Absolutely unfair, unjust & frankly, ridiculous way to couch the concepts of "tenets" & "reversals rate (feedback from within her own world of practice).
Tenets or a tenet is a PRINCIPLE and/or a BELIEF. I can't help but be reminded of the oft repeated "but it's the principle that counts"...
To say, as I have just read you to say, in so many words, that it is a principle and/or belief within the realm of jurisprudence, that they are, in an overarching way, ABOVE REPROACH! To do so is TOTALLY throwing the system of law under the bus! It makes a complete mockery of the real TENET of "justice is blind". And, IF TRUE, makes moot any chance of the legsl system to see that "all will come out in the wash" or "eventually, justice will be done". Those TENETS cannot exist if judges & their rulings are ABOVE REPROACH. Obviously, the justice system is far from perfect & has lots of flaws, but it is not by any means considered to be ABOVE REPROACH. No doubt there are many judges with far higher reversal rates as well as admonishnents, slaps on the ass & even banishment. Koh does not seem to be one of them. And right or wrong as she may or may not be... (again, I'm not a koh fan), my limited perusal of her experience in IP law & practice, seems to show her to be very experienced in that aspect, applying her resume to IP law, in general. The recent reference I saw, which said that HARVARD Law school is turning out idiots (esp on the doctorate level), is to me a moronic notion.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
