Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

A driveshaft is the roughly cylindrical doohicky of an automobile that transfers mechanical energy from the engine or transmission to the wheels. Unsurprisingly, every driveshaft obeys the laws of physics. More specifically, every driveshaft obeys what is called Hooke's law, which describes the dampening of vibrations.  Now some controversial litigation involving a driveshaft is before the US Supreme Court and it may help clarify, or further muddy, the question of what the high court has meant, in other recent cases, when it has said that a natural law is not eligible for patent. At one level, it seems obvious enough. Nobody can patent Newton's law of gravity and sue the owners of orchards if their apples fall to the ground without a proper licensing deal. But nobody has actually tried to patent Gravity. And it is not obvious whether anyone is now really trying to patent Hooke's law.  The case is AMERICAN AXLE v. NEAPCO HOLDING. American sued Neapco in the US district of ...

Another term of the U.S. Supreme Court has come and gone. This year, though as in most years the court issued a lot of decisions that are, in their own several ways, fascinating, is not a year in which THE ONE -- the big case, is immediately obvious. If any one of them is THE stand-out case, the matter will be determined by the jurisprudential historians of posterity. I will leave out of my discussion here and in the next two days the decision regarding Argentina's bond default and the hold-out's recourse, because I have had something to say of that one already. This leaves the following five decisions of great importance. Simply listing by alphabetical order they are: *Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank -- patentability *Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund -- class action *Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby -- Obamacare implementation * Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus -- free speech *Town of Greece v. Galloway -- establishment clause. I'll say something about Alice Corp. in...