you to conclude that she is incompetent, your logic is simply wrong.
I understand. I'm arguing against the original poster's logic, not their conclusion. As I understand it, the argument is that any IP lawyer who believes what is written in that op-ed could not possibly be competent. I'm asserting that this is false, and that the world is full of competent and successful people who believe things that others find to be incomprehensible, and that their beliefs are not evidence that are incompetent.
I don't don't know whether Hurst is a true-believer in this case. I do know that there are many smart and talented people who have convinced themselves of things that seem absurd from the outside. Some humans have an amazing ability to align their beliefs with their self-interests. Even in the face of beliefs that can scientifically be proven to be false, this often has surprisingly little negative effect on their competence in their field.
I think this comes down to the definition of competent. I was using using the word in the - perhaps loose - sense, of being able to perform a correct legal analysis of the implications of the outcome of the case. For many purposes your definition is certainly valid, and clearly better explains that she will clearly not be out of a job just because she published what I maintain is a completely invalid analysis.
