Lott v. Levitt: Reply Filed

The defendants filed their reply memorandum today. A passage relevant to the blogosphere's discussion of the case:

While scholars and academics may certainly have read Freakonomics, the Excerpt appears in the context of a book whose audience consists of mainstream readers and consumers, as demonstrated by the fact that Freakonomics has been on the New York Times bestseller list for over a year. Therefore, while Plaintiff goes on at length to explain [the Excerpt's meaning] in the eyes of an academic  ... a reasonable reader in the general population would not necessarily attribute Plaintiff's academic-specific meaning to the term "replicate."

(Reply Memorandum at 5-6.) The defendants did not really fight over the academic meaning of replication, either here or in the earlier filings. That battle was confined to the blogs.

Now, it's the court's turn.

Comments

[Ed Darrell]

It would be nice if you could develop some convention here about linking to past posts on a case. Coming to this case cold as I did today, it takes a bit to figure out who the parties are, what the issue is -- and I still don't know exactly what Lott alleged in the original complaint.

Perhaps you could consolidate in one post all these key links, and then link back to that post when something new happens.

[Ed Darrell]

When I read that line in Freakonomics the first time, I thought it was marvelously crafted to avoid saying Lott fudged it. I thought it gave much more credence to Lott than most journalists would. Interesting to learn now it is an issue in a lawsuit.

[William Ford]

Ed, currently all the Lott v. Levitt posts are collected in the "current affairs" category. I'll try to get them all into a "Lott v. Levitt" category, which will be more obvious.

[William Ford]

I just added all of my previous posts to a new "Lott v. Levitt" category.