News that comes to you? - I've subtly hinted several times that I thought this was actually possible. Who knew that there were already people who are doing it? Well there are, and J.D. Lasica has tracked them down and has the full story.
Later: I've now read JD's article closely enough to know that I need to print it out and read it all even more closely. His article has everything that you need to know about News Readers or News Aggregators, and includes opinions from people who use them extensively.
A paralegal's philosophy - we should all have a philosophy about our lives and our work. And we lawyers who use paralegals should be lucky enough to have thoughtful ones like Kim.
11:27:30 AM
Stuff I find laying around in my news aggregator - "Resources: Banking Law. Issues on Fridays review and update annotations already appearing in our various research guides. Today's issue covers sources of banking law." [via TVC Alert]
11:20:14 AM
The law should be outlined for easy reference - that's what Rory Perry (Clerk of the West Virginia Supreme Court) thinks. And what he thinkshe does.
11:16:07 AM
The New York Times: All the News That's Fit to Fisk - I have to admit I had not yet grokked the expression "fisking" although I had seen it frequently used by Glenn Reynolds. Anyhow, I just read Marty's line-by-line dissection (aka "fisking") of the New York Times article on _______. I'm not sure how to describe what it's about because, as Marty so accurately pointed out, it's really just journalistic pablum (although it seems to want to make clever points about intellectual property law). After reading the article (filtered through Marty's fisking) it occurred to me that I no longer have much tolerance for reading news written for the mass culture.
I guess that means I'm an elitist. Fine, I surrender. But I have to tell you inside my narrow perspective it doesn't feel like elitism. It feels like I'm tired of being talked to by pundits who breeze through a story with colorful, but contrived, connections and transitions. And unless you train yourself to stop and analyze what is going on you are just led along like some dim-witted, slow moving drool who has to have the world explained to him. Oh, see the pretty flowers over there! Oh, oh, and that red one is really shiny, isn't it?
I'm sick of the media trying to pretend that they have magic powers that allow them to be (1) unbiased, and (2) skilled at bringing the complex world down to our level. Please. We're not fools. We understand, I think, that we don't live in a world of constant either-or choices. The entire world is not black or white, shiny or dull, good or evil, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. Hey Journos, just go ahead and let your bias show and do your best to explain (which means inerviewing people who really want to convey information accurately; not people who want to get up on a soapbox and sound witty and charming). I can handle the truth. But you aren't going to give it to me, are you?
The New York Times isn't the only media outlet that doesn't get it. Salon has issues too. Maybe they should take Ken Layne's advice for reform. Somehow I don't see either Salon or the N.Y. Times taking his advice. And I don't see me paying for their subscriptions anymore either.
8:56:26 AM
Trademark Law 101 - how useful are common law trademarks? - one of the really basic things in starting a new business is that you have to make sure that you choose a good name. The best name for a new product or service is one that's truly unique. OIL OF OLAY was a great name because (as I understand it) there is no such thing as "Olay" and so it's a unique name. Plus it sounds cool. EXXON is better example. The online bookstore that we know as AMAZON picked a name that wasn't unique, but who'd of thought to name a bookstore after a South American River. Apparently no one before Jeff Bezos.
Why am I discussing this trademark stuff? I mean the person here in the blogosphere who knows this stuff far better than I do is Marty Schwimmer. Well, the reason I'm discussing it is I'm going to raise my hand in a second and ask Professor Schwimmer a question. But I wanted to give some legal background so everyone who is interested in this sort of thing can get up to speed.
So, as I was saying, names are important. I know that first hand from a few trademark cases that I've been involved in. For example, the Popeyes chicken chain was started by a fellow named Al Copeland, who named his store Popeyes after Gene Hackman's character in the movie The French Connection. As his stable of little stores started to grow he realized that more people thought of Popeyes as being associated with the cartoon character. So he started using the cartoon sailor to promote his restaurant. Then after he became really successful he got a call from the lawyers for King Features Syndicate. Obviously, Al Copeland hadn't ever done a trademark search when he chose the name for his business.
I know of two other locally famous businesses in New Orleans that have grown over the years and have become premier businesses in this area, but have never applied for a state or federal trademark for their name. So are they out of luck? No.
There is a thing called a "common law trademark," which will kick in if you are using a mark in commerce. Assuming no one had previously acquired rights to the mark in the locale where you are actually using the mark then you get common law rights. But only in the locales where you are actually using the mark. So, even if you've been using the mark in various locations in a state, if someone applies for, and gets, a state trademark then they will have rights to all of the locations in the state where you are not yet operating; and the same concept applies to federal trademarks (i.e. they get rights throughout the country in all places not subject to common law trademarks). So what is the lesson here? It's simple. Failure to register a trademark (just as they used to say about smoking) can stunt your growth. And Federal Trademarks promote growth best of all.
Common law trademarks are okay, but since they only apply to where you actually do business they aren't very powerful. Or are they? I was thinking about this the other day in the context of the much bandied-about term "blawg." Let's say that Denise Howell originated that term (which she did). And let's also say that she used it on her blog in a manner sufficient to satisfy the "using in commerce" requirement of common law trademark rights. And let's say she never registers this term for any state or federal protection. So she only has "common law rights." But she's been using the term on the Internet, which is sort of a big place. Does she have common law rights throughout the United States?
Let's ask Professor Schwimmer. And by the way, this is truly a hypothetical. I'm using the example of the "blawg" because it is something that we all know about and can relate to, even the non-lawyers among us.
