1. It is entirely based on speculation of what is going to happen in the future.

2. The authors have a clear financial (and status based) interest in the outcome.

3. I have a negative opinion of lawyers and universities due to personal experience. (This is, of course, the weakest point by far.)

Speculation on future outcomes is not by itself a bad thing, but when that speculation is formatted like a scientific paper describing an experimental result I immediately feel I am being manipulated by appeal to authority. And the conflict of interest of the authors is about as irrelevant as pointing out that a paper on why Oxycodone is not addictive is paid for by Perdue Pharma. Perhaps Jessica's papers on IP are respected because they do not suffer from these obvious flaws? I owe the author no deference for the quality of her previous writing nor for her status as a professor.