Today: ABA CLE Webinar on Disparaging Trademark Rejections at the PTO

Hurry up and register for this webinar , in which LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® (that’s me) will be participating as comic relief, on the topic of the refusal to register “disparaging” trademarks such as REDSKINS and THE SLANTS under section 2(a) of the Lanham Act.

It is going live on the ‘tubes at 1:00 Eastern time.

ABA Redskins CLERegister and pay attention, and you get 1.5 CLE credits, though you have to pay the money.  Like anything else.

Righthaven Agonistes

Originally posted 2011-06-21 14:25:26. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Rainbow over Lake George

Is all this copyright jurisprudence lollipops and rainbows?

Let us reflect a little on what Righthaven has wrought, so far.  Wired weighs in on the latest Righthaven woes:

A federal judge ruled Monday that publishing an entire article without the rights holder’s authorization was a fair use of the work, in yet another blow to newspaper copyright troll Righthaven.

It’s not often that republishing an entire work without permission is deemed fair use. Fair use is an infringement defense when the defendant reproduced a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, commentary, teaching and research. The defense is analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Monday’s ruling dismissed a lawsuit brought by Righthaven, a Las Vegas-based copyright litigation factory jointly owned with newspaper publisher Stephens Media. The venture’s litigation tactics and ethics are being questioned by several judges and attorneys, a factor that also weighed in on U.S. District Judge Philip Pro’s decision Monday.

Not really a big surprise.  One of the points I made at this month’s CSUSA panel on this topic was that when you push too hard on enforcement, someone who matters — either legislators, judges or rampaging mobs — will punish you and leave in a place that is outside what you thought defined the range of outcomes.  In a bad way.

Big IP never wants to hear this until it’s too late.  But there is a sort of rough justice in such an outcome, for it is the mirror-image, by alternative (i.e., judicial) means, of a legislative scheme that says, as the Copyright Act does, “Don’t think your damages are limited to what you would have had to pay if you had not infringed.  There is a big penalty, via attorneys’ fees and statutory damages, for doing it this way.  Cross at the green, not in-between.”  I have argued for some time that the one-sidedness of this equation, which does not account for the welfare detriment caused by abusive and overreaching litigation, is unsustainable.  I have expressed hope for a legislative improvement in copyright policy, though, not a judicial one.  That hope may be vain — and now it may be the exact opposite of what happens.

Was it a foreseeable risk that judges might blow past traditional bounds of fair use to make a point in a situation such as this?  There will be plenty of analysis on the question, as there ought to be, considering the following excerpts from the opinion (the link to which Randazza emailed me during the bleary-eyed hours last night).  Just working off the Wired article, here are some … interesting concepts.

One of them is that the court found a lack of standing, yet went ahead and ruled on the fair use issue anyway, writing, “Assuming Righthaven was found to have standing to bring this action, the Court nonetheless finds Hoehn is entitled to summary judgment on the ground of fair use of the Work.” That is rather unusual, and arguably resulted in a holding that is dictum.  It could also be described as an alternative ground for dismissing the complaint, of course, but, again, the court went the extra mile to make not only a point about fair use, but an arguably controversial one.

Moreover, the finding of fair use was based here on (a) a holding that the use was non-commercial, which (b) militated against applying the traditional rule that copying an entire work is prima facie infringement, or at least that the use of the work has a strong presumption against fair use in light of (c) the fact that there was no cognizable impairment of the economic value of the copyright.  The court makes this seem quite straightforward.  This factor certainly is, as the Media Bloggers Association brief filed in another Righthaven case in Nevada argues, certainly a significant one in the fair use analysis (which we could not urge in full, because the procedural posture was one of default judgment) and must be considered with respect to awarding damages, including statutory damages.  Fine, as far as it goes.

But every pendulum has its amplitude, and then it swings back. Read More…

A Theory of Trademarks in the Blog Era

Originally posted 2005-04-05 14:18:00. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

(Edited to reflect the march of time.) On April 5th, as you were previously warned, I presented in New York City as part of a seminar on Advanced Trademark Issues for the IP Practitioner at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (the “City Bar”). My written materials distributed to participants, including those who subscribed to a Westlaw webcast of the panel. Here is the essence of my thesis, without the links and exhibits used in the course materials:

The IP implications of blogs beyond trademarks, especially regarding copyright but even recently involving the publication of trade secrets, are also wide-ranging. The line must be drawn somewhere, however, so here we will limit our brief survey to the tangent where trademarks touch blogging and blogs, the first “paradigm shift” with respect to the Internet in our century.

