Week 10 EOC: Lawyer Jokes

For the post for today, we were assigned the task of finding some lawyer jokes. Here are some of the cleaner versions I found:

Q: What's the difference between a female lawyer and a pitbull?
A: Lipstick.
www.iciclesoftware.com/LawJokes/IcicleLawJokes.html

Q: Why don't snakes bite attorneys?
A: Professional courtesy.
http://www.stromer.com/jokes/185jokes.html

Q: If you are stranded on a desert island with Adolph Hitler, Atilla the Hun, and a lawyer, and you have a gun with only two bullets, what do you do?
A: Shoot the lawyer twice.
http://www.ahajokes.com/law001.html

Week 9 EOC: Letters of Permission

For the assignment today, we were asked to look up letters of permission and/or contracts for potential use.  I chose the following from a long list of potential candidates:

Letter of permission to use a song
Interview release form
Works-for-hire contract agreement
Website linking agreement

First, I chose the letter of permission to use a song as I may someday host a fashion show and will require music to theme my showcase.  Without the accompaniment of some tunes, the show would be lifeless to say the least, nor would it contain any pizazz that is required to give life to the showcase.

Then I chose the interview release form.  Since we have to interview lawyers, I figured this would be handy for our upcoming final project. Even if it's verbal consent, at least I'm showing them that I have an idea of how litigation works and will fortify my posture of sounding more professional...(in theory of course).

The works-for-hire agreement/contract is something that I know I'll need in the future.  As it stands, I have already been commissioned to make goods before (custom handbags, clothing, etc.) so this will entitle me to credit for my work and will allow me to publish my intellectual designs, therefor protecting my craft.

Lastly, I chose the website linking agreement because there may be an opportunity for me to "piggy back" off of someones current website that has a lot of traffic.  The added bonus of being linked into more than one source only helps me get more exposure, so having this agreement will cement good working relationships with fellow designers and artists- providing a quid pro quo scenario that is beneficial to all parties involved.

The main objective of this exercise is to find ways to CYA so that the terms of any business transactions are well communicated and understood by all parties involved.  This serves to protect not only myself, but others so that the potential for misgivings or litigation are ultimately avoided.  

Week 8 EOC: Bratz (MGA) vs Barbie (Mattel)

In the decade long dispute over trade secrets between the dolls Bratz and Barbie, a significant amount of money has tethered the two in a nasty game of tug-o-war. The often convoluted issues of who stole what and from whom, has taken center stage and is the heart of the matter.

Originally, Barbie was created by Ruth Handler with the assistance of Mattel.  Barbie was one of the first of its kind to evolve away from traditional dolls that were mainly babies. The leap from the traditional doll blossomed into a billion dollar entity with a wide selection of products in her image (cartoons, bedspreads, backpacks, etc.). Moreover, her signature style was born from her mature look and "knock out" measurements, thus creating a highly recognizable toy icon status.

Enter Carter Bryant. A previous employee of Mattel, who worked on the Barbie line, began constructing his own doll line that we now recognize as Bratz. At the time he pitched and ultimately released the doll to MGA for production, there was overlap in his employment with Mattel. This in turn pulled into question whether he had violated a "nondisclosure agreement entered into with [his] employer" (Stim, pg.520), who was Mattel at that time. The issue of trade secrets being used in the production of his doll line was severely under scrutiny, not to mention the time of conception for the brazen doll line.

The push and pull over this issue began in 2004 when Mattel first sought damages. Mattel claimed Bryant was secretly working for the competition, MGA, while still employed with Mattel. Another two years pass and Mattel filed again for damages, but this time it was for copyright infringement and trade secret theft. In 2008 there was yet another suit, but Bryant settled with Mattel before going to trial. However, in 2011 MGA was awarded damages because the judge, David Carter, deemed the first ruling back in 2004 was erroneous, stating that, “Mattel asserted a copyright claim that was stunning in scope and unreasonable in relief it requested,” Carter said. “The claim imperiled free expression, competition and the only serious competitor Mattel had faced in the fashion doll market in nearly 50 years.” (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-08-05/mga-wins-225-million-punitive-damages-fees-against-mattel.html). 

