Choosing the right lawyer is an extremely important decision made on part by the designer seeking legal advice. Lawyers actually specialize in Intellectual Property (referred to as IP) Law. Since the IP laws seemingly overlap, it is important to interview numerous lawyers to find the right one who has experience in the specific issue facing your IP.
The book I’ve used as my “home base”, Patent, Copyright & Trademark. Nolo. 11Ed., has stated that no only does an IP Lawyer need a law degree, but they “are required to have a technical higher education degree as well as a legal background and must pass a USPTO examination in order to obtain their license” (Patent, Copyright & Trademark. Nolo. 11Ed. p104). The book suggests I use the listing on their website (www.nolo.com) appropriately titled: “Attorneys and Agents Registered to Practice Before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”, to find lawyers who are qualified to practice in IP law. This is where I obtained the majority of my potential contacts for this class project.
“The most well-known benefit of owning IP: the owner acquires exclusive rights and can file a lawsuit to stop others who use the property without authorization” (Patent, Copyright & Trademark. Nolo. 11Ed. p5). After calling numerous lawyers (see my lawyer list from week 7 in my blog) I was left with no responses. Seems they don’t return phone calls very easily. I quickly realized that I needed a new plan of attack and decided to interview my friend Jessica Pedraza. I choose Jessica because she graduated from the Law School at the University of Colorado earlier this year. Although she doesn’t have experience specifically practicing IP Law, I knew that she would be able to make very informed decisions in helping me answer some legal questions I had and help me complete this class project.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Week 10 EOC: Erin Brocovich vs. Robert Kearns
Both of these movies showed explicitly how large corporations can take advantage of those in society. It’s really a shame that these corporations use their lawyers and vast amounts of money to bury others who could be considered disenfranchised, under paperwork and nonsense. It should be pretty clear that, for example in the movie Flash of Genius, he invented the intermittent windshield wipers. Ford Motor Company stole his idea, and only after twenty years of litigation finally got a settlement in his favor. The trials in both of the movies Erin Brochovich and Flash of Genius lasted for years. The main characters involved both portrayed real life people who took on large corporations to fight for what they believed in. I understand the passions both felt towards their ideas and can sympathize with them. Once again, it’s a shame that lawyers aren’t all fighting for the truth, they instead fight for whoever will pay them. Since both movies had very strong cases to fight in a court of law, it’s no wonder that there was a clear divide between which side of the fence the characters were on. Both the characters of Erin and Robert, were fighting for what they believed in and for justice. I hope that I never have to defend myself against the giants that Robert and Erin took on in the movies.
Week 10 BOC: Lawyer Jokes
http://www.101funjokes.com/lawyer_jokes.htm
A man phones a lawyer and asks, "How much would you charge for just answering three simple questions?" The lawyer replies, "A thousand dollars." "A thousand dollars!" exclaims the man. "That's very expensive isn't it? "It certainly is," says the lawyer. "Now, what's your third question?"
Two small boys, not yet old enough to be in school, were overheard talking at the zoo one day. "My name is Billy. What's yours?" asked the first boy. "Tommy," replied the second. "My Daddy's an accountant. What does your Daddy do for a living?" asked Billy. Tommy replied, "My Daddy's a lawyer." "Honest?" asked Billy. "No, just the regular kind", replied Tommy.
A lawyer finds out he has a brain tumor, and it's inoperable - in fact, it's so large, they have to do a brain transplant. His doctor gives him a choice of available brains - there's a jar of rocket scientist brains for $10 an ounce, a jar of regular scientist brains for $15 an ounce, and a jar of lawyer brains for the princely sum of $800 an ounce. The outraged lawyer says, "This is a ripoff - how come the lawyer brains are so damned expensive?" The doctor replies, "Do you know how many lawyers it takes to get an ounce of brains?"
Children who never come when called will grow up to be doctors. Children who come before they are called will grow up to be lawyers.