What trademark issues are implicated by blogs?

Unlike virtually no other mass publication of trademarks that is likely to interest mark owners, the Internet raises few barriers to entry. Blogging presents even fewer – virtually none. Trademark enforcement practitioners who are used to the frustration of chasing after ethereal Internet-based trademark infringers are understandably aghast over the incredible ease, and functional anonymity, with which bloggers can instantaneously upload text, graphics and files, including HTML links. Blogger software platforms, including substantial hosting resources, are available for free from services such as Blogger and many others.

There is virtually no editorial, legal or other oversight over what content is to be found on blogs, as is the case on most privately-hosted websites, but while most recreational blogs are graphic nightmares, even the simplest blogs present a structure that features easy interactivity, a choice of practical and attractive graphic designs, and numerous add-on features that enable even lightly experienced amateurs – for no or very little cost – to easily monitor the volume, origin and trends of reader traffic, feature cooperative or trade advertising (and for higher-traffic blogs, even paid advertising), and take advantage of the burgeoning phenomenon of online blog networking.

The power of this last can hardly be overstated, because the Internet is ultimately about connection and networking, and HTML links form an electronic daisy chain of countless dimensions that spans the world along topical, interpersonal, professional and technological axes. The extraordinary simplicity and accessibility of blogging software on one end, and blog distribution on the other end (i.e., via any Internet connection utilizing a standard browser), makes blogs the self-publication phenomenon of our time.

One reason blogs succeed is because they wrap words in graphic appeal. Combined with the dynamic nature of the Internet, blogs deliver bite-sized portions of text which, at best, are so easy to publish and digest that some fear blogs threaten professional journals as well as the established news media, known in the “Blogosphere” as the “Mainstream Media” or “MSM.” Unlike journals and traditional media, there is little editorial oversight, an obvious negative as well as a positive – rather than institutional endorsement or pre-publication peer review, published materials fight immediately in the free market of ideas subject to the ability of the blogger to network well enough to get the attention of the desired “eyeballs.” These features are enhanced by the dynamism of hypertext linking, which replaces footnotes, bibliography and, in some cases, even exposition by allowing readers to “surf” directly and immediately to the actual cited sources. By this method, content on the Internet and in blogs in particular is particularly “rich” in a semantic sense.

Herein lies the opening to the trademark issue. In a media-soaked era, and after generations of advertising, marketing and brand management, both the visual vocabulary and lexicon of Internet users is also “rich” – in brand names, commercial icons, logos and favorite characters, products and mottos. Communication on the Internet, typified by blogs, is highly symbolic, and trademarks, if they are any good at all, pack a powerful semiotic punch.This attraction is intensified by the countercultural, or at least individualistic, tone affected – and frequently realized – widely throughout the blog subculture. There are various reasons this might be the case, including the vestigial “nerd” or “techie” culture of the Internet; the option (frequently chosen) of anonymity, either actual or practical; the generally subversive dynamic that arises from competition with the “MSM”; and the highly politicized atmosphere of the “Blogosphere,” in which the vast majority of bloggerss, regardless of nominal topic, are fairly well identifiable as either “conservative,” “liberal” or, far out of proportion to the voting population, “small-L libertarian.” This environment, coupled with the still novel capacity for perfect replication or alteration of trademarks and icons made possible by digital technology, makes “unauthorized” use of these politically and culturally loaded semantic designators on blogs and other Internet websites irresistable.

Blogs have a number of other interesting qualities that get the attention of in-house trademark counsel. Blogs have an almost magical charm when it comes to search engines – one of the most interesting areas of trademark litigation in the last year. See, e.g., Government Employees Ins. Co. v Google, Inc., 330 F.Supp.2d 700, 704-705 (E.D. Va. 2004). There are several reasons for this, including the prevalence of topical keywords and phrases in blog text, the usually straight-to-the-point nature of blog posting, each post’s page structure, the coding utilized by blog softare, the concentrated “target” structure resulting from the fact that a good blog addresses only one subject per post, the blog site’s information structure, and the linking phenomenon. See, Fredrik Wacka, “Why Blogs Rank High In Search Engines,” Web Pro News.

