JD Journal » Google

Email Complaining about Date goes Viral

jim — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 03:17:18 +0000

Stalking is a common occurrence in the United States, especially when it comes to the stalking of an ex-lover. The crime is always looked upon as a more serious crime, no matter who is performing the stalking or who is being stalked. It does not even matter how much money the person doing the stalking has in their possession. There is one specific investment manager from New York who just does not seem to get the hint.

At the New York Philharmonic, Lauren met Mike. The two had one date, which has been described as horrific to the Huffington Post. After that one date, Lauren did not return any of Mike’s text messages or voicemail messages.

Since Lauren decided not to return any of Mike’s phone calls or text messages, he took matters into his own hands. Mike Googled Lauren’s email address and sent her an email that tallied over 1,600 words. The email sent by Mike, which details every instance of how Lauren led him on, has gone viral. The email can be found all over the internet, and was even posted on Reddit.

The very, very entertaining email sent to Lauren from Mike is posted below, courtesy of the Huffington Post. It is amazing that Lauren like classical music and twirled her hair. How dare she do such a thing to Mike.

“Hi Lauren,

I’m disappointed in you. I’m disappointed that I haven’t gotten a response to my voicemail and text messages.
FYI, I suggest that you keep in mind that emails sound more impersonal, harsher, and are easier to misinterpret than in-person or phone communication. After all, people can’t see someone’s body language or tone of voice in an email. I’m not trying to be harsh, patronizing, or insulting in this email. I’m honest and direct by nature, and I’m going to be that way in this email. By the way, I did a google search, so that’s how I came across your email.

I assume that you no longer want to go out with me. (If you do want to go out with me, then you should let me know.) I suggest that you make a sincere apology to me for giving me mixed signals. I feel led on by you.

Things that happened during our date include, but are not limited to, the following:

-You played with your hair a lot. A woman playing with her hair is a common sign of flirtation. You can even do a google search on it. When a woman plays with her hair, she is preening. I’ve never had a date where a woman played with her hair as much as you did. In addition, it didn’t look like you were playing with your hair out of nervousness.

-We had lots of eye contact during our date. On a per-minute basis, I’ve never had as much eye contact during a date as I did with you.

-You said, “It was nice to meet you.” at the end of our date. A woman could say this statement as a way to show that she isn’t interested in seeing a man again or she could mean what she said–that it was nice to meet you. The statement, by itself, is inconclusive.

-We had a nice conversation over dinner. I don’t think I’m being delusional in saying this statement.

In my opinion, leading someone on (i.e., giving mixed signals) is impolite and immature. It’s bad to do that.
Normally, I would not be asking for information if a woman and I don’t go out again after a first date. However, in our case, I’m curious because I think our date went well and that there is a lot of potential for a serious relationship. Of course, it’s difficult to predict what would happen, but I think there is a lot of potential for a serious relationship developing between us one day (or least there was before your non-response to my voicemail and text messages).

I think we should go out on a second date. In my opinion, our first date was good enough to lead to a second date.
Why am I writing you? Well, hopefully, we will go out again. Even if we don’t, I gain utility from expressing my thoughts to you. In addition, even if you don’t want to go out again, I would like to get feedback as to why you wouldn’t want to go again. Normally, I wouldn’t ask a woman for this type of feedback after a first date, but this is an exception given I think we have a lot of potential.

If you don’t want to go again, then apparently you didn’t think our first date was good enough to lead to a second date. Dating or a relationship is not a Hollywood movie. It’s good to keep that in mind. In general, I thought the date went well and was expecting that we would go out on a second date.

If you’re not interested in going out again, then I would have preferred if you hadn’t given those mixed signals. I feel led on. We have a number of things in common. I’ll name a few things: First, we’ve both very intelligent. Second, we both like classical music so much that we go to classical music performances by ourselves. In fact, the number one interest that I would want to have in common with a woman with whom I’m in a relationship is a liking of classical music. I wouldn’t be seriously involved with a woman if she didn’t like classical music. You said that you’re planning to go the NY Philharmonic more often in the future.

As I said, I go to the NY Philharmonic often. You’re very busy. It would be very convenient for you to date me because we have the same interests. We already go to classical music performances by ourselves. If we go to classical music performances together, it wouldn’t take any significant additional time on your part. According to the internet, you’re 33 or 32, so, at least from my point of view, we’re a good match in terms of age. I could name more things that we have in common, but I’ll stop here. I don’t understand why you apparently don’t want to go out with me again. We have numerous things in common. I assume that you find me physically attractive. If you didn’t find me physically attractive, then it would have been irrational for you to go out with me in the first place. After all, our first date was not a blind date. You already knew what I looked like before our date. Perhaps, you’re unimpressed that I manage my family’s investments and my own investments. Perhaps, you don’t think I have a “real” job. Well, I’ve done very well as an investment manager. I’ve made my parents several millions of dollars.

