I got two soundbites; when I didn't give the reporter what he wanted for his preconceived story (I disagreed that business was doing especially well in the Supreme Court), it just ended up on the cutting room floor.

I just gave an interview about the upcoming Supreme Court term which will result in a soundbite Monday morningish.

Finland: "Theodore H. Frank johtaa Legal Center for the Public Interestiä, joka kuuluu American Enterprise Instituteen. Hän pyrkii kumoamaan tapauksen sovittelun, jota ei ole vielä lopullisesti hyväksytty."

Norway: "Det ser derfor mørkt ut for hele søksmålet. Trolig er det, på tross av de over to tusen klagene, for lite til å kreve at Take Two skal gi fra seg noe av fortjenesten de har hatt med GTA: San Andreas. Advokaten Theodore H. Frank, som er ekspert på private søksmål mener saksøkerne nå har to muligheter.

- Enten kan de satse på å gå til sak og vinne gjennom slik at de får dekket sine utgifter. Den andre muligheten, som jeg anser for mest sannsynlig, er at de har tatt på seg en verdiløs sak som aldri skulle hvert tatt for retten i første hånd, sier han, ifølge New York Times."

Update: also Netherlands: "Het optreden van de advocaten, er waren in totaal tien kantoren bij de class action betrokken, in deze zaak wordt bekritiseerd. Theodore Frank, advocaat en directeur van het Legal Centre for the Public Interest van de American Enterprise Institute, meent dat er onvoldoende grondslag was voor het aanbrengen van de zaak. Dat is ook de stelling van de uitgevers."

In the DC Examiner.

Not entirely thrilled with the slant, but I'm extensively quoted in the Chicago Tribune, and I even had another sentence in the quote in an earlier edition.

Also: lots of GTA coverage on blogs and in the news. The game of telephone is fascinating; the Times made a minor error in summarizing events, and the blog coverage repeating the Times summary confused all sorts of issues. It's not just the amateur gaming bloggers getting things wrong: a short piece on the Wired website had at least five errors in as many paragraphs.

Leaving New York Wednesday, it took me 40 minutes to get from Lexington to 9th Avenue going down 37th Street, which is supposed to be an express cross-town street. It was because movie trucks were blocking most of the street; they were filming on 38th Street.

But thumbs up on Chinese Mirch (28th & Lex), which is a wonderful, if New-York-priced Chinese-Indian fusion restaurant.

Press coverage has been interesting: the New York Times got a tiny detail wrong, and it's fascinating to see all of the other press coverage that is clearly getting its information from rewriting the Times story (and repeating the mistake, and often exacerbating it as in a game of telephone) rather than original reporting. Wired, in particular, botched the story, as has the Guardian.

I can't see the video (it was a phone interview anyway) , but here's a transcript. I discuss Exxon Shipping v. Baker, expected to come down today.

Yes, the five seconds they quoted me didn't leave them time to flash my name on the screen. They left my name off. As well as any supporting detail to show that this wasn't just ipse dixit. But they did have music and flashy graphics. This is why I don't watch tv news.

Double-windsor knot courtesy of Slim.

Corrections and Clarifications: "The name of Ted Frank of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research was spelled incorrectly on page 1A Saturday in an article about a credit card lawsuit. Frank also was incorrectly quoted as saying updated legislation concerning credit card disclosure information is a step in the right direction because Congress did not cap the damages for a class-action suit. The story should have said Frank believes the updated legislation has problems because Congress did not cap damages, but that it was a step in the right direction."

Wow, I didn't realize I wasn't just in Saturday's paper, I was on the front page of Saturday's paper. Albeit with my name spelled wrong.