Kathleen Lu
kathleenthelaw.bsky.social
Kathleen Lu
@kathleenthelaw.bsky.social
Artisanal content moderator

Product lawyer, tech lawyer, copyright lawyer

She/her
Disability accommodations aren't unfair; they are, at the purpose level, supposed to increase fairness. Dismissing fairness concerns rather than addressing them head on concedes the narrative and is a poor persuasive tactic.
December 3, 2025 at 7:59 PM
Reposted by Kathleen Lu
I understand why Prof. Goldman didn't link to (or recommend reading) this paper. But I've also seen firsthand how the mere existence of this piece is being used to suggest that there is a serious, live academic debate about the #ScheduleA litigation model. There is not. Go ahead, see for yourself:
Beyond the Brick-and-Mortar Paradigm: The Legal and Procedural Foundations of Schedule A Litigation in Combating Online Counterfeiting as Distinct from Traditional Trademark Enforcement
<p>This Article analyzes the emergence and evolution of Schedule A litigation as a procedural mechanism for combating online trademark counterfeiting. In respon
papers.ssrn.com
December 3, 2025 at 1:02 PM
Reposted by Kathleen Lu
Side note: There will soon be more actual academic literature! I invited every academic I know with any interest in Schedule to contribute to this forthcoming symposium issue. I didn't vet anyone's topic or demand any sort of artificial "balance." I just found smart people & gave them space.
Unsealing "Schedule A" - Chicago-Kent Law Review
2025 Chicago-Kent Law Review Online Live Symposium Symposium Editor Sarah Fackrell, Chicago-Kent College of Law Chicago–Kent College of Law September 26, 2025 | 10:00 am – 3:45 pm (CST) Contact: Colle...
studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu
December 3, 2025 at 1:41 PM
Reposted by Kathleen Lu
What’s most stunning to me about this that Republicans always do this. They always crush the economy and put people out of work. It’s been happening my entire life. Yet, Americans continue to vote them in after Dems clean up each mess.
December 3, 2025 at 2:04 PM
Reposted by Kathleen Lu
I have to say, when I read this 22% quote I was skeptical. That just seemed REALLY high. My first thought was: "What was the methodology of the underlying survey?"

Turns out that, even if the methodology was fine, this empirical assertion is simply not supported by the citation.
"A 2023 A-CAPP Center Consumer Survey noted that, in the U.S., 22% of online shoppers were injured or harmed and another 19% experienced negative health effects from counterfeit goods they had purchased." - papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

No, it didn't. a-capp.msu.edu/wp-content/u...
December 3, 2025 at 2:34 PM