Originally posted 2010-04-13 09:52:45. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Originally posted 2012-12-04 12:56:40. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
The troublesome “Jews for Jesus” blog is still around, after some people had the impression that perhaps Jews for Jesus, Inc. had been succesful in shutting it down. The J4J Whistleblower is still feeling kind of conspiratorial, writing:
Take your time to read through my previous blogs and the points raised. In one of my earlier blogs I pointed out that it takes time to sort through everything to realize what is going on. My previous post to this one looks at the actual text of Jews for Jesus’ lawsuit and points out what they really want. You’ll find this is in line with Susan Perlman’s comment that Jews for Jesus believes it has a right to how their organization will be represented on the internet. That explains why they are only using this blog as a stepping stone to have Google remove any blog with the name “jewsforjesus” in it. An astute observer on a legal blog pointed out that the likely target is www.exjewsforjesus.blogspot.com.
Harrumph. I couldn’t find that astute observer — Whistleblower is quite stingy with the hyperlinks for a blogger — but if that were true, it would be another blow inflicted on free speech by Jews for Jesus with the help of the courts. Quite ironic considering that this group has actually extended free speech protection in a number of decisions, including one in the U.S. Supreme Court, where its own speech was threatened.
But that sort of irony is already old and tired, isn’t it? It must be, because this story is being fairly well ignored — as the Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky case was — by the usual suspects in the free speech department whose ox, for some reason, doesn’t ever appear to be gored when Jews for Jesus is doing the goring. In 1998, Steve Brodsky’s requests for amicus submissions in the Third Circuit were blown off by both the New Jersey ACLU and the Electronic Freedom Foundation, without any real explanation, for example. Here too the EFF has been silent about this case, as have been the “copyfighters” at Corante.com. I don’t know why now, as I didn’t know why, then. Maybe if Steve Brodsky or the Whistleblower published pornography or scandalous charactures of Dick Cheney or were uploading music files the self-appointed guardians of free speech would have something to say about what’s going on here.
Yes, the old irony is old news. I guess it’s just as well, anyway, because in the area of free speech, now we have the all new irony!
Or is irony just not the right word for plain old cynicism? Well… don’t ask me!
*(Sour grapes warning! But if you can stand the taste, come on in; the dishing’s fine!)
UPDATE: Thanks to Dean for the link. I think that one may criticize my analysis above by suggesting that because of my own personal interest in this case, I am also guilty of the “whose ox is being gored?” syndrome. This may be true, but then I do not claim a comprehensive bailiwick, as the would-be guardians of free speech on the Internet do. I am just one lawyer who has had a few clients with interest in these matters. But I will acknowledge that the experience of representing Steve Brodsky against Jews for Jesus, Inc. and The National Debate against the New York Times has affected my own views, which formerly were biased in favor of trademark and copyright holders — that, and getting beaten up on daily basis for several months on the CYBERIA-L list, largely at the hands of Mike Godwin! So you know — we grow, we learn…
Originally posted 2015-06-19 15:13:46. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Cadbury is purple in the face over not being able to secure the wordlwide exclusive rights to the use of the color purple in association with the sale of chocolate — even as against an Australian company that’s been using the two together for almost a century:
Cadbury tells me it is “vigorously appealing” against a judgment over the use of purple. In a case that it has pursued for five years, Cadbury has tried and failed to stop Darrell Lea, an Australian chocolate manufacturer, from using the colour.
Despite the fact that Darrell Lea was established in 1927 and has been using purple for most of its existence, Cadbury insists that it has no right to the colour. Cadbury has registered one shade of purple in relation to block chocolate in tablet form in Britain but it has not been as successful elsewhere.
Purple, actually, may be the oldest legally-protected “trademark” color, of sorts. The color was, at certain times during ancient times and antiquity, permitted to be worn only by the nobility. To which, in the chocolate sense, Cadbury may or may not have a claim. I do like the stuff, and perhaps it is among the elite in the chocolate hierarchy. Certainly compared to virtually anything else the English make it is uniquely edible — but regal?
UPDATE: Cadbury’s claim melts in its hands, not just in our mouths.
Originally posted 2014-08-07 16:31:46. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Last year we screamed and shouted along with a bunch of other people and prevented New York from passing “ethics” rules that would have essentially shut down New York lawyers’ blogs by regulating them out of existence. Unfortunately all the noise didn’t make it down to Louisiana, which did go ahead and pass a similar set of restrictions under the guise of “consumer protection” but which should be understood as an attempt by established bar-association types to keep the bogeyman of blog- and Internet-savvy lawyers away from their cozy courtroom concessions.