Blogs also have a tendency, because of the reasons discussed above, to develop or cater to “cult”-type groupings. Sometimes these blog (or website) “cults” are themselves dedicated, in the nicest possible way, to beloved brands, trademarks or other intellectual property assets.Others merely utilize them easily broadcast a state of mind or associate the blogger or the blog with a certain well-known sensibility. And sometimes blogs, like other websites, just plain “abuse” valuable trademarks in constitutionally protected, but – for trademark counsel – nightmarish ways.Blogs are democratic, self-obsessed, essentially unaccountable, cheap, technologically powerful, judgment proof, ungoverned, interconnected, and very, very public – meaning that intellectual property lawyers, or those who play them on television, should proceed with care.

Jell-O’s branding race to the bottom

Poor old Jell-O® Brand Gelatin.  It once billed itself as The World’s Most Favorite Dessert.  Remember the old Jell-O brand profile, at least the one that dominated for the better part of the last generation?:  Bill Cosby flapping his goofy gums with kids, talking and giggling about all the family fun to be had with a cup of the jiggly?

Those were the days.  When it comes to brand integrity, it seems, Jell-O’s management is showing itself to be a tower of, um… what would you say, exactly?  Per Tax Law Prof blogger Paul Caron:

Last month — just in time for a new season of college football — Kraft Foods released a new line of Jell-O molds in the shapes of various university logos. Four of the “jiggler mold kits” were unveiled last year, but products for 16 more teams have now been added, including the University of Alabama, Ohio State University, and the University of California at Los Angeles.

Jell-O Shots - Logo Kits

Excuse me, these are for JIGGLERS, okay?

In a press release, Kraft said the kits are meant to be used in creating Jell-O treats for tailgate parties for alumni and fans. But some are concerned that the themed molds could be seen as university-endorsed invitations to create alcohol-laced “Jell-O shots” — a mixed message for universities fighting to curb binge drinking among students. …Aaron White, the program director of college and underage drinking prevention research at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: “If I were a student, I’d be awfully confused if I heard about the dangers of drinking and drinking games at freshman orientation and then when I got to Wal-Mart, I found these Jell-O molds with my school’s logo on it.”

Kraft admits that it is aware Jell-O shots are a popular way to consume the dessert, but the company told the website Vocativ that it doesn’t condone using the molds for that purpose. The half-dozen universities contacted for this article did not return requests for comment.

OK, well, I was once a student, and I don’t think I’d be that confused, actually.  At least, not until after pounding a bunch of Jell-O shots, right?!  Har, har.

A little nanny-ish, really, Aaron White.  No one with a high school education should be confused — they can see hypocrisy quite clearly.

Old_Jello ad-147

A child can prepare it — but in most states she better be 21

It’s all, in fact, a perfect morality / substance abuse / branding / licensing / NCAA-IP-cash-in storm, no?  I love it!

Jell-O, chasing declining market share and, to hear Steve Baird tell it, the menace of genericness, has been playing fast and loose concerning its relationship to Jell-O shots (gosh, pretty strong argument for genericide right there!) for a while (I have added some fun links to the quote below from ESPN):

The Super Bowl winners get to go to Disney World, the losers get Jell-O?

As a gesture to the sad fans of the Super Bowl losing team, the colorful dessert brand will give out thousands of cups of free Jell-O product in the team’s local city on Tuesday.

The promotion will be announced in a commercial celebrating the losing team’s prize following the postgame trophy presentation. . . .

Every cup is a one-way ticket to FuntownThe clever marketing play comes at a time when Jell-O sales haven’t performed to the company’s expectations, as the message steered away from family fun to weight management.

“We lost our core family consumer,” Gallagher said. “We want them to know that we’re about fun.” . . .The brand doesn’t have any particular connection to the Super Bowl, though sports fans are accustomed to throwing back Jell-O shots — small cups often spiked with vodka — at tailgates and parties.

