May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates

Skip To Content

MIPTC Author:

Bookstore:


Listed in Latino Who's Who, June 2014
 Attorney
Locations of visitors to this page

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


Quote of the Day - Blogs give the small person a voice. - Dave Miller
Adjust font size: A A+ A++
Claim Your Profile on Avvo
There are 2033 Journal Items on 255 page(s) and you are on page number 67

Blawgworld 2007 Up, Running And Available For Download

If you're looking for everything blawgging, then you might want to check out Blawgworld 2007.  It's a compilation of some 77 blogs and their posts, all in one, handy-dandy downloadable book.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 16:23. Comments Closed (0) |

I STRENUOUSLY Object, Your Honor! - Oh, Make That HEAVILY Object

Trial attorneys know it makes little difference to a judge whether you object in court or STRENUOUSLY object.  In fact, I once saw a judge respond to the STRENUOSLY objecting lawyer that he was STRENUOUSLY overruled.

You get the point.

Apparently, the Ninth Circuit doesn't see it that way.  The Court ruled that where the amount of drugs in issue in a case can be HEAVILY disputed, it's improper to prevent the defendant from having a forensic expert testify about the quantity in issue.  The outcome will affect the length of the defendant's sentence.

Now I know.  Instead of STRENUOUSLY objecting, I'll have to HEAVILY object next time.



Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 17:08. Comments Closed (0) |

The Seven-point Personal Information Technology Property Manifesto

We've set up an entire statutory and regulatory scheme for various types of intellectual property such as patents, trademarks and copyrights.  You can protect your inventions, your designs and slogans and even your ideas.  Perhaps within these three levels of protection you can protect your personal information technology property, but unless you register it, no go.  There's no such thing as a common law copyright - it was eliminated back in 1834, just in case you were wondering.

What  do I mean by "Personal Information Technology Property?"

Think about  scope of the electronic things you create:  personal websites, Facebook, My Space, videos on You Tube, Flickr photographs, text messaging, avatars on Second Life, Linden dollars, characters on World of Warcraft and a myriad of other online games, electronic money and other video game possessions, e-mail, blog entries, commentary, and a host of other new technological property that hasn't even been invented yet.  Sure, you can register each of these things with either the US Patent & Trademark Office or the US Copyright Office, but have you?

I suspect not.

Once you post videos, films, songs, audio, photographs and words online without registration, you lose just about any type of protection you could have secured for these items.  About the only type of online protection exists for these things is the voluntary Creative Commons licenses created by Stanford Professor Lawrence Lessig, but in order to enforce those licenses, you still have to put notice of them online, register your copyright with the US Copyright Office and go to court.

But the Creative Commons licenses apply to what most of us would consider "works" - videos, photos, words, audio and other recognizably protected creations.  Even Creative Commons, however, hasn't stretched into the world of Technology Property of avatars, electronic items such as e-money, video game possessions, text messaging and email.

Even so, do you want to protect these things?  Are they really that valuable?

If you have any doubt, then just look at the thousands of hours people devote to amassing possessions in online video games, creating avatars and sending emails, just to name a few "valuables." 

It's about time we started thinking about these "possessions" and "creations" and developed a way to protect them.  After all, what happens to them when you die?  Can you transfer them to someone else?  Can you sell them?

People have and people are, all without guidance.  It's just a matter of time before someone gets upset and sues. 

Oh, you say that's already happened?  Of course it has.  As just one example in the extreme, there's the lawsuit over the guy who allegedly stole the "sex code" in Second Life, created a strikingly similar version and now underselling its original creator.  Even Creative Commons recommends you don't apply that license to code - the nonprofit recommends instead that you register it directly with the US Copyright Office. 

All of these questions create the need for accountants, lawyers and legislators to figure out how to handle this new Personal Information Technology Property, Web 2.0 and the yet-to-be-created technology just around the corner.  So here's MIPTC's proposal, open to improvement and suggestions:

1.     PITP includes all forms of personal information technology created by an individual on a computer, mobile telephone, camera or other technological device, including, but not limited to words, photographs, video, audio, text, characters (avatars), electronic possessions (money or similar representations or valuables obtained in online games), e-mail, text messages or combinations of the above in formats such as websites.  PITP includes similar personal information technology not yet invented or created.

2.      PITP is the property of the creator, and does not transfer ownership by virtue of its online presence. If you are the recipient of Technology Property sent to you by its creator, then you have the rights to view and retransmit it.  If you are the viewer of Technology Property, then you have a license to view it.  In both cases, your rights may be restricted by its creator, but in any event, you may not profit from the creator's PITP without permission or further license from the creator.

