- “CBO Stands By Its Report: Tort Reform Would Save Billions” [ShopFloor; our weekend post on what actually wound up in Reid bill]
- “Indianapolis Tacks on Steep Fines for Challenging Traffic Tickets” [Balko]
- “Fugitive Located Inside Homeland Security Dept. Office” [Lowering the Bar]
- Assumption of risk? New York courts field legal complaints over mosh dance injuries [Hochfelder]
- Company claiming patent on Ajax web technique is suing lots of defendants [W3C, ImVivo via @petewarden]
- Why Arizona voters still back Sheriff Joe [Conor Friedersdorf/Daily Dish, von Spakovsky/NRO (deploring “persecution” of Arpaio), Greenfield]
- “Are Breast Implants and Donated Organs Marital Assets?” [Carton, Legal Blog Watch]
- “Disbarment Looms for First Attorney Convicted Under N.J. Anti-Runner Law” [NJLJ]
Filed under: assumption of risk, chasing clients, Indiana, medical malpractice, patent quality, Phoenix, tort reform, traffic laws
6 Comments
Breast implants, sure. Donated organs, not so much.
I think the implants also qualify as “family recreation”…
Disbarment for conviction under anti-runner law? I tend to think the multiple counts of criminal fraud may be the actual reason.
I agree with Frank- it sounds to me that Mr Seligsohn was a bit of a screw-up. My question- what is a ‘runner’? Please forgive the ignorance- I’m a car electrician, not a lawyer.
?Company claiming patent on Ajax web technique is suing lots of defendants [W3C, ImVivo via @petewarden]
And rightly so. It seems that their patents were subject to 2 reexamination proceedings before the US Patent and Trademark Office and their patents were upheld each time. Also, they won a $565 million dollar judgment against Microsoft for patent infringement in 2004.
If the thieves were stealing tangible items from Eolas Technologies instead of their intellectual property concerning Asynchronous Javascript XML, I don’t think anyone would have a problem with the lawsuits.
VMS,
The Eolas patents are software patents, which many people think should not exist, and whose status is questionable due to the ruling in Bilski. So, no, they aren’t trolls, and they may not be invalid due to prior art etc., but they fall into a problematic category.
[…] Source — Overlawyered.com […]