The thing for which there is always room - Jell-O

The thing for which there is always room

Gallagher says sales are sales, but that the brand would never publicly embrace that use of its product.”It’s our job to find the right consumer through the right messaging,” he said. “Anything that happens outside of what we do, we can’t control.”

“Gosh, we can’t control anything that happens outside of what we do!”

It is to laugh! Read More…

Does Macy’s tell Gimbel’s?

Originally posted 2006-07-05 19:27:20. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Okay, so that dates me a tad. Well, does Pepsi tell Coke — that Coke employees are trying to sell Coca-Cola secrets to them?

Of course they do:

Three people were charged by federal prosecutors on Wednesday with stealing confidential information, including a sample of a new drink, from The Coca-Cola Co. and trying to sell it to rival PepsiCo Inc.

The suspects include a Coke executive’s administrative assistant, Joya Williams, who is accused of rifling through corporate files and stuffing documents and a new Coca-Cola product into a personal bag. … They are expected to appear before a federal magistrate judge on Thursday in Atlanta, where Coca-Cola is based.

Pepsi spokesman Dave DeCecco said his company did what any responsible company would do in cooperating with Coke and the investigation.

“Competition can sometimes be fierce, but also must be fair and legal,” DeCecco said. “We’re pleased the authorities and the FBI have identified the people responsible for this.”

Pepsi did the right thing. Anyone who understands how real corporations and the law work, as opposed to the tinfoil hat crowd, knows that it would be patently unthinkable for Pepsi — an established company with everything to lose if caught engaged in outright pilfering of its competitor’s proprietary information — to have done otherwise.

Meanwhile, some very greedy, unethical people are in a world of trouble. The real thing.

TRADEMARK NOTE:  Per the Wikipedia article about Gimbel’s linked to above:

The “Gimbel’s” trademark is currently owned by siblings Mark and Beth Gimbel; Mark Gimbel is owner of the Smiling Cow and Gimbel’s Country Store in Boothbay Harbor, Maine. They acquired the trademark in 1999 after Gimbel’s department stores went out of business and the trademark was abandoned

Tyson tattoo trouble

Originally posted 2011-05-25 15:33:55. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Matthew David Brozik

Guest blogger Matthew David Brozik

That was close! The release of The Hangover Part II was in danger of being enjoined by a federal judge… but, for better or worse, the Honorable Catherine D. Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Tuesday denied the request for a preliminary injunction made by the tattoo artist who in 2003 gave Mike Tyson his… let’s say impressive facial ink.

The tattoo artist, S. Victor Whitmill, has sued Warner Brothers Entertainment, the studio responsible (if that’s the word we want) for The Hangover Part II (and the original The Hangover) for copyright infringement. Specifically, Mr. Whitmill claims that reproduction of the tattoo (that he gave Mike Tyson) on the face of the character in the new movie played by Ed Helms (and also use of Helms’s likeness, with tattoo, on promotional merchandise) infringes upon his, Mr. Whitmill’s, exclusive rights in the work (the tattoo). Mr. Whitmill moved the court to enjoin the release of the movie, scheduled to open nationwide on May 26, the biggest movie-opening weekend of the year.

Nota bene: Unfortunately, while the short form order denying Mr. Whitmill’s motion is available through PACER, the transcript of the bench order is not (as of this writing)… so I’m gleaning some things from the New York Times article that appeared yesterday.

These are the facts one needs to know to understand what’s going on here:

  1. “Iron” Mike Tyson was a boxer, and an especially successful one. In 2003, he got a really cool, really big tattoo on his face. It looks like this.
  2. The Hangover is a movie about three men who have a really, really weird night, followed by a really, really weird day.
  3. One of the characters in The Hangover is a milquetoast dentist. His name is Stu, and he is played by Ed Helms.
  4. Mike Tyson appears in The Hangover, playing himself.
  5. In The Hangover Part II, from what one can see in the trailers and other publicity material, Stu gets a tattoo exactly like the one that Mike Tyson has. Check it out.

The immediately interesting thing about the denial of the motion is that, at least according to the Times summary, Judge Perry—despite finding that Whitmill was likely to succeed in his claim on the merits, because there really can be no question that (a) Whitmill owns the copyright in the tattoo, and (b) Warner Bros. copied it without his permission or the benefit of an exception to Whitmill’s exclusive rights—found that the public interest (one of the factors to be considered on a motion for preliminary injunction) in letting the movie be released outweighed the harm to Mr. Whitmill that might result from denying him the injunction.