3.     PITP may be patented, trademarked or copyrighted, but registration is not required to constitute PITP.

4.     PITP constitutes a personal property asset, and as such may be insured, licensed, restricted, sold, transferred and otherwise willed to others or disposed of in the same manner as other personal property under state law.

5.     PITP does not lose its characterization as personal property through its creator's failure to use it after creation. 

6.     PITP remains the personal property of its creator despite the creator's or others posting it online in any format.  The creator or recipients may agree to give up the creator's ownership rights via notice in an End User License Agreement or other similar online notice.  A posting by a Viewer does not operate to extinguish a creator's ownership.

7.      The loss of PITP may be compensated by:  (a) restoring the property to its creator; (b) and removing it from its unauthorized online location; (c) attributing the PITP to the creator on the online location; or, (d) recompense of the creator's actual loss.  No future losses or prospective loss of profits may be recovered.  [Author's note:  to obtain future losses and expected profits, register the property with the USPTO or USCO]. 

So there they are.  Please add your own, suggest changes and comment away.  The concept could use improvement.



Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 14:25. Comments Closed (0) |

MIPTC's Restaurant Review: San Francisco's Ducca

MIPTC took a trip to San Francisco this weekend to present a seminar on "Ethics Issues In Environmental Law" at the CLE International California Climate Change Law Conference.  On the way to our hotel on Third Street in the late evening, we walked by an opening in the giant buildings along the sidewalk that led into a grassy, park-like courtyard with art sculptures, soft chairs, clinking glasses, heaters and an outside movie. 

And a view.  What a view.  The backdrop to this oasis in The City is the building sculpture otherwise known as the Marriott Hotel.  At night, with those lights in the sky, it is a simply stunning sight.

Flanking the entrance near the Yerba Buena district are banner-sized drawings of the Doge of Venice and his wife hearkening from the times of Catherine Medici.  It's your first clue of the spectacular nature of this Venetian-Italian restaurant that takes pride in its four versions of copper forks, reminiscent of a time when the rest of Europe was still licking its fingers. As historians know, forks and glassware were first used on the Venetian table.  Ducca's historical acknowledgement is just a subtle signal that this restaurant is special.

And special it is.

Once inside, it's obvious Ducca (pronounced "Duke-a") is much more than a restaurant.  Its trendy bar and circular lounge is THE place to see and be seen.  The lounge's centerpiece, a sparkling red, glass-blown chandelier sets the mood for fun and drinks, with plenty of spice thrown in.  Once past the bar, the restaurant opens with floor-to-ceiling translucent, silk-screened partitions of the doge and his wife separating the lounge from the dining room.  Warmly greeted by the hostess, we first sat in the back corner of the stunningly decorated restaurant. 

Then General Manager Joel Kelly made it a special evening for us.  After a barnburner of a day, a delayed flight, late arrival and not much more than the wearied looks on our faces, he escorted us from our first table into Ducca's private dining room, set up a two-top and closed the glass doors, silencing the lively conversations at the nearby tables.  Soft browns and tans, white linen tablecloths and impeccable service greeted us throughout the lovely evening.  Oh yes, and the food, especially for us, since we eat out more than in.

MMMmmm, the food.

Heaven on plates is about the only way I can describe it.  Everything, from the freshly warmed bread to the sumptuous dessert was simply delicious.  Hats off to Ducca.  This writer's recommendation?  You haven't been to San Francisco if you haven't had drinks and dinner at Ducca.

Go here for the time of your life:  Ducca, 50 Third Street, San Francisco, CA 94103.  Phone:  415.977.0271.  And say hi to Joel for MIPTC.



Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Saturday, August 25, 2007 at 14:11. Comments Closed (2) |

Lawyer 2 Lawyer Internet Radio Takes A Swing And Examines Baseball's Home Runs

Steroids scandals, home-run balls, suing for slander-Baseball has become a hotbed of legal activity.  On this week's Lawyer 2 Lawyer, please join me and my fellow Law.com blogger and co-host Robert Ambrogi, as we discuss what is new in Baseball Law, the reputation of Major League Baseball and preferential treatment of baseball players.

Lawyer 2 Lawyer welcomes two of the world's leading experts on baseball and the law, Professor Paul Finkelman, from Albany Law School in Albany, N.Y., and Professor Howard Wasserman, Visiting Associate Professor of Law at St. Louis University School of Law and Associate Professor of Law at the Florida International University School of Law, who is also a contributor to "Sports Law Blog."



Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Friday, August 24, 2007 at 14:51. Comments Closed (0) |

What Blogs Do Judges Read?

The National Judicial College magazine, Case In Point, published an article in its Spring/Summer 2007 edition entitled:  "Are You Out There? Blogging On The Bench" by Heather Singer, NJC Communications Specialist.  The article features blogs that judges write, and blogs that judges read.  MIPTC is honored to be on the short list of blogs in the article, which include:

Becker/Posner Blog

Say What?!

Underneath Their Robes, now posted un-anonymously at Above The Law

A Criminal Waste of Space 

SCOTUSblog

As the Island Floats

Have Opinion Will Travel

Sentencing Law and Policy

Court Watch

Bench Conference

Blonde Justice

Grits for Breakfast

Anonymous Lawyer

How Appealing

Law Blog Metrics (formerly 3L Epiphany)

Courthouse Forum

Indefensible

Jurist Paper Chase

The Volokh Conspiracy

Instapundit

Blawg Review

May It Please The Court



Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 00:05. Comments Closed (0) |

Patent Infringement Cases Take Two Turns To The Right

The Federal Circuit took a swipe at patent law and changed one point of law and clarified another in the case of In Re Seagate Technology, LLC.

Back in 1983 in another patent case, the Federal Circuit established a test for willfulness (a finding that can double damage awards) that to the court sitting now sounded "akin to negligence." 

Setting the bar higher, the federal court held:  "[T]o establish willful infringement, a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. . . . The state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to this objective inquiry.  If this threshold objective standard is satisfied, the patentee must also demonstrate that this objectively-defined risk (determined by the record developed in the infringement proceeding) was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer."

The pendulum swings further away from easy damage awards.

The Court also caused all patent litigation counsel, including this one, to let out a huge sigh of relief.  The court ruled the attorney work-product privilege of litigation counsel cannot be examined by plaintiff's counsel when the client asserts the "advice of counsel" defense to avoid a charge of willfulness.  The Tivo v. Echostar standard of allowing access to the attorney work-product of opinion counsel still stands.  It's fair game to examine the backup for opinion counsel.

Just don't mix the two up.  Keep the attorney who provides the opinion that the alleged patent infringement wasn't willful separate from the attorney who will defend the patent infringement case. 



Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 21:47. Comments Closed (0) |

Surprise: California Can Regulate Itself

South Coast AQMD Limits Air Emissions Of State And Local Fleets

We've seen this case beforeEngine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Maintenance District.  It's been up, down and all around the court system and appellate ladder, all the way to the Supreme Court and back again.  In the latest iteration, the government wins.  In previous versions, businesses won.

But it's far from over.  We're going to see more of this case because the Ninth Circuit sent part of it back to the lower court.

The SCAQMD is trying to regulate vehicle emissions by attacking fleets of cars and trucks of 15 or more, rules that are now seven years old and haven't been implemented yet.  As noted in the Court's opening lines, the South Coast Basin is the only area in the United States classified by the US Environmental Protection Agency as an extreme non-attainment area for ozone.

The question before the Ninth Circuit (this time) revolves around preemption.  Can the SCAQMD regulate fleets of vehicles or is that task solely left to the USEPA under the federal Clean Air Act? 

The Ninth Circuit decided that the SCAQMD can regulate state and local government fleets with these rules.  The part of the case that went back to the lower court requires a reexamination of the preemption issue as it relates to private fleets.  There's a doctrine of law that applies to the state and its local governments when they act as a market participant instead of a regulator, with certain limitations.  Here, the SCAQMD elected to force other branches of the government to fall within its emission regulations when it went to the auto and truck market to purchase cars. 

State sovereignty allows the state to regulate itself and local governments within a state.  The open question, however, is whether the SCAQMD can also regulate private fleets given the breadth of the federal Clean Air Act. 

More to follow.  Film at 11 (years from now).



Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 21:53. Comments Closed (0) |



Page:  << Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67 68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  149  150  151  152  153  154  155  156  157  158  159  160  161  162  163  164  165  166  167  168  169  170  171  172  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  182  183  184  185  186  187  188  189  190  191  192  193  194  195  196  197  198  199  200  201  202  203  204  205  206  207  208  209  210  211  212  213  214  215  216  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  235  236  237  238  239  240  241  242  243  244  245  246  247  248  249  250  251  252  253  254  255  Next >>

Back to top.