Robert Ryan Morishita http://www.morishitalawfirm.com/
Steven Gibson www.gibsonlowry.com
Gold & Rizvi, P.A. http://www.idea-attorneys.com/
McCormick Barstow LLP http://www.mccormickbarstow.com/
Von Magdenko & Potucek, PLLC http://www.vplasvegaslaw.com/
Weiss and Moy P.C. clloyd@weisiplaw.com
Green Bergn Traurig LLP www.gtlaw.com/
Frank Bangs http://www.lrlaw.com/
Kelly Watson http://www.watsonrounds.com/
Russ Weinzimmer www.strategicpatentlaw.com/
Joseph L. Benson II, Esq. http://www.bensonbingham.com
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Week 7 EOC: Intellectual Property Questions
1. How do I best protect myself from someone else stealing my artwork/design?
2. What’s the first step to take if someone does steal my design?
3. Do you recommend I personally contact a company that I suspect has stolen my idea?
4. How different (percentage wise) does my design have to be than a similar one?
5. What common issues do designers usually overlook in protecting themselves?
6. Do you recommend a lawyer review my contracts before signatures are put on them by the parties involved?
7. Where do you recommend a designer look for a contract template?
8. Is it better to use a template or have a lawyer draft an original contract for my design?
9. If I die and have a patent pending, does it become public domain?
10. When is it necessary to trademark intellectual property?
2. What’s the first step to take if someone does steal my design?
3. Do you recommend I personally contact a company that I suspect has stolen my idea?
4. How different (percentage wise) does my design have to be than a similar one?
5. What common issues do designers usually overlook in protecting themselves?
6. Do you recommend a lawyer review my contracts before signatures are put on them by the parties involved?
7. Where do you recommend a designer look for a contract template?
8. Is it better to use a template or have a lawyer draft an original contract for my design?
9. If I die and have a patent pending, does it become public domain?
10. When is it necessary to trademark intellectual property?
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Week 6 EOC: Illicit
The film by National Geographic explaining the illicit trade of products around the world was very eye opening. I had no idea that this even existed in the world, nor how vast the epidemic spanned. It kind of made me feel bad for when I used to live in New York City and once bought goods off street corner vendors. Now I wonder what my money went to support. Perhaps terrorism or weapons of mass destruction; who knows?
It is beyond amazing to comprehend how the network of criminals work the world as their pawn to help move their end motives. The micro level of utilizing very poor people, to the people towards the upper echelon of cleaning the money shows just how organized the trafficking is. The film was really put together well and I want to recommend it to everyone I know.
The best part of the film on illicit trading was how the criminals clean the money. What an amazing idea it was to use cash to build real estate projects and then flip them for the clean money. It makes you wonder what other ways they use to clean the money. The saddest thought about secret illicit trading is the lives lost in the process. Whether it is the folks used to hock the products on the street, or the family struggling to make end meet who buy fake prescription drugs and end up dying due to complications. This epidemic, in my opinion will never cease. Instead we have to put out the fires, ie. Acts of terrorism, as they arise.
It is beyond amazing to comprehend how the network of criminals work the world as their pawn to help move their end motives. The micro level of utilizing very poor people, to the people towards the upper echelon of cleaning the money shows just how organized the trafficking is. The film was really put together well and I want to recommend it to everyone I know.
The best part of the film on illicit trading was how the criminals clean the money. What an amazing idea it was to use cash to build real estate projects and then flip them for the clean money. It makes you wonder what other ways they use to clean the money. The saddest thought about secret illicit trading is the lives lost in the process. Whether it is the folks used to hock the products on the street, or the family struggling to make end meet who buy fake prescription drugs and end up dying due to complications. This epidemic, in my opinion will never cease. Instead we have to put out the fires, ie. Acts of terrorism, as they arise.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Week 5 EOC: Lawyers Looking for Fame
I have pretty strong feelings against lawyers, and after reading the article by Limpak it only served to fuel my fire. It is unfortunate, but doesn’t come as a surprise, that lawyers would take advantage of their client to help give themselves a leg up on other lawyers. “The Ethical Considerations are aspiration in character and represent the objectives toward which every member of the profession should strive. They constitute a body of principles upon which the lawyer can rely for guidance in many specific situations.” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics) Using a client as a pawn in not in the best interest of the client and undermines the lawyers code of ethics.