Bryant claims to have originally sketched the concept for the Bratz dolls back in 1998, before his employment with Mattel. This did not shake Mattel from jumping all over the claim that he stole trade secret to produce the doll by using knowledge that is "not known outside of the particular business entity" (Stim, pg. 519). In 2011, a jury found that Mattel did not own a copyright in the creative designs behind the dolls. It also found that the ideas, designs and name of the doll collection were not Mattel’s trade secrets and that generally, MGA/Bryant did not take any of Mattel’s trade secrets for their use. The same jury found, however, that Mattel was guilty of "misappropriation of trade secrets occur[ed]...by improper means" (Stim, pg. 549), by attending showroom floors at MGA using fake business cards to gain access.  Mattel, again, was at the throat of MGA in asking for a retrial, but was ultimately denied. This matter is likely to head to the Supreme Court to finally be put to sleep.

In closing, this case has become a bit like 'the most suspicious is also the most guilty. It is my opinion that Mattel has taken this too far. The Barbie brand is a classic one that is not in jeopardy of dying off anytime soon. Nor do they need to fear whether Bratz dolls would ever be confused with Barbie. If anything, Mattel needs to step it up and compete fairly. It seems that they are the ones hitting below the belt and for not. Innovation and creativity shall prevail.

Week 7 EOC: Lawyers

The following is a list of lawyers and contact numbers for the upcoming final project .

Out of State:

1. Steve Barnes- (303) 995-1492 (Criminal lawyer based in Colorado)

2. Patty Barnes- (303) 757-4971 (Criminal lawyer based in Colorado- Partner)

In State:

3.  Randal D. Shimon Law Chartered- (702) 312-4175 (IP)

4.  Reynolds & Associates- (702) 997-0467/ (702) 445-7000 (IP)

5. McDonald Carano Wilson LLP- (702) 873-4100 (IP)

6. The Amin Law Group- (702) 990-3583 (IP)

7. Law Offices of Philip A. Kantor, P.C. - (888) 575-2295

8. Cotton, Driggs, Walch, Holley, Woloson & Thompson- (702) 791-0308

9. Kenehan & Lambertsen Limited- (702) 997-1732 (IP)

10. Law Office of Mary F. Chapman, Ltd- (702) 800-3362 (IP)

Week 6 EOC: Illicit Trade

In the documentary, "Illicit: The Dark Trade"-by National Geographic, it begins with the seemingly innocent purchase of a designer knock-off handbag. The documentary then follows the veins from the counterfeit bag being sold on the street, back to its origin of construction thousands of miles away. What’s more is that the journey, from shop to streets, is shared with very sinister company in-tow. The likes of which are human trafficking, counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs, and illegal organ transplants to list a few. This well established and flourishing industry of illicit trafficking of goods, has become a full scale epidemic that gains momentum daily. All efforts to slow down this high speed train is like a snail trying to out run a cougar: with every bust, they lop of the head of a monster only to turn around and see ten more heads sprouting from its' neck.

In watching this documentary, I began to wonder how this would affect my craft should I be fortunate enough to succeed and become a profitable designer? How will I protect my trade from imitation knock-offs, that are often more perfect than the designer brand who releases them? Would I even be aware that it was even happening across the globe? The answer is simply a matter of effort I would have to put forth to protect my goods. 

As it stands, I am a purse maker, so this documentary was not too surprising in regards to the endless knock-offs that I've seen personally. I always, however, wondered how the designer giants: Prada, Gucci, Chanel and Fendi, managed in fighting off the relentless opportunists that copy and sell their wears. The answer was a combination of sorts. In some ways, they could do nothing and let knock-offs be distributed, as is the case currently, and see this as a positive for advertising on the behalf of designer houses. Though I would counter that this logic does not support the essence of why these giants are so successful. The whole idea is that these brands are a status. Only those with cash can carry. So if the average high school student, or Walmart mom has a Chanel bag over her shoulder, then it loses its luster for exclusivity. The other option was to higher expensive private investigation crews to seek out the imitators and shut-down the factories. For those who have the means, this is a very viable option, though very slow to achieve its goal.

