Let me start off by saying that I am a huge fan of television and that I particularly enjoy the pervasive one-hour episodic drama genre. Cop and lawyer shows are my absolute favorite, despite the fact that they often present embellishments and minor procedural inaccuracies. One of the only things that a legal education is guaranteed to do is suck all of the enjoyment out of watching courtroom shows that play it fast and loose with the formalities of litigation, but I’ve learned to ignore most of the discomfort that comes from watching a make-believe prosecutor present character evidence in his case-in-chief. I hardly cringe anymore when I hear scripted dialog about “robbing” a house or “murdering” an animal. I am writing today, however, to tell you of a related faux pas that I haven’t been able to ignore.
“Are you saying that our show is unoriginal?”
As I’m sure you are aware, a subclass of the traditional police show has been popping up with greater frequency in recent years. The basic premise for these shows is this: A civilian “consultant” is brought in by a law enforcement agency, based on some enhanced knowledge or skill possessed by said civilian, thereby magically improving the agency’s crime solving abilities. Amongst this subclass, I am a religious viewer of Psych, The Mentalist, Castle, White Collar, Fringe, and Bones (I can’t stand this one, to be honest, but it’s my wife’s favorite), to name a few. With varying degrees of success, each of these programs attempts to present a compelling dynamic between straight-laced cops and one or more outside-the-box thinkers, who presumably aren’t bound by the paradigm that you’re typical “G-man” occupies. It’s a classic odd couple arrangement – rambunctious corner cutter plays off of an endearing straight man. My issue lies with one particular outside-the-box solution that is floated again and again on these shows.
On first listen, this album might sound cheesy to some, but you can hear a level of confidence that refuses to be ignored. You can almost hear the band members saying, “Yeah, what we’re doing is different… weird even. Deal with it.”
The opening day of the 2010 Winter Olympics was marked with tragedy when 21-year-old Georgian luger, Nodar Kumaritashvili, was involved in a fatal crash during a training run. The horrific event dampened the spirit of the international competition and colored the mood at the opening ceremonies later that night. As anyone would expect, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) sprung into action, responding to the accident with a multi-point plan:
Shut down the luge track to prevent any more deaths… check.
Conduct an internal investigation… check.
Let an “independent” authority do its own investigation… check.
Make immediate modifications to the luge track to stop future accidents… check.
Make a press release, expressing regret, but denying all responsibility… check.
All perfectly acceptable anticipated responses. So why is this an IP story, you ask? Well, when the above-described actions failed to push this embarrassing catastrophe under the rug, the IOC turned to their attorneys, asking what else could be done to hush the whole thing up. Video clips of Kumaritashvili losing control of his sled and crashing into a steel pole were popping up all over the internets, repeatedly showing the world what happened. The answer from their legal team: Those people are violating our copyright in that clip! We can use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to have that material removed from the web — so no one else will see it!
Republican candidate Scott Brown has successfully knocked off his Democrat opponent Martha Coakley in a Massachusetts special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy‘s Senate seat. In doing so, the people of Massachusetts have all but doomed President Obama’s hopes for getting the currently proposed health care reform legislation passed. The message to our government seems clear: “We don’t like what you’re doing!” The surprising part is that it comes from Massachusetts. Massachusetts!! (Maybe Marco‘s right about them folks being smarter than the average American.) If one of the bluest states in the nation (Obama won Mass. by 26 points just over a year ago) is turning its back on the party in charge, hopefully the liberal leadership will shut up and listen, rather than loudly asserting that they know what’s best for us all. (Personally, I hope they keep their fingers in their ears, and this story repeats in November.)
One of the partners at my law firm, Mark Malek, and I put together a quick overview (800-words-or-less) about patents and copyrights for Space Coast Business Magazine. They ran it in their January issue, and you can read the full text here.
Trademarks are a huge part of everyone’s daily lives; yet the laws that dictate their use and abuse are not nearly as well known. A single trip to the grocery store may expose you to literally thousands of trademarks. There are the ones you expect to see (e.g., the word “Kellogg’s” on that box of cereal, or that jovial peanut wearing a top hat) and the ones you are hardly even aware of (e.g., the emblem on the front of the car that you parked next to in the lot, or that familiar swoosh on the sneakers of the woman behind you in the checkout line). Each of those words or symbols represents an important mechanism for lubricating the wheels of commerce, providing a shortcut for you (or your intended customer) to make informed purchase decisions. The economic advantage of trademarks lies in their ability to quickly convey, by association, a wealth of information about the quality, value, and reputation of a product, or its producer.