This morning, Wolfe Law Group, L.L.C. filed a suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of Louisiana’s new rules governing lawyer advertising. The lawsuit seeks to prevent the enforcement of Louisiana’s new advertising rules, scheduled to take effect on April 1, 2009. The Louisiana advertising rules are some of the most aggressive in the nation, and Wolfe Law Group’s suit argues that the rules go too far and restrict an attorney’s right to freely speak about its trade.
Wolfe Law Group argues that the new rules effectively prevent a lawyer from advertising its services through online mediums, such as Google’s AdWords, as the rules also restrict an attorney’s ability to engage in discourse with colleagues, clients and the public through online bulletin boards, blogs, twitter, and other online communities and forums. Read More…
Originally posted 2011-12-05 10:40:50. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Glenn Reynolds links to a an article in Wired about a newspaper “chain”‘s — actually, lawyer Steve Gibson’s — “new business model”: Suing bloggers who post newspaper articles, evidently more or less intact ones, on their sites. Glenn says suing bloggers “seems like a poor business plan” — mainly, of course, because most bloggers are broke, or pretty close to it.
The article also explains why these one-off claims by outfits such as the Las Vegas Review-Journal are unlikely, in the long run, to pay off. One reason is that at least the music industry, through the Recording Industry Association of America, is theoretically going for some degree of bulk in its litigation trawling against unlawful file sharing. And we did say “theoretically”: Remember, in 2008 the RIAA managed to spend about $16 million on legal fees to reel in a whopping $391,000. As the article says, “You’d have to go after a lot of people for a relatively small amount of money,” says Jonathan Band, a Washington, D.C. copyright lawyer. “That is a riskier proposition.”
So, yes, it is hard to comprehend the return on investment here.
There are other reasons this doesn’t seem to make sense. “Defendants might be less willing to settle a lawsuit stemming from their posting of a single news article, despite the Copyright Act’s whopping damages,” says the article. But no, not quite on the “whopping damages” stuff. Contrary to myth — and to the threats routinely uttered by copyright plaintiff attorneys — statutory damages are not meant to be a windfall, as I explain at some length here. Now it is true that some juries think intellectual property infringement damages are a jackpot unrelated to actual harm — usually because judges don’t instruct them properly. But other judges in high profile cases are refusing to be part of the copyright shakedown. Thus in the recent Tannenbaum copyright case, the District Judge reduced the jury’s damages award of $675,000 for infringement of 30 songs to $67,500, ruling that the amount awarded was unconstitutional under the Due Process clause.
Still, $67,500 is a lot of money, a lot, and still pretty darned distant from any plausible quantum of loss to the copyright owner. Read More…
Originally posted 2010-09-06 16:08:53. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
The New York Times reported (yes, reg. req.) last week that New York’s Metropolitan Transit Authority is scrambling to enforce trademark rights in its wide array of iconography, including the famous alphanumeric train symbols known to all New Yorkers.
Evidently powered by the MTA’s burgeoning licensing program, it’s not a bad idea. No question but that these and the many other powerful symbols used by the transit system are excellent communicators of source, quality and all those other trademarky things. The New York transit system, especially the subway, is an entire subculture unto itself. In other words, don’t be surprised if there’s some pushback on this new, and somewhat belated, attempt to kind of privatize, or revenue-ize, a world that generations of people think of as “everybody’s” property.
Of course, the libertarians remind us constantly, and accurately, that when something is everyone’s property, it is ultimately treated like no one’s property at all — which “everyone” ends up paying for. Still and all, there is an interesting trademark policy issue in here somewhere. It’s one thing to say that services aren’t free and that even when, as in the case of the MTA, they succesfully address significant externalities, their costs should not be unduly disconnected from users. But it’s another thing to say that, however revenue-starved, a public institution (in the broad sense of the word) such as the MTA should restrict the public, much less the bloggy, enjoyment of a public iconography such as the train number symbols and the image of the classic subway token.
In other words, if you get a C&D letter from the MTA, give me call, won’t you?
Originally posted 2014-11-26 12:58:03. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
And free speech is a form of negotiable intellectual property, right?
Maybe I can give up the blog. There is no percentage in clever commentary when the claimants provide the self-parody. Credit to Instapundit.
