Watch out if you try to open one — you might risk infringing someone’s “business method” patent. (Chris Hayes, “Snap, Crackle … Patents”, In These Times, Jan. 2)(via Reason “Hit and Run“).
P.S.Victor Serby, in comments, notes what he calls a “glaring factual error” in Hayes’s account and points out that a patent application is a very different thing from a valid patent.
Per Forbes, Sept. 5, p. 118, not online: “Costliest terms per click include ‘Lawyer in Missouri’ ($47) and ‘Auto Accident Lawyer Detroit’ ($46)”. See Apr. 8, 2004, Jan. 5, 2005.
“Former Steamboat Springs [Colo.] resident Kay Sieverding, who has been in jail since September, was released Wednesday after she agreed to dismiss her numerous federal lawsuits.” U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham had ordered Sieverding committed to jail for contempt of court after she continued to file lawsuits he described as “frivolous”, “abusive” and “gibberish”, including refilings of lawsuits she had already lost. “Sieverding has filed lawsuits against not only her former neighbors but also Steamboat Springs officials, the local newspaper, several individual lawyers and the entire Colorado and American Bar Associations, among others. She has filed the lawsuits in Colorado U.S. District Court, and also in federal courts in Illinois, Minnesota, Kansas and the District of Columbia.. …The judge said he will issue an additional order prohibiting Kay Sieverding from filing any more lawsuits, anywhere in the United States, without an attorney or his permission.” (Karen Abbott, “Pledge gets woman out of jail”, Rocky Mountain News, Jan. 5; Alicia Caldwell, “Woman Held Over Lawsuits”, Denver Post, Dec. 19)(via Jonathan B. Wilson, here and here).
An Internet site has begun offering “sports-ticket options.” I’ll let Brad Humphreys’s “Sports Economist” blog explain: “For example, I could currently purchase the option to a ticket to the Final Four to see my alma mater, West Virginia University, for $27. If the Mountaineers make the final four, I would pay the face value of the ticket ($140, according to the web site), plus my $27 option.” Over the course of the season, the market for the option fluctuates, and one can sell or buy it. Here’s the catch: “If the Mountaineers didn’t make the Final Four, my option would be worthless and I would be out $27.” Tom Kirkendall and Tyler Cowen, an exceptionally intelligent lawyer and economist respectively, also comment, as does Wired Magazine.
And, yet, somehow, all three bloggers miss a large point of the exercise: to try to get around the anti-gambling laws. Despite the site’s claim to be merely a market-clearing place, there’s no option available for one to actually offer to sell one’s tickets. So where are the tickets coming from? (In case of the Rose Bowl, from the event itself.) Or going to?: the Wired story never interviews anyone who actually ends up with a ticket. Not to suggest that the site is actually ripping people off—with a 17% commission on every transaction and with the vast majority of options expiring worthless, the site makes more per ticket than any scalper does. A recent Forbes story covers a smaller competitor.
For you securities-law geeks out there, here’s the SEC’s no-action letter. I leave to others whether the site is accurately describing its activities. And, of course, the fact that one agency promises no action with respect to the securities laws is no guarantee that the aggressive Department of Justice will take no action with the gambling laws.
“The Federal Trade Commission is asking a California judge to reject a proposed class-action settlement between consumers and the Internet DVD rental service Netflix, saying the agreement ‘appears dangerously close to being a promotional gimmick.’ … In the proposed settlement, plaintiffs’ lawyers would receive $2.5 million, but the plaintiffs — in this case, the class of current and former Netflix customers — would receive either a free service upgrade for one month or a coupon for free service for one month. However, if customers receiving the freebies do not cancel the upgrades or service before the end of the month is up, Netflix would begin charging them for the extra services.” (Candace Heckman, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Jan. 10). Ted thoroughly examined the defects of the settlement Nov. 3. The commission’s amicus brief is here in PDF format (courtesy Skip Oliva, who comments). Update Jan. 21: settlement delayed because of large number of objections.
We haven’t posted much here on the Supreme Court battle (although Point of Law has had a lot) but here’s a thread for regular readers who may wish to opine one way or the other on it. If you haven’t seen it already, by the way, check out our thread in which regular readers are invited to introduce themselves, currently at 24 comments.
While on the subject of Britain: “A black police bodyguard who protected the Duchess of Cornwall has won [A]$70,000 compensation [roughly U.S. $53,000] after suing Scotland Yard for ‘over-promoting’ him because of political correctness.” Sgt. Leslie Turner’s “representatives argued he landed the prestigious job as Camilla’s bodyguard only because he was black. It was claimed that as a result of being over-promoted and not receiving proper training and support, Sgt Turner made mistakes which led to him being re-assigned….Had Sgt Turner’s case reached a tribunal, potentially embarrassing secrets about Charles and Camilla’s lives may have been aired.” (“Camilla’s protector paid out”, Daily Mail/Melbourne Herald Sun, Jan. 8)(via Taranto). Writes Gary Collard at SarcastiPundit (Jan. 10), “The amazing thing is that it wasn’t a US trial lawyer who first thought of this.”
A list from Britain includes “a bin man who made a claim against his council after being ‘startled’ by a dead badger which fell out of a bag, a shoplifter who sued because she fell down stairs while running from the scene of a crime, and a motorist who claimed he did not see a traffic roundabout in daylight – despite there being a large tree in the middle.” (Patrick Barkham, “The wronged trousers, and other scams”, The Guardian, Jan. 3; “Dubious insurance claims ‘rising'”, BBC, Jan. 2).
…discussed by columnist Ralph Reiland at Point of Law. For more information on the cases, see Overlawyered Oct. 27 (first WTC bombing) and Mar. 27 (settlement for British criminal trespasser).
Orin Kerr refutes Declan McCullagh’s claim (Jan. 10) that Congress has outlawed anonymous Internet communications.
Update: on the other hand, Eugene Volokh remains troubled. For reasons stated in the comments, neither Walter nor I are persuaded by Cal Lanier’s narrow interpretation.