You convince people by confirming that what they believe about the world is true.

One of the most difficult things to convince law students of is that law is not merely the application of law to facts. Students start out believing that learning law is learning the rules that will answer whatever questions arise. Some students never get past that idea. The ones who become good lawyers do.

There are instances in which there are clear rules that are easy to apply. But if that were the whole of the law, we wouldn’t need lawyers, and law students certainly wouldn’t have to pay $45,000 a year for three years to earn a law degree.

Instead, convincing someone that your view of the law is the correct one requires not only finding and applying the correct rule but also in convincing whomever you are trying to convince that the rule and your interpretation of it make sense, are just, are convincing at a gut level. If you can’t do that, you’ll never become a good lawyer.

An inability to get over the stumbling block posed by the desire for a legal system consisting of clear rules that answer every conceivable question, of course, is not confined to some law students. As Jon Krakauer explains in Under the Banner of Heaven, “literalism” — the conviction that there are rules set forth in hallowed texts (which need not be religious, as strains of constitutional “originalism” demonstrate) that answer all the important questions one encounters makes people resistant to the idea that answering the tough questions requires a considerable amount of creativity, acknowledgement of ambiguity, and sensitivity to situational specifics:

For people . . . who view existence through the narrow lens of literalism, the language in certain select documents is assumed to possess extraordinary power. Such language is to be taken assiduously at face value, according to a single incontrovertible interpretation that makes no allowance for nuance, ambiguity, or situational contingencies. As Vincent Crapanzano observes in his book Serving the Word, [this] brand of literalism encourages a closed, usually (though not necessarily) politically conservative view of the world: one with a stop-time notion of history and a we-and-they approach to people, in which we are possessed of truth, virtue, and goodness and they of falsehood, depravity, and evil. It looks askance at figurative language, which, so long as its symbols and metaphors are vital, can open—promiscuously in the eyes of the strict literalist—the world and its imaginative possibilities.

Perhaps this is why literalism rarely carries long-term appeal in a functioning democracy. The majority cannot be convinced for very long without the use of force that there is good reason for elevating the particular hallowed text (much less the literalists particular reading of that text) above all other “reasons.”

I’m reminded of these things by the TED talk embedded below, in which Simon Sinek explains that success in realms as diverse as commerce, invention, and social change depend on making the why of what you do your principle focus.

Thus, in the commercial world, for example, people don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it. Nevertheless, companies and people typically sell their product or services by explaining what they do and how they do it. They don’t typically even know why they do what they do, and they certainly don’t explain it well.

But the most successful people sell first and foremost why they do what they do. Apple, for example, explains they do what they do to challenge authority. They explain what they do as designing beautiful products that are easy to use. What do they do? They happen to sell computers. That message convinces buyers in ways the typical computer seller’s approach — (1) we sell computers, (2) we make them user friendly — does not.

Simek explains the phenomenon in market terms: the only way to get the majority of consumers to buy a new product or service is to first convince innovators and early adopters, and those people are only persuaded by the conviction they share the seller’s convictions.

But his message about the market is one applicable in all contexts in which one is trying to convince an audience:

People buy what they buy to confirm what they believe about the world.

This American Life tells the story of a “patent troll.”

NPR reporter Laura Sydell and This American Life producer/Planet Money co-host Alex Blumberg tell the story of Intellectual Ventures, which is accused of being the largest of the “patent trolls,” a derogatory term in Silicon Valley for companies that amass huge troves of patents and make money by threatening lawsuits:

Interview with me on News of the World scandal and its US implications

Charon QC, a UK lawyer (“after a fashion” – his words), interviewed me yesterday about the News of the World scandal and its potential legal and political implications for Murdoch in the U.S.

Bo Diddley: You Can’t Judge a Book by the Cover

Justice is too expensive: photography and public art this time.

As a lawyer, I am of course very invested in my belief in our justice system, but one thing is abundantly clear: it is too expensive. The prohibitive expense of vindicating one’s rights tilts the entire system in favor of those with wealth. Copyright is a field rife with illustrations of this principle, but it is a problem that permeates the entire system. And now we have another example. As I wrote in February 2010, photographer Mike Hipple was sued by sculptor Jack Mackie over the photo Hipple took about 10 years ago of a woman standing near the “Dance Steps on Broadway” sculpture in Seattle’s Capitol Hill. (Hipple’s photo is below and to the right.)

Now comes word from Hipple that he has decided to settle the case. Why? Because, though he continues to believe in the legitimacy of his position, it is not worth it financially to go to trial:

I am writing to let you know that I have settled Jack Mackie’s copyright claim against me. I believe I have good defenses but have come to understand that he has good claims. I also believe now that the financial stakes are such that it is not worth continuing to fight.

I understand Jack Mackie’s ardent desire to protect his copyright in Dance Steps on Broadway. I, too, want to protect my own photography copyrights. Mr. Mackie’s Dance Steps is a Seattle icon and a well known work. I understand why he is so protective. I did not intend to attack his copyright when I took my photo, and I did not realize then that selling a photograph which includes part of a copyrighted public artwork can violate that copyright.

I did not intend, in defending myself in the lawsuit, to attack Mr. Mackie personally. I intend to let this matter go and urge my supporters to do the same.

I can, of course, let this matter go. It would be difficult to push hard against a client’s decision to settle such a case given the costs and risks of pursuing it through trial and, possibly, appeal. But the larger issue is one that I can’t let go.

First, I do not see what benefit there is to anyone in allowing Mackie to stop Hipple from making and selling his photographs. And, of course, I also agree with Hipple that the photo constitutes fair use of the sculptures image. Why? Because the photo stands on its own as a creative work. Hipple has taken a work embedded in a sidewalk in front of a public building and made it into a beautiful image that evokes both dance and confusion in a world full of complicated instructions seemingly sending us in a myriad of different directions. I don’t know how often I can say it: art builds on art. Culture builds on culture. And the sooner we ease up on our madness to monetize everything the sooner we’ll be sane.

The Only Ones: The Whole of the Law

Please be a supporter of Geniocity, the Magazine of Creativity & Innovation

Help give creativity a news outlet on the Internet! Please contribute to Geniocity.com, The Magazine of Creativity & Innovation, on Kickstarter.