David P. Currie, on the frustrating Mr. Jefferson:

Yes, like the rest of us, he had feet of clay-- not just because he may have had a sex life (poor man!) or because he did not practice what he preached about slavery. More significant for present purposes are his failings as President and statesman: his lack of candor with Congress respecting his actions against the Barbary pirates and his attack on the independence of the judges. ...

Let us not wallow in the fact that Jefferson was less than perfect. Let us rather rejoice at the extent to which he was able to transcend his own limitations and those of the society in which he lived. Let us take inspiration from the noble principles for which he stood and from the legacy he left his country. For Louisiana alone he deserves our most heartfelt thanks; for his efforts to protect the Presidency while respecting the limits of its powers he earned our appreciation. Looking beyond his actions as President, the accomplishments he selected for his tombstone remind us of what he was all about: the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia statute of religious freedom, the University of Virginia. Democracy, liberty, and enlightenment: not a bad epitaph for a man with feet of clay.

From the ankles up, he's still in my Pantheon.

Presumably, a lot of readers have heard about the great Uncrustables debate by now - Smuckers, the company who makes the frozen peanut butter sandwiches, is trying to get its patent renewed. Their claim, as you can see if you read the patent application, is that their amazing technology (surrounding the jelly with peanut butter, and then crimping the sides) keeps the jelly from "radiating outwardly" through the bread.

I have literally no idea about the merits of the patent claim. But if this document represents patent applications in general, IP practice must be one of the most (unintentionally) funny legal practices available. One section of the document, for example, informs us helpfully that "many individuals enjoy sandwiches with meat or jelly like fillings between two conventional slices of bread" - but they don't like the crusts, and "there is currently no method or device for baking bread without having an outer crust". And the description of the purported invention is riotously detailed - I've read a lot of food writing, but "the sealed crustless sandwich of claim 1, wherein said crimped edge includes a plurality of spaced apart depressions for increasing a bond of said crimped edge" is a new one on me. Of course, I'm sure there are technical legal reasons the application was written this way. But it's still funny.

And of course, the wider point is that the mere existence of the Uncrustable is something of a human tragedy. There is literally no conceivable excuse for not making your kid a fresh peanut butter and jelly sandwich. You don't bake the bread. You don't make the jelly. You don't grind the nuts. Cutting off the crust literally takes four slices of the knife. And yet, the sneaky subtext is that the Uncrustable is one of Smucker's top sellers - at a price almost surely multiples above a hand made sandwich. I hate getting huffy about conveniences - a frozen pizza has its place on occasion, I guess. But this - I just don't know what to say.

EDIT: I should say that what gets me upset about this is that the PB&J is itself supposed to be the easy way to feed your kid. Of course, that might cut the other way (maybe making the child a fresh sandwich is just a sop to the guilty conscience, much like having you add an egg to a cake mix serves to make people feel like they're cooking), but it still bothers me.

Wal-Mart recently sent a letter to Kevin Brancato asking that he change the title and domain name of his site devoted to "discussing the best and worst of Wal-Mart" -- Always Low Prices. For a list of the specific complaints, take a look at the letter. Kevin (who also heads Truck and Barter, an interesting group blog on economics) discusses the matter here. He writes, in part:

After a year of my blogging about Wal-Mart on ALP, Wal-Mart has had enough. WM has sent its attorneys after me -- to stop me from using their slogan "Always Low Prices", and to scoot me off the alwayslowprices.net domain.

Let me be clear at the outset; there is no scandal here. I am not outraged. This is about business and control of property -- not persecution. Unlike GM, WM did NOT send a goon squad. And though I find many of Wal-Mart's claims spurious, I am not a lawyer, and I will have to consult with my own lawyers before proceeding formally. And though they will tell me to not discuss the matter any further, I think transparency is more important than most lawyers do.

I promise to fight to keep the alwayslowprices.net domain and Always Low Prices name. And I want the blogosphere's help and advice on how to proceed.

I know little about the applicable law, but it seemed worth passing along. Meanwhile, attorney Kevin Heller, who specializes in intellectual property and authors the blog Tech Law Advisor, suggests that Wal-Mart has a good case with respect to the cybersquatting claim.

The Chicago Tribune has a long and flattering story about the Posner/Becker blog. I wonder when blogs will normalize enough that these stories stop, or when blogs will begin countering with long and flattering stories about these regional papers that more people should know about.

Reader Nick Blesch writes in to point out that the cover of Freakonomics (reviewed here) looks suspiciously similar to Logic and its Limits. I assume what we have here is not a case of plagiarism or parody, but probably two artists stealing from some third source.

I'm pleased to welcome PrawfsBlawg to the blogosphere. It's a group blog to consist mostly of junior law profs. Currently, you can find soon to be law profs Dan Markel (Florida State) and Ethan Leib (Hastings) on such topics as The Challenge of Pink Deodorant Blocks in Urinals and A Man's Right to Choose. Best of all, Professor Markel's addition doubles the number of bloggers associated with the Florida State College of Law.