May 2010

It is said – generally by public relations people – that “all publicity is good publicity.” They may actually believe it. We have our doubts.

Generally, our society holds perseverance to be a virtue. We look with disdain upon “quitters.” Nevertheless, there are times when it is best to accept your losses and simply walk away. It would seem, however, that some folks don’t recognize this. (Aristocrat Technologies et al. v. International Game Technology et al.)

Having previously recounted statistics which demonstrate that legal malpractice claims are not a likely key to financial success (see previous blog FINIS), we turn our attention to false marking or mismarking claims, an exciting (lawyerspeak for “lots of money to be made”) new area of the law.

Texans are noted for their love of the wide open spaces. It would appear that for one Texas judge, Judge Leonard Davis, this love extends to the open spaces on a printed page. (VirnetX v. Microsoft)

Several of our recent blog entries have dealt with the increasingly popular sport of suing attorneys. Well, all good things must come to an end. Frankly, we think we have just about exhausted both the educational and entertainment content of this topic. Therefore, we are concluding with some facts and statistics we cribbed from the Profile Of Legal Malpractice Claims, 2004-2007 compiled by the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Lawyers Professional Liability.

As the reader of our blogs may have discerned, we generally are not sympathetic to attorneys who commit malpractice. We are equally unsympathetic to disgruntled clients who bring frivolous malpractice suits against their former attorneys. A recent case, however, involves a pathetic defense to what may well be a weak claim. A pox on both of their houses. (JS Products Inc. v. Standley Law Group et al.)

Occasionally, we encounter a case which is both ironically entertaining and instructive. (Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Communications Integrated Systems)

Lockheed is the producer of the popular – in military circles – P3 Orion anti-submarine aircraft. Although the Orion is no longer in production, vast sums are spent annually, by armed forces around the world, to refurbish and upgrade existing aircraft.

As the reader may (should) know, a copyright assignment, if it is to be enforceable, must be “in writing and signed.” Clear? Maybe not.

Must the written document identify the copyrights which are being transferred, or is it sufficient that the document merely indicate that some of the transferor’s copyrights are being transferred, leaving a court to determine which ones? Surprisingly, this question has apparently never been addressed – until now. (The SCO Group v. Novell)

While it may seem unbelievable to the average layperson (note political correctness – layPERSON), some attorneys are unethical, even some PATENT attorneys. (In The Matter of S. Michael Bender)

Back in the 1990s – the mills of justice grind slowly – Bender was employed by American Inventors Corp., a so-called “invention promotion” firm. AIC charged inventors a fixed fee to promote their inventions, promising to refund the fee if AIC failed to procure a patent on the invention.