Another one has been filed, but in this case voluntarily dismissed, says Eric Goldman (Jun. 5).
Posts Tagged ‘tech through 2008’
Computer game design overtime claims
Electronic Arts has agreed to pay $15 million to settle a lawsuit brought on behalf of software engineers alleging that they should have been classified as hourly workers for purposes of paying overtime, but the “victory” is of a double-edged nature since the beneficiaries will lose access to stock options as well as bonuses. Earlier, EA agreed to pay $16 million to settle overtime claims on behalf of graphic artists. (Nicole C. Wong, A&E Interactive (Mercury News), Apr. 25). See Mar. 29, 2000; also various Point of Law posts.
Cat defense fails: Morgan Stanley v. Meow
Via Matt Marcotte, a squatter’s attempt to avoid dispossession of the mymorganstanleyplatinum domain name by registering it in the name of his cat failed when the arbitrator noted that cats are unable to read or write. Morgan Stanley v. Meow (May 22, 2006).
“The Best Little Courthouse in Texas”
Blawg Review #56 at Point of Law
Ted and I join with Jim Copland, Larry Ribstein, Tom Kirkendall, and Sam Munson this morning as co-hosts of the week’s traveling carnival of law-related blogs, Blawg Review, over at Point of Law. A very few highlights:
* Ted comments on the self-unmasking of pseudonymous blogger “Juan Non-Volokh”, on various matters connected with Joe DiMaggio. and on Howard Bashman’s Stakhanovite work pace.
* Jim discusses the tax consequences for plaintiffs of confidentiality agreements in settlements, via Evan Schaeffer’s other weblog; a new way for the plaintiff’s securities bar to get around PSLRA; and a Court TV reality show set in New York City’s real-life night court.
* Larry, Tom and Sam round up posts on corporate law, on the Enron trial and other prosecutorial matters, and on a variety of subjects including law review style.
* And I discuss an on-the-job love triangle that eventuated in a Title VII lawsuit alleging sex discrimination; liability headaches for online enterprises and software manufacturers; the case in which the Cleveland bar association is trying to get a dad penalized for unauthorized practice of law after he successfully represented his own son in special-ed proceedings; Long Island legislator Jeffrey Toback’s demagogic suit against Google for allegedly interfering with children, as dissected by Eric Goldman; and the fast-rising number of cases filed under ERISA, the federal pension and employee-benefits statute.
It’s all here. Next week’s Blawg Review will be hosted by Lawyerlike.
Copyright protection for fashion?
The Council of Fashion Designers of America is pushing legislation slated for introduction by Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.) that would allow fashion innovators to sue competitors who knock off their distinctive look (as distinct from passing off goods under a false trademark, which is already uncontroversially actionable). What next — copyright protection for novel hairstyles? Julian Sanchez at Reason “Hit and Run” comments (Mar. 30; Eric Wilson, “O.K., Knockoffs, This Is War”, New York Times, Mar. 30). See Feb. 27.
TiVo’s triumph
The greatest accomplishment of 41-year-old TiVo general counsel Matthew Zinn? It’s that his nine-year-old company hasn’t yet “been sued out of existence.” (Petra Pasternak, “TiVo Against the Giants”, The Recorder/Law.com, Mar. 15).
A fix for orphan copyright?
In today’s WSJ, Jerry Brito and Bridget C.E. Dooling propose that Congress “create an affirmative defense — along the lines of fair use — for those who copy a work after trying unsuccessfully to locate the copyright owner. …Of course, the user should have to share any future profits with the rightful owner of the work, but he should not have to face the stiff statutory penalties of copyright infringement that now prevent so many orphan works from being used. This would also give copyright owners who value their works an incentive to make themselves relatively easy to be found.” (“Who’s Your Daddy?”, Mar. 25, sub-only). For more on the legal problems occasioned by works whose original creators are unknown or untraceable, see Apr. 14 and Jul. 26 of last year.
Medical wisdom patentable?
According to author Michael Crichton, writing in last Sunday’s New York Times, the statement, “Elevated homocysteine is linked to B-12 deficiency, so doctors should test homocysteine levels to see whether the patient needs vitamins” is not in the public domain; “A corporation has patented that fact, and demands a royalty for its use. Anyone who makes the fact public and encourages doctors to test for the condition and treat it can be sued for royalty fees. Any doctor who reads a patient’s test results and even thinks of vitamin deficiency infringes the patent. A federal circuit court held that mere thinking violates the patent.” The Supreme Court will soon have a chance to determine whether this is all as crazy as it sounds, or should remain so (“This Essay Breaks the Law”, Mar. 19). More: “B vitamin case reaches Supreme Court”, AP/USA Today, Mar. 20; Tony Mauro, “Supreme Court Tackles Patentability of Scientific Phenomena”, Legal Times, Mar. 22; Lattman, Mar. 21 and Mar. 22; Point of Law, Mar. 25. Update: Court decides not to resolve case (Tony Mauro, Legal Times, Jun. 23).
Update: tasty BlackBerry fees
Having represented patent-holding company NTP Inc. in its lengthy and much-criticized suit against BlackBerry maker Research in Motion (Mar. 4, etc.), the 250-lawyer Washington, D.C. law firm of Wiley, Rein & Fielding is going to be pocketing a contingency fee of roughly a third of the $612.5 million settlement, or $200 million plus. That exceeds the entire 2004 revenue of WR&F, which has heretofore been better known for its Washington regulatory practice than for plaintiff’s contingency-fee work. (“NTP lawyers laughing all the way to the bank”, Mobile Magazine, Mar. 17; Ashby Jones, Wall Street Journal law blog, Mar. 17).