My solution is maintain exclusivity is to have a registry. I currently make one-of-a-kind handbags that are not easily replicated due to the very nature of how I make my prints and I lack patterns for construction. The result is a purse that is yielded out of materials that I have on hand, and at the amount of it I have in that particular print. That's not to say that this type of print making is not susceptible to imitation, but it does make it harder. Furthermore, by having a registry, I could personally issue a number to that purse, that I only have access to. So upon purchase, the purse is sent with a card of authenticity and a number that ensures the item is not a fake and can be traced back to my hub. I could also change the sequence of numeric filing to stay ahead of copy-cats, who try to emulate my system. In all, I think this will be more successful at maintaining the exclusivity that every consumer wants when buying a luxury piece that sets them apart from the mainstream. I want that right for my clientel and think this will ensure their satisfaction with my product and my name.

Week 5 EOC: Patent Trolls

Back in 2010, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled, "New Breed of Patent Claim Bedevils Product Makers", by Dionne Searcey. The contents therein give face to individuals, commonly known, to the business and patent law community, as Patent Trolls. These individuals range from the seemingly concerned consumer (as most proclaim to be), to companies deftly coined “patent assertion compan[ies]” (pg. 137, Stim). At any rate, they are in the business of filing suits against companies for patent infringements, even though they are “not in the business of making or selling anything” (pg. 137, Stim). Aside from this glaring disparity, they are an welcomed nuisance to companies because “they seek licensing fees that are disproportionate to the patent’s value, often because they are well funded and can afford litigation costs” (pg. Stim).

 This seemingly petty practice, as discussed in the article, has launched hundreds of suits from “concerned consumers” and investigative patent infringement agencies, to intentionally rummage through the shelves to find expired patents (on a variety of goods) in order to file with the courts. One might counter that this practice of “gotcha” tactics to ensure products do not have falsely marked or expired patent numbers on them, is a service to consumers and competitors alike; however, this trend of ‘suing anyone for anything to get rich quick’ has got to have some limits. Litigation is getting out of hand and bogging down the judicial system with trivial claims in most instances.

To the chagrin of many companies, there is an expectation to maintain 100% control over tracking items that have expired markings. This is an altogether task and not a realistic one at that. Too often is the case where products are produced with these markings; stored in warehouses, where they may be purchased/stored by a third party for a multitude of years, and then the risk of violating patent laws if purchased after the time stamp of the patent. This isn’t practical. A solution to keep from having to run these items down and face litigation is to simply avoid the markings on the product, but then that kind of defeats the purpose of a patent in the first place. I contend that there should be a ‘grandfather clause’ on items that are sold/present with expired patent markings. As long as it was already distributed, then it is safe. Otherwise, a potential competitor only need to look up the currency of a patent to see if a new patent is an option.

In all, the patent trolls need to be banished back under the bridge, as in the Billy Goats Three, and allow consumers and competitors alike, to do their homework and research the validity of a product patent.

Source: Patent, Copyright & Trademark: 12th Edition, March 2012, By Richard Stim

Week 4 EOC: Jeopardy Game Critic

In preparation for our mid-term exam, the class was tasked to develop questions for a Jeopardy game, to be played by the students in class the following week.

Initially, the thought of memorizing 100+ pages of terms and concepts seemed to be a very daunting task, especially with our busy lives and other class commitments. However, in pouring over the pages repeatedly, and honing in on relevant information pertaining to our fields of study, the terms became more connu.

Later, in class, we were split up into collaborative groups, with our books in hand for quick referencing. Students took turns manning their games for the class, as the rest feverishly attempted to answer the various gauntlets of questions. In addition, the elements of points gained and lost with right or wrong answers, forced student to make a strong effort to post the correct answers. At the end of a series of questions, those groups with the highest points, gained currency, via yellow post-it notes. The post-it notes would later become extra credit points to count toward the mid-term exam the following week. This combination of rewards/punishments and competition among the classmates enabled an environment whereby, the terms were further embedded and committed to memory.

The end result was a success. This could be seen through the various "Aha!" and "Oh, I remember that!", which could be heard at different intervals of the game. There was a sense of satisfaction when one remembered off the top of their head, or had the term referenced already from their game, and were able to lock in a correct answer. Moreover, this innovative approach memorizing what appeared to be impossible, was made very manageable and entertaining. I hope the continuity of this tool to study for tests, remains a function of the class, and serves as a recommendation to others looking for creative options.

Week 3 EOC: Jeopardy Questions

Here are three of my Jeopardy questions for the classroom showdown:

Q. This refers to all previous developments that are used by the USPTO and the courts to determine whether a particular invention is novel and nonobvious.  

