Not according to a federal judge in Louisiana (GamePolitics, Jul. 20). See Jun. 25, etc., etc.
Archive for July, 2006
Great moments in auto regulation
The federal government has decided that automakers may not install one safety option (a front passenger seat airbag turnoff switch, intended to protect kids) unless they also install a second (a child-seat anchor system known as LATCH). Toyota had offered the first but not the second on certain Tundra models, so they did a recall whose point was to eliminate customers’ access to the first option, thus worsening safety for kids riding in front seats. (Peter Valdes-Dapena, “Toyota’s totally bizarre recall”, CNN/Money, Jul. 12). DealBreaker comments: “How badly does the government hate your kids? Bad enough to kill them.” (Jul. 13).
“Don’t lift front of chair while sitting in it”
P.J. O’Rourke writes, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that chair manufacturers feel compelled to tell Americans this”. Later, after a call to a law office about the dangerous folding chair, “The receptionist told me that John Edwards would be over within the hour; meanwhile I might want to start pricing yachts.” Just a satire, folks (“From the editor’s chair”, Weekly Standard, Jul. 31).
Update: Emotional-service dog on nude beach
Mark DelCore, who met with a cool reception from a federal judge at a hearing, says he’s thinking of dropping his lawsuit (see Jul. 14) demanding that his emotional-support dog be admitted to accompany him at a nude beach. The stress occasioned by the proceedings, he says, may be too much for him to press on (Christina Boyle and John Marzulli, “Judge isn’t naked guy’s best friend”, New York Daily News, Jul. 15). (via Ann Althouse, who asks, “Do people who bring frivolous lawsuits ever think about whether their consumption of public resources is worthwhile?”, Jul. 15).
“Something which I would consider akin to child abuse”
For California state senator Deborah Ortiz, that would describe smoking in a car in which a child is present. Writes Brooke Oberwetter at CEI Open Market (Jun. 29): “According to the Contra Costa Times, smokers can be fined under [a bill approved by the committee Ortiz chairs] even if the car is parked and on private property. Clearly California is just a cigarette’s flick away from suggesting banning smoking in private homes: If they can tell you what you can and cannot do in the driveway, is there really much left in terms of precedent to stop them from stepping gingerly up to the front porch and peering in the windows?” A similar bill has already passed the California assembly. (Edwin Garcia, “Bill targets smokers with children”, Contra Costa Times, Jun. 29; Michael Siegel, Jun. 29). Earlier coverage: May 1 and links from there. On the follies of GOP governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, who promoted a similar measure in that state, see The Agitator, Jun. 9.
“Meet the original patent troll”
“Troll was a derivative of, er, me,” says Chicago patent litigator Raymond Niro, a pioneer of contingency-fee IP practice:
Niro’s former partner Gerald Hosier found fame and fortune turning Jerome Lemelson’s patents on bar code technology into a billion-dollar licensing business. But Niro taught the patent world a more enduring lesson: Lemelson isn’t unique. Like an irritating mosquito that GCs can’t squash, Hosier’s licensing approach could be applied over and over again, on different patents across different industries for huge profits. Niro has extracted royalties on everything from patents covering hemodialysis catheters to wireless technology used to locate items of interest in online maps. In the process, he’s made some serious royalties of his own: a Falcon 10 jet, six Ferraris, acres of land in Chicago, Boca Raton and Aspen, and a $250,000 gift to DePaul University endowing the Raymond P. Niro professorship in intellectual property law…. Love him or hate him, Niro’s methods have become ingrained in the patent world.
(Lisa Lerer, IP Law & Business/Law.com, Jul. 20).
I’m interviewed at Bloggasm.com
At Bloggasm, “a media blog featuring interviews from the most interesting blogs around,” Simon Owens asks me six questions about the law and about this weblog generally. My favorite is on the difference between writing books and writing a blog. You’ll also hear my suggestions when asked to name five blogs that complement this one. Read the whole interview here.
“L.A.’s scariest lawyer”
In the New Yorker, Ken Auletta profiles entertainment lawyer Bertram Fields, whose name has turned up regularly in the Anthony Pellicano scandal and whom Auletta dubs the “most feared lawyer in Hollywood”. A snippet (via Lattman): “his pugnacity frightens opponents. One Fields client says, ‘If he’s on the other side, he’s a nightmare. He going to make your life miserable. Someone who actually enjoys beating people up, there’s something wrong with them. But when you hire a litigator you want a p***k.'”
On the radio
Yesterday I was a guest on two radio shows. I joined Ron Smith on Baltimore’s WBAL to discuss my article, just out, on the lawsuit against MySpace for failing to chaperone a teenage user. And I joined Grover Norquist on his Rightalk broadcast to talk about the politics of liability reform.
Althouse on YouTube lawsuit
The Wisconsin lawprof has this to say (Jul. 19) on that copyright-infringement lawsuit that we mentioned in passing yesterday, the one aimed at the hit site for hosting a video of the beating of Reginald Denny:
Robert Tur, who could have just asked YouTube to remove the video someone had uploaded, instead left it there and then sued demanding $150,000 for each of the 1,000+ viewings that occurred. YouTube took the video down when the lawsuit called attention to the problem.
Well, we knew eventually someone would sue YouTube, but could it be anyone less sympathetic then a guy who once got lucky and was there with a camera when someone else was getting beaten up?
More in her comments section.