Eric Goldman is not a fan of the parties’ handling of Fancaster v. Comcast, Inc., in which two companies are battling over noncompeting uses of a business name that neither has been able to turn into much of a success. That hasn’t kept them from shoveling a lot of money at lawyers over three and a half years.
Archive for January, 2012
Steals gun, hurts himself with it
But the estate of a Massachusetts man killed in an apparent accident when the gun went off was not allowed to sue the owner and gun manufacturer. [Volokh]
Diploma requirements may violate ADA: EEOC
Requiring a high school diploma of applicants for a given job may improperly screen out those with learning disability, according to the federal agency. I’ve got more at Cato at Liberty. Update: more from EEOC; Hans Bader, CEI.
Defense: Judge’s “Mr. Guilty” slip-up was prejudicial
The defense says a new trial is warranted by an Ontario judge’s advice to jurors that the presumption of innocence “is only defeated if, and when, Crown counsel has satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Guilty – I’m sorry, that Mr. Wilson – is guilty of the crime charged.” [Globe and Mail]
A roadblock to e-readers in schools?
Assisted by a foundation, Baltimore has proposed putting Nook e-reader devices in some school libraries, but a complaint from the National Federation of the Blind says that would violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). [Business Wire]
Gulf spill claimants who didn’t hire lawyers will have to pay them anyway
“Oil giant BP’s $20bn (£13bn) fund to compensate those hit by the Gulf of Mexico spill has been frozen, following a court order that all claimants must share the cost of the legal team leading the action over the disaster – whether or not they pursued their claim through the courts.” [Telegraph]
“If Senator Santorum is a ‘strong supporter of the 10th amendment’…”
“… he might want to read it.” [Jonathan Adler, Volokh Conspiracy]
January 6 roundup
- Senate takes a bathroom break for five minutes, and Obama uses recess appointments to install unconfirmable nominees. Legal? [Roger Pilon via National Right To Work, Richard Epstein, Mark Calabria, Adler link roundup]. What the New York Times thought back then about recess appointments; what it thinks now.
- Pepsi defense: our bottling would have dissolved that dead mouse into something jelly-like [Althouse, MC Record via AW]
- Federal panel proposes slashing definitional thresholds so as to enable diagnosing of hundreds of thousands of new child lead poisoning cases [AP]
- “Appeals Court Rules Husband Can Be Charged Criminally For Reading Wife’s Email” [Doug Mataconis, Outside the Beltway]
- Its original goals accomplished, Voting Rights Act “preclearance” lurches on. SCOTUS should review [Cato amicus brief by Ilya Shapiro and Anna Mackin, further]
- “‘Karma’ Facebook post leads to criminal charges” [Fox Tampa via Balko]
- As senator, Santorum sought extensive new federal powers to regulate pet dealing, scaring many animal rescue groups [NCRAOA, PDF]
Dodd-Frank and conflict minerals: the law’s wide reach
Some expected that the big new SEC regulations on industrial users of tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold would mostly affect electronics and jewelry makers, but the actual net being cast is far wider. Manufacturers in general must investigate the supply chains of their products in order to comply with the disclosure requirements, no small matter at a firm like Kraft with 40,000 products and 100,000 suppliers. (Kraft found that the minerals may turn up in pouch packaging of juice products.) No wonder the SEC’s absurd initial estimates of a mere $70 million economy-wide compliance cost have given way to estimates a hundred times higher or more. In an echo of the infamous CPSIA statute, “the rule provides no de minimis exemption for trace amounts.” [Melissa Maleske, Inside Counsel, earlier here, here, and here] (& Bainbridge)
More: the Dodd-Frank conflict minerals provision and the Democratic Republic of the Congo [Marcia Narine, Conglomerate via Bainbridge]
“The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls”
A new study by James Bessen, Jennifer Ford and Michael J. Meurer in Cato’s Regulation magazine:
This article makes several findings about this litigation [patent litigation by non-practicing entities (NPEs)]. First, by observing what happens to a defendant’s stock price around the filing of a patent lawsuit, we are able to assess the effect of the lawsuit on the firm’s wealth, after taking into account general market trends and random factors affecting the individual stock. We find that NPE lawsuits are associated with half a trillion dollars of lost wealth to defendants from 1990 through 2010. During the last four years, the lost wealth has averaged over $80 billion per year. These defendants are mostly technology companies that invest heavily in R&D. To the extent that this litigation represents an unavoidable business cost to technology developers, it reduces the profits that these firms make on their technology investments. That is, these lawsuits substantially reduce their incentives to innovate.