As reported by the Times:

“The public interest does favor protecting the thousands of other business people in the country as well as Warner Brothers, and not causing those nonparties to lose money, and I think it would be significant, and I think it would be disruptive,” Judge Perry said from the bench, rather than issuing a written ruling.

“I think that tilts the public interest in favor of Warner Brothers on this because all over the country people would be losing money if I were to enjoin this movie.”

If this writer may offer an opinion: What? Really? Can the release of a movie ever be in the public interest? It’s a movie. I love movies, but… it’s a movie!

Now, Judge Perry does seem to have told everyone involved that, at the end of the day, Whitmill is going to recover from Warner Bros. “Although the intangibles he’s losing can’t be completely known or quantified, there is some amount of money that will come close,” she said.

By the way :  Previous posts about IP rights in tattoos here include one about NBA star Rasheed Wallace’s tat; another post was somewhat further afield but implicated the tattoo version of the Prince symbol-thing.

A note about those intangibles, since Judge Perry mentioned them: Whitmill is claiming not just copyright infringement, but also libel (although that might not be what he means, exactly), because the person from whom the character Stu gets his Tyson tattoo in Part II is a shady character, and Whitmill argues that he might be harmed in his reputation if moviegoers assume that the tattoo artist in the movie shares a personality with the real tattoo artist. This is not a compelling argument, probably… but it is something that might have persuaded Judge Perry to enjoin the film if she had been on the fence. Garden-variety copyright infringement, so to speak, can often be compensated for with just money… whereas harm to one’s reputation often can not be.

But back to the tattoo. Read More…

No endorsement here

Originally posted 2009-06-22 17:58:58. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

rwr-and-chesterfieldThe Media Bloggers Association president, Bob Cox, is all over the story regarding the Federal Trade Commission’s brand new Guides on Endorsements and Testimonials, which, as Bob explains, will certainly affect bloggers.  In fact, one of the examples given of a testimonial in the proposed revisions, found here, is of a product review written by a blogger.

I made my views known on this a while ago:  I’m against this sort of regulation, which I think is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, kittens or not.  And I think most consumers — from a policy perspective, enough of “most” — can figure this sort of stuff out for themselves by now.

UPDATE:  Great minds think alike.

Two centuries of Blawg Review

Originally posted 2009-03-01 01:04:05. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Blawg Review: #200 went up earlier last week, and, contemplating its bicentennial edition, it got a little philosophical. “Ed” (as in “Ed.,” the nom de keyboard of Blawg Review’s maestro) hosted last week’s edition himself in honor of this milestone.

I particular appreciate this bit, going off on a topic I first had the opportunity to become aware of, and comment on, in the second half of this post, i.e., the transparently commercial blog-as-billboard:

Last week’s host, Mark Bennett, suggested that lawyers who enter the legal blogosphere looking to profit by it are headed for public ridicule; instead, he recommends that “the practical blawgosphere wants you to succeed. Write worth a damn, join in the conversation, link to posts on the blawgs you like reading, and we’ll find your blog and spread the word.” Scott Greenfield applauded Bennett taking a similar position in his Blawg Review last week. Whereas Bennett said that profiteers were welcome in but not well-suited to the blawgosphere, Greenfield put it more bluntly: “This Blawgosphere Ain’t Big Enough for the Two of Us”: “So why can’t we all get along? Because the marketers don’t care about the blawgosphere. They care about the quick buck and scheme.” Austin Criminal Defense Attorney Jamie Spencer blogged about an attorney in Dallas, whose blog is so transparently marketing-oriented that it concludes a post about a bizarre case where a drunk driver ended up with her truck in someone’s pool with “If you too have driven a car into a pool and are in need of an experienced DWI lawyer….”

Who among us hasn’t wished he had that number handy, eh?