In response to this heated topic of lawyers using their clients to achieve personal notoriety, Abeles wrote an article called Quite Desperation for his blog. “The upshot is not that clients should decline to add top Supreme Court practitioners when presented with the opportunity to put one to a case. Rather, it's that clients must do the homework. Think twice.” (http://quietdesperationblawg.blogspot.com/2010/10/supreme-court-practices-turks-clerks.html) Translated, Abeles is saying that the client seeking representation should try to evaluate if their “high priced lawyer who’s working for free” has any personal stakes behind the pro-bono work.
Usually these types of cases that lawyers are going after, represent a poor client. These clients typically don’t have much education and definitely can’t afford to hire a good lawyer. When you put these together, it’s a recipe for disaster. To use a metaphor, it is like partnerin an injured deer with a mountain lion; the deer is simply being slaughtered and has no power against the lion.
The solution might perhaps be to limit how a lawyer can collect his fee when representing a poor client’s high profile case to the Supreme Court. If a lawyer is limited on how much they can retain from a settlement, the questions begs, would an attorney ever take a chance to represent a client where after it’s all said and done the lawyers might not be compensated appropriately? “The decision leaves public interest advocates worried that it will become more difficult to find attorneys willing to take on important—but often far less lucrative—cases.” (http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/rights/info-04-2010/supreme_court_fee_bonuses.html) This is definitely a difficult question to answer, and does nothing but give lawyers a bad name. But then again, what’s new with that?
Works Cited:
Supreme Court Clarifies Fee Bonuses for Underdogs’ Lawyers. Yeager. 2010.
American Legal Ethics Library. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/
Supreme Court Practice's Turks, Clerks, and Quirks. Blog: Scott Abeles. October 19, 2010.
In response to this heated topic of lawyers using their clients to achieve personal notoriety, Abeles wrote an article called Quite Desperation for his blog. “The upshot is not that clients should decline to add top Supreme Court practitioners when presented with the opportunity to put one to a case. Rather, it's that clients must do the homework. Think twice.” (http://quietdesperationblawg.blogspot.com/2010/10/supreme-court-practices-turks-clerks.html) Translated, Abeles is saying that the client seeking representation should try to evaluate if their “high priced lawyer who’s working for free” has any personal stakes behind the pro-bono work.
Usually these types of cases that lawyers are going after, represent a poor client. These clients typically don’t have much education and definitely can’t afford to hire a good lawyer. When you put these together, it’s a recipe for disaster. To use a metaphor, it is like partnerin an injured deer with a mountain lion; the deer is simply being slaughtered and has no power against the lion.
The solution might perhaps be to limit how a lawyer can collect his fee when representing a poor client’s high profile case to the Supreme Court. If a lawyer is limited on how much they can retain from a settlement, the questions begs, would an attorney ever take a chance to represent a client where after it’s all said and done the lawyers might not be compensated appropriately? “The decision leaves public interest advocates worried that it will become more difficult to find attorneys willing to take on important—but often far less lucrative—cases.” (http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/rights/info-04-2010/supreme_court_fee_bonuses.html) This is definitely a difficult question to answer, and does nothing but give lawyers a bad name. But then again, what’s new with that?
Works Cited:
Supreme Court Clarifies Fee Bonuses for Underdogs’ Lawyers. Yeager. 2010.
American Legal Ethics Library. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/
Supreme Court Practice's Turks, Clerks, and Quirks. Blog: Scott Abeles. October 19, 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)