Originally posted 2015-01-20 17:05:27. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Nick Daly drops me a note to the effect that one Jay-Z, gazillionaire rhyming scatologist, has been sued by a professional perspirer and leaping stage goon called Diamond Dallas Page — ach! my kingdom for a stage name! — for the former’s “Roc-A-Fella Hand Gesture,” also known as the “Diamond Cutter” hand gesture. Evidently Mr. Z uses the former, Mr. Page the latter of these nicknames for the clever manipulation of the human carpal, metacarpal and phalange bones in a distinctive diamond-shaped pattern in association with the services provided by the respective performers.
Now, Roc-a-Fella is a record company specializing in rhythmic spoken-word obscenity-laced performance art which generates (1) some light, if you will, allowing one to peer into the dimmer recesses of the heart of urban America’s cultural darkness profundity, plus (2) much heat as regards the controversial word choice typically employed by its practitioners as well as the ribald subject matter of the works, in addition to (3) immense dump trucks full of cash.
You may perhaps, in a merry mood, “Rock a fellow” — “rock” him, in this sense meaning to entertain him or absorb his attentions by use of contemporary upbeat rock and roll music or its derivaties — or as we northeastern urbanites might say, you might rock “a fella”; hence the name of the company. And it is hard not to suspect an allusion, based both on ironic association considering the countercultural nature of the works as well as with vast hordes of currency, to the name Rockefeller, the billionaire dynasty that, as is well known, controls everything, and whose name is arguably a “trademark” for immense wealth and power. (UPDATE: Jay-Z, in contrast, evidently cannot quite as readily as the Old Man could rock every fella as he might like to.) Read More…
Originally posted 2012-01-18 15:32:45. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Real news over an IP issue? Not quite.
Rather, the news and the attention arise from the fact that the threatened power-grab that SOPA represents goes far beyond IP, or “enforcement,” or “brands,” or even “piracy.”
Oh, those are all real things, real concepts. But their meaning has become so distorted in the public and political debate and spin that they get scare-quotes here today. It is precisely by turning piracy into a mission-critical bogey-man that the strong-IP advocates have perhaps, for once, overplayed their hands.
A few years ago “civil libertarians” told us our liberties were at an end because of the Homeland Security Act and related policy changes arising from terrorist threats. Those protests were mainly sincere, but they turned out to be overstated. For most of us, life in America is pretty much like it was before, except mainly at the airport.
If, however, there had been a serious and widespread degradation in the quality and quantity of our civil rights because of the “new world” that the September 11th attacks, we would have something serious to discuss. In fact it is still something serious to discuss. How much are we, indeed, prepared to give of our privacy, our freedom of movement, our personal space, for what may or may not be enhanced physical safety? Important, fundamental questions.
But I’ll be damned if I’m going to stand by while my rights, or those of my clients, are sold down the river to protect the franchises of Sony, Coach and Universal. And that’s what makes this more than an “IP” issue, and why it’s news, and why it matters.
Originally posted 2009-10-20 23:46:20. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
A posting over on the Big Government blog details recent attempts by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) to shut down the website at AFTExposed.com (which, as you might guess from the name, doesn’t have very nice things to say about the AFT). The AFT’s General Counsel has sent the operators of the offending website a cease-and-desist letter, demanding “immediate cessation of use of the domain AFTexposed.com or any other variant that includes the acronym AFT.” The asserted grounds: (a) trademark infringement (that use of the AFT acronym is “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive”), and (b) violation of ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (on the grounds that the AFTexposed.com name is “confusingly similar” to AFT’s trademark and was “registered in bad faith.”).
It’s pretty much pure unadulterated nonsense, little more than an attempt by the AFT to silence a critical voice, and I hope that the AFTExposed.com folks don’t cave in to the pressure. The trademark claim is very, very weak; consumers are pretty stupid sometimes, but they are not nearly stupid enough to be confused into thinking that a site called “AFTexposed,” which has as [its] tagline prominently displayed at the top of the site “The website the AFT doesn’t want you to see,” is somehow affiliated with the AFT.
Well forget about the tagline; it’s too late once you get to the site — there’s already been an incidence of the dreaded “initial interest confusion” by then! But David Post is right: In this case, the domain name itself negates any possibility of that, and you’ve got nothing but fair, fair use for a defense.
That won’t stop a wealthy plaintiff, though — and who’s wealthier these days than public employee unions? — from suing, however. After all, there’s pretty much never fee-shifting in defendants’ direction under the Lanham Act, although the statute does provide for it (or for that matter for frivolous copyright claims) But good luck on that.
So trademark infringement remains the legal claim of choice for those seeking to shut down smaller, poorer message opponents. File yours today!
UPDATE: Johnny may not be able to read, but the AFT knows how to interpret blog traffic logs. They’ve backed down.