It was his own fault. He shouldn’t have given in to temptation. IP Draughts saw the question on Twitter from Alison Frankel. She is interviewing Bryan Garner today, as part of a larger Thomson Reuters event that includes an interview with him and Scalia J at the Carnegie Hall in New York tomorrow, about their book, Reading Law.
The question was: “I’m interviewing Black’s Law editor, Bryan Garner Monday for Reuters. Tweet me questions you want me to ask. (no Posner stuff please!)”
IP Draughts asked: “Why does the US legal profession use 10 words when 1 will do, in contract drafting?” As a diligent lawyer (but perhaps not a Twitter expert) he followed this question up with some further tweets, citing as evidence some IP assignment wording that he has seen more than once, with variations, in US templates:
A grants, bargains, sells, conveys, assigns, sets over and delivers the Trademarks to B.
Why, IP Draughts asked, doesn’t this wording omit “grants, bargains, sells, conveys, sets over and delivers” and simply use the verb “assigns”. So far, IP Draughts’ original tweet has been re-tweeted 4 times, and favourited twice, prompting Ms Frankel to respond: “Okay, okay. Promise to ask Bryan Garner why US lawyers are so (needlessly?) prolix”
The irony is not lost on IP Draughts that his 16 word question has been reduced to 6 or 7 words in Ms Frankel’s redrafting.
Bryan Garner has already provided an answer to the question in another tweet: “…because lawyers are overcautious, lazy & unskillful.” Another twitterspondent, Ryan Kellus Turner, has opined: “Similar to the breeding of pit bulls, tradition and training”.
IP Draughts looks forward to reading whether the question is asked, and what the answer may be.
Meanwhile, here is an answer to the age-old question (and joke), how do I get to the Carnegie Hall?