We’re lawyers. We present the arguments, and the court sorts out the merits.

We’re now segregating our schools based on economics; we’re segregating our schools based on where a child‘s parents live. And it has the same corrosive effect of destroying people‘s opportunity as racial segregation did.

We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost.

You wouldn’t go to a hospital, you wouldn’t go to a law firm where the doctors and lawyers were not retained on merit: where they all had tenure regardless of competence. Parents feel the same way about schools that they send their children to.

It was important for the Supreme Court to say it’s a matter of constitutional law that everyone is equal, to say everyone is entitled to the dignity that comes from being married to the person you love.

The Audio Home Recording Act directly says that noncommercial copying by consumers is lawful.

We must bring the rule of law to its full fruition in the United States, and when we do, we will have achieved the goals and rhetoric of our Founding Fathers.

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.

It’s a matter of priorities. Do you want to win, or would you like to sleep? Do you want to win, or would you like to take a day off?

It is human nature to favor individuals and institutions who we know or for whom we feel responsible.

The very purpose of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is to protect minority rights against majority voters. Every court decision that strikes down discriminatory legislation, including past Supreme Court decisions, affirming the fundamental rights to marry the person you love, overrules a majority decision.

It is easy to be accurate if you have the freedom to be complicated, and it is very easy to be simple if you have the freedom to shade the truth. What’s hard is to be simple and very accurate, and that takes work to figure out what are the simple truths that are going to sustain your case.

Napster‘s only alleged liability is for contributory or vicarious infringement. So when Napster’s users engage in noncommercial sharing of music, is that activity copyright infringement? No.

Here you have a new technology, and if that technology is going to work, you must allow people to provide central indexes of the data. It’s just like a newspaper that publishes classified ads.

Obviously Im a lawyer; I like to have cases.

I made a penny for each paper delivered every day, plus 2 cents for Sunday papers. I had 120 customers. For a 10-year-old kid in the 1940s, that was a lot of money.

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.

Obviously I’m a lawyer; I like to have cases.

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

My question is what non-Microsoft browsers were you concerned about in January of 1996.

Most people are balancing 10 or 20 priorities. I have two. My family and my work.

Once I take a case, I’m stuck with it.