As an example, when someone goes shopping for clothing, they are able to quickly pick out which garments are desirable, and which ones are not, simply by looking at the tag or emblem stitched on the left breast. If you see a silhouette of a man riding on a horse and swinging a polo mallet, you immediately know something about the characteristics of that shirt, whether it’s from your own experience or from what you may have heard from other satisfied purchasers. You know a little something about the quality and whether it falls into your intended price range – all without having to spend the time, effort, and expense of buying one of each brand of shirt and conducting your own comparative analysis. You know, before even opening it, that when you take a sip from that can that has “Coca-Cola” printed on it, it will taste a certain way, and you likely made your purchase (or selected the one with “Pepsi” printed on it instead) based on that knowledge.
In an effort (I’m assuming) to be hip and relevant, my alma mater (and Randazza‘s previous teaching gig) has begun adding courses to their curriculum that have little to do with the law or lawyering. One example is a course called “Popular Culture and the Law,” to which the registrar has assigned the following course description:
This 2 hour seminar will examine social attitudes toward law, lawyers, and legal institutions through the viewing and examination of Hollywood films. Film depictions of law students, juries, and judges will also be considered. Each seminar session will focus in as much depth as possible on a particular film or films and a particular problem or aspect of law, law practice, ethics, or the image and status of the lawyer in American culture raised by the film(s). The majority of the films will be viewed outside the classroom and will be considered as texts providing contemporary depictions of the subject matter to be examined in class. In addition, readings will be assigned for each film and will form the basis for class discussion. The films will be reserved in the library. This will be a paper course which may be used to satisfy the Upper Level Writing Requirement.
My understanding is that this course is just another excuse for chicks in law school to watch Legally Blonde (2001) for the 4,821st time. What a great way to spend your tuition dollars at a professional school!
Normally, I’m not the one in this forum to bitch about the state of legal education. Marco & Co. do it regularly enough that I don’t have to. (See here, here, and here.) On the whole, my law school experience was a good one. I took as much advantage of our externship program as I could, and I went out of my way to take classes from adjunct professors who I knew actually practiced what they were preaching. What I object to is courses that have students watch reruns of “L.A. Law” (1986), or other fictional portrayals, as a means for teaching about the practice of law. Aren’t there other subjects that could be presented that have more merit?
Design patent protection is similar to copyright protection, in that the alleged infringer is in trouble if they’ve produced something that is substantially similar to the protected design. However, while the government simply gives out copyright registrations, upon request, design patents are only awarded after an examination is done and it has been determined that the proposed design is novel (i.e., no one else has previously designed a product like this).
Gwyneth’s design
The prize for successfully prosecuting a design patent application? Complete national monopoly for 14 years. Since copyright protection lasts for a minimum of 70 years, some people would argue that a design patent is hardly worth the effort and cost. The problem with that logic is that copyrights come with a whole boatload of limitations, leaving room for potential defendants to get away free. As a key example, fair use and independent creation are no defense to a charge of design patent infringement. Just ask Paris Hilton, who undoubtedly has just learned about this little wrinkle from her attorney.
Earlier this month, 22-year-old Samantha Tumpach was arrested exiting a showing of the new douchey-little-vampire-kid movie, The Twilight Saga: New Moon. No, she wasn’t detained for a psych eval, as anyone over the age of 16 should be for watching that movie. (The only problem with implementing that policy is that state mental health facilities would be choked with nearly every female American between the ages of 17 and 45 — my sisters, my wife, and all of their friends included.) It seems that she was arrested because theater employees saw her operating a video recording device (source). Did the FBI come swooping in to put an end to this flagrant violation of Federal Copyright Law?
No. It was those champions of copyright policy, the Rosemont Police. As it turns out, Illinois has a relatively new anti-bootlegging statute, which criminalizes knowingly operating an audiovisual recording device in a movie theater without permission. See720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/21-10.
Now, don’t get me started about what a moron this woman is. Clearly, she’s not the brightest crayon in the box, but I’m not sure she should be looking at three years in the state pen for being a moron. Her conduct can arguably be defended as fair use, avoiding any civil liability for copyright infringement. Even if it’s not newsworthy to the most of us, the reason that Ms. Tumpach gives for making the recording, i.e., preserving her sister’s birthday activities for posterity, likely does satisfy the first prong of a fair use analysis in her favor. With a recording that comes in at a whopping four minutes, the amount-and-substantiality factor should go her way as well. And it isn’t likely that Ms. Tumpach’s video will replace the needs of these screaming Twilight moms to see Jacob’s rippling six pack.
All perfectly 
Trademarks are a huge part of everyone’s daily lives; yet the laws that dictate their use and abuse are not nearly as well known. A single trip to the grocery store may expose you to literally thousands of trademarks. There are the ones you expect to see (e.g., the word “
As an example, when someone goes shopping for clothing, they are able to quickly pick out which garments are desirable, and which ones are not, simply by looking at the tag or emblem stitched on the left breast. If you see 
My understanding is that this course is just another excuse for chicks in law school to watch 
After 
Earlier this month, 22-year-old Samantha Tumpach was arrested exiting a showing of the new 
