What is being done here on the basis of what we think is a very over-broad prior restraint is to forbid, in a way that no appellate court has ever upheld before, a distribution of intellectual information, intellectual knowledge, owned by the person who is distributing it.

In any profession, whether it's teachers or doctors or lawyers, the more we say we're not going to evaluate those people on the merits, I think that's when the profession goes into decline.

I win virtually every case I should win, and I win a number of cases that people think I shouldn't.

While I agree completely that attracting good teachers is difficult, and we need to spend more time doing that - in part by paying them more money - I don't think there's any evidence for the idea that somehow tenure attracts good teachers. In fact, I think the evidence is to the contrary.

When you think of Napster, you think of music. But the first thing that struck me was that this was an important case not only for the music industry but for the whole Internet.

I'm a kibitzer with a broad portfolio.