A. What is prior art?

Q. When a patent owner requires companies to not only purchase the patented invention, but also requires them to purchase non-patented items as well. 

A. What is tying?

 

Q. This document transfers a patent owner’s rights in exchange for money payable in a lump sum or royalties on future sales of the invention. 

A. What is an assignment?

Week 2 EOC: Erin Brockovich

In the movie, "Erin Brockovich", based on the real life case of Anderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric, the inhabitants of Hinkley, California become involved in a class action suit to reclaim damages to their health as a result of drinking contaminated ground water leaked from a neighboring PG&E company plant. Though this movie depicts a warm, feel good story about the underdog receiving his just desserts in the face of a multi-billion dollar company, it fails to mention key details about how the real players in this story were more concerned with profit rather than the alleged injustice this town's people endured. What's more is that many of the 650 plaintiffs didn't even recover the award money owed to them in a timely manner, nor to the degree that the movie suggests.

The most glaring disparity between fact and fiction is denoted at the end of the movie, when the plaintiffs receive wide-eyed sums of award money as a result of the 333 million dollar settlement. Let's do the math.  We must start by taking out the 40% for the legal team -comprised of Ed Masry, Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack in real life (Erin Brockovich only received $2 million for the fruits of her labor)- plus an additional $10 million they charged their clients for expenses, now split that by 650 and you'll get an average $300,000 per victim ( http://www.salon.com/2000/04/14/sharp/). Not too shabby, but in the face of people who would just be paying for the tip of the iceberg in medical expenses, it's small fries. Then you look to the legal team. “We are the ones who made those guys zillionaires.”, said one plaintiff ( http://www.salon.com/2000/04/14/sharp/). Now the "heroes" don't seem so noble in taking such an unprecedented amount when they weren't the individuals plagued with life long maladies, who would continue require and pay for expensive medical care. Sadder still, many of the plaintiffs received varied amounts. Not the $300,000 estimated per victim. They were allegedly awarded different amounts due to the nature of their illness; however, several victims said that their medical records were never even cracked open, so how these  determinations were made is unknown and were made confidential to the public. Thus the sums ranged from $25,000-$2 million. In addition, the citizens were strongly "encouraged" not to disclose to anyone what their take home amounted to, as the legal team knew this would likely cause turmoil. They were right. Subsequent lawsuits were filed to expose the legal teams fraudulent practices. 

Lastly, it took 5-6 months for these people to receive payment. "A staff attorney for the California State Bar’s Professional Competency Unit, Randall Difuntorum, said that in 1997 the bar disciplined an attorney who had kept his client’s award for an unusually long time — six weeks — before releasing it." ( http://www.salon.com/2000/04/14/sharp/). When the legal team was confronted and inundated with calls and requests to demand the whereabouts of their settlements, they were ignored and would not account for their lag on disbursement. Walter Lack would later say in an interview,"There were 650 cases! That was record time!" (http://www.salon.com/2000/04/14/sharp/). However, he, nor Ed Masry, would ever disclose the process of disbursement. And as a side note, the interest made from the award money procured over the six month period was never disclosed to this date. Assumptions can be made as to where this additional money went. 

In closing, I don't want to take anything away from this movie. The casting, directing, and story-line very well done. The heart of the matter is that when Hollywood creates a version of events that are misleading and riddled with lies, then says it's based on a true story (in the loosest sense of the word), it creates an illusion. This illusion only serves to instill a false sense of faith in people that the justice system is fair, just, or truly concerned for the misfortunes of the disadvantaged. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are grossly outnumbered by those who have ever dealt with the justice system and offering their hand only to have the judges and lawyers take the fingers.

Week 1 EOC: My Voice

My passion has always been fashion. For me it all began as a young girl watching my mother peruse her walk-in closet of clothes and shoes. I would try on her things and select from all the colors, textures, cuts and patterns. It was also around this time that I developed a talent for creating clothing. Starting with fashioning dresses for my dolls, I would eventually graduate to making my own outfits and costumes in high school. I've known for some time that the fashion industry was something that I was destined to do. I come from a long line of seamstresses for one, and it's the only thing I've ever really wanted to do. Even as a adult, I've had various jobs, but always moonlighted in the fashion realm. I truly love it all. From sketching to construction, fashion production to tailoring models, I've done it and enjoyed it all. This is my calling and I'm finally making the moves to do something about it.