Q: You're stranded in a deserted island with Attila the Hun, Adolf Hitler, and a lawyer. You have a revolver with two bullets. What do you do?
A: Shoot the lawyer twice!
It was so cold last winter that I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.
"You seem to have more than the average share of intelligence for a man of your background," sneered the lawyer at a witness on the stand.
"If I wasn't under oath, I'd return the compliment," replied the witness.
God decided to take the devil to court and settle their differences once and for all. When Satan heard this, he laughed and said, "And where do you think you're going to find a lawyer?"
A lawyer's dog, running about unleashed, beelines for a butcher shop and steals a roast. The Butcher goes to lawyer's office and asks, "if a dog running unleashed steals a piece of meat from my store, do I have a right to demand payment for the meat from the dog's owner?" The lawyer answers, "Absolutely." "Then you owe me $8.50. Your dog was loose and stole a roast from me today." The lawyer, without a word, writes the butcher a check for $8.50 [attorneys don't carry cash -- it's too plebeian -- and the butcher hadn't brought the shop's credit card imprinter to the lawyer's office]. Several periods of time later -- it could be the next day but that would be unrealistic -- the butcher opens the mail and finds an envelope from the lawyer: $20 due for a consultation.
What's the difference between an attorney and a trampoline? You take your boots off to jump on a trampoline.
A man phones a lawyer and asks, "How much would you charge for just answering three simple questions?" The lawyer replies, "A thousand dollars." "A thousand dollars!" exclaims the man. "That's very expensive isn't it? "It certainly is," says the lawyer. "Now, what's your third question?"
Two small boys, not yet old enough to be in school, were overheard talking at the zoo one day. "My name is Billy. What's yours?" asked the first boy. "Tommy," replied the second. "My Daddy's an accountant. What does your Daddy do for a living?" asked Billy. Tommy replied, "My Daddy's a lawyer." "Honest?" asked Billy. "No, just the regular kind", replied Tommy.
A lawyer finds out he has a brain tumor, and it's inoperable - in fact, it's so large, they have to do a brain transplant. His doctor gives him a choice of available brains - there's a jar of rocket scientist brains for $10 an ounce, a jar of regular scientist brains for $15 an ounce, and a jar of lawyer brains for the princely sum of $800 an ounce. The outraged lawyer says, "This is a ripoff - how come the lawyer brains are so damned expensive?" The doctor replies, "Do you know how many lawyers it takes to get an ounce of brains?"
Children who never come when called will grow up to be doctors. Children who come before they are called will grow up to be lawyers.
Q: You're stranded in a deserted island with Attila the Hun, Adolf Hitler, and a lawyer. You have a revolver with two bullets. What do you do?
A: Shoot the lawyer twice!
It was so cold last winter that I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.
"You seem to have more than the average share of intelligence for a man of your background," sneered the lawyer at a witness on the stand.
"If I wasn't under oath, I'd return the compliment," replied the witness.
God decided to take the devil to court and settle their differences once and for all. When Satan heard this, he laughed and said, "And where do you think you're going to find a lawyer?"
A lawyer's dog, running about unleashed, beelines for a butcher shop and steals a roast. The Butcher goes to lawyer's office and asks, "if a dog running unleashed steals a piece of meat from my store, do I have a right to demand payment for the meat from the dog's owner?" The lawyer answers, "Absolutely." "Then you owe me $8.50. Your dog was loose and stole a roast from me today." The lawyer, without a word, writes the butcher a check for $8.50 [attorneys don't carry cash -- it's too plebeian -- and the butcher hadn't brought the shop's credit card imprinter to the lawyer's office]. Several periods of time later -- it could be the next day but that would be unrealistic -- the butcher opens the mail and finds an envelope from the lawyer: $20 due for a consultation.
What's the difference between an attorney and a trampoline? You take your boots off to jump on a trampoline.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Week 7 EOC: 10 Lawyers With Websites
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
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
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)