And, hey — there was plenty of praise to go around, too, even a little coming out this way:

Colin Samuels, at Infamy or Praise, will remember Blawg Review for the annual award that recognizes the best Blawg Review of the Year. This annual competition is open to all law blogs that have hosted Blawg Review, and the same blogger wins every year. Congratulations, Colin, for getting the most nominations for Blawg Review #189, based on Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”, which has earned the award for Blawg Review of the Year 2008. Ron Coleman’s Blawg Review #191, a Chanukah special at Likelihood of Confusion, is this year’s runner-up. In third place in the voting, there was a tie between Rush Nigut’s Blawg Review #147 based on the Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa, and David Gulbransen’s Blawg Review #182, a special bar exam edition. Twenty-four issues of Blawg Review received nominations this year, which shows the quality and variety of presentations is appreciated.

Colin is very much the man, even if his spelling is a little weak.  His pumping of LOC for notice this year was worth every penny, it seems!

Congratulations to Colin and Blawg Review!

High class blawging

Originally posted 2006-12-19 23:30:18. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Ellington

Blawg Review #88 is a lot snazzier, jazzier and just plain classier than usual.

The Great Copyright Crackup

Originally posted 2005-01-26 22:17:00. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

ASCAP Launches Infringement Actions against Establishments Performing Copyrighted Music without Permission: The beginning of the end?

I’m not saying they’re not entitled. I’m not saying the law’s not on their side. I’m saying the big-money copyright ownership gang — the ASCAP‘s, the RIAA‘s, the MPAA‘s — gives the distinct impression of Japanese kamikazes. They’re suing everyone and everything, they’ve lost consumers… it’s quite a thing to see.

Anti-Sedition Acts begin their attack on the Internet

Originally posted 2006-01-16 23:17:14. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Different River reports on the biggest threat to free speech ever — the McCain-Feingold Act and its state law copycats.  Is there any chance that the new and improved Supreme Court will save us from this not so petty tyranny?  Or will the present controversies over “money in the political process” (see here for a contrarian view, by the way) make things even worse?

There are good IP blogs too!

Originally posted 2012-11-28 10:06:06. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Congratulations to this year’s ABA Journal’s “Blawg 100” scientific reckoning of the top IP law blogs:

IPWATCHDOG

Gene Quinn’s IPWatchdog is on the trail of the latest intellectual property law news and policy developments. Posts by the Leesburg, Va., patent attorney not only alert readers to what’s new, but often provide detailed analyses of the subjects, with source materials to boot.
Twitter: @IPWatchdog

We agree with Gene Quinn over at IPWatchdog that Kevin Noonan, Donald Zuhn—both partners at Chicago’s McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff—and their team of contributors at Patent Docs are overdue for recognition in the IP category here. Quinn notes that the two “are true experts in the area of pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents. They write the leading blog in this very important niche space. It is widely read and highly regarded.”
 PATENTLY-O

We’ve consistently heard from readers like Chris Holly who check Patently-O daily to keep up on developments (and jobs) in patent law. “I’m a patent prosecutor and reading the blog every day keeps me up to speed with what is going on in the patent world,” wrote Holly, an associate with Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell and Berkowitz in D.C. Co-authors Dennis Crouch of the University of Missouri School of Law and Jason Rantanen of the University of Iowa also have guest posts by other patent practitioners “that are insightful,” Holly wrote. We were excited to see a “Patent Ethics” corner started by Mercer University law prof David Hricik, but sorry to see it go on hiatus during his clerkship.
Twitter: @patentlyo

Georgetown law professor Rebecca Tushnet covers the issues surrounding false advertising, copyright, commercial speech and more at her long-standing 43(B)log. Her pieces offer a variety of shorter, sometimes humorous observations or summaries of issues she spots, mixed with longer, thoughtful analysis of recent opinions. We especially enjoy her posts—often quick takes—on fan fiction and other works.
Twitter: @rtushnet

The Hollywood Reporter’s legal blog regularly gets exclusive scoops on breaking IP disputes going on behind the scenes of anxiously awaited films and your favorite TV shows. Other posts also cover celebrities’ contract and family law disputes as well as moves by entertainment law powerhouses.
Twitter: @thresq

Now you know where to go to learn things.  My personal endorsement from within this group, and my vote, is for Rebecca’s blog.  The thing has classic old-school production values, she doesn’t acknowledge hardly anyone or anything else out there, but she’s just about always right and super smart.