That’s real money. That’s not monopoly money. In my opinion, if I make real money, it’s a real job. Donald Trump’s children work for his company. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so. George Soros’s sons help manage their family investments. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so. In addition, I’m both a right-brain and left-brain man, given that I’m both an investment manager and a philosopher/writer. That’s a unique characteristic; most people aren’t like that. I’ve never been as disappointed and sad about having difficulty about getting a second date as I am with you. I’ve gone out with a lot of women in my life. (FYI, I’m not a serial dater. Sometimes, I’ve only gone out with a woman for one date.) People don’t grow on trees. I hope you appreciate the potential we have.

Am I sensitive person? Sure, I am. I think it’s better to be sensitive than to be insensitive. There are too many impolite, insensitive people in the world.

I suggest that we continue to go out and see what happens. Needless to say, I find you less appealing now (given that you haven’t returned my messages) than I did at our first date. However, I would be willing to go out with you again. I’m open minded and flexible and am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I wish you would give me the benefit of the doubt too. If you don’t want to go out again, in my opinion, you would be making a big mistake, perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in your life. If you don’t want to go out again, then you should have called to tell me so. Even sending a text message would have been better than nothing. In my opinion, not responding to my messages is impolite, immature, passive aggressive, and cowardly. I spent time, effort, and money meeting you for dinner. Getting back to me in response to my messages would have been a reasonable thing for you to do. In addition, you arrived about 30 minutes late for our date. I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if a man showed up thirty minutes late for a first date with you.

If you’re concerned that you will hurt my feelings by providing specific information about why you don’t want to go with me again, well, my feeling are already hurt. I’m sad and disappointed about this situation. If you give information, at least I can understand the situation better. I might even learn something that is beneficial.

If you don’t want to go out again, that I request that you call me and make a sincere apology for leading me on (i.e., giving me mixed signals). In my opinion, you shouldn’t act that way toward a man and then not go out with him again. It’s bad to play with your hair so much and make so much eye contact if you’re not interested in going out with me again. I have tried to write this email well, but it’s not perfect. Again, I’m not trying to be harsh, insulting, patronizing, etc. I’m disappointed, sad, etc. I would like to talk to you on the phone. I hope you will call me back at xxx-xxx-xxxx> (if it’s inconvenient for you to talk on the phone when you read this email, you can let me know via email that you are willing to talk on the phone and I’ll call you). If you get my voicemail, you can a leave a message and I can call you back. Even if you don’t want to go out again, I would appreciate it if you give me the courtesy of calling me and talking to me. Yes, you might say things that hurt me, but my feelings are already hurt. Sending me an email response (instead of talking on the phone) would better than no response at all, but I think it would be better to talk on the phone. Email communication has too much potential for misinterpretation, etc.

Best, Mike”

Google Plus & The Business of Law?

jim — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:31:56 +0000

A new social media tool is in the market. This social media tool is by Google and known world-wise as Google+. The social networking site already has millions of users. It might be ready for some markets but is it ready for lawyers and law firms? However, a more important question is …can these law firms and lawyers handle Google +?

Larry Bodie who is a current EIC for various online magazines states “I see HUGE potential for using Google+ in law firm marketing,” Bodine says. “Many lawyers have already proceeded to set up Google+ accounts individually, not waiting for brands to be allowed.”

There are several features that can help a law firm. These features include the Pages aspect of Google+ and the business description capabilities. Google is certainly one of the most popular search engines of all times. Having a connection with this popular search engine cannot hurt your business in the slightest bit. There are several advantages to using Google+ to expand the knowledge of your law firm.

-Search engine optimization is an important key feature in Google’s search engine.

-Law marketing seems to be moving towards online video with places like You Tube.

- Google+ connects with email and is a great feature for your office.

All around using social media is a major perk for any business. Google+ has been known to be just as effective as using a blog. This is because when a person searches for your company, the search engine results may land them on your Google + page. One of the most favorite features of Google+ is the feature called Circles. There are also other features like direct messaging and sending the people in your circle a newsletter. You can also choose a feature that lets you update a status and expose it to the whole world. It’s not every day you get a chance to tell the whole world what you think.

As you can see, there are a lot of features with Google+ that make it easy for any law firm to use. It kind of replaces blogging and allows a person to find you. Your information can be displayed as well. It’s easy to access and that is what people are looking for when they search for a law firm or lawyer. Although, there are some features that do not set it apart from other networking sites. However, Google is working on adding features that are Google+ specific. Originality is important and Google is still aiming for that. Google+ is trying to be the best social media site out there by adding the best of all social media tools into one setting.

The biggest issue lawyers and law firms run into when using Google+ is getting users to actually sign up. While there may be 40 million users signed up, there are not 40 million users actually actively participating. Whichever way you look at it, Google+ is still a great tool for law firms and lawyers to reach a targeted audience or circle.

As Zynga IPO Approaches, CEO Pincus Demands Stock Back from Employees, Lest they be Fired

rebneely — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:13:30 +0000

According to the November 10^th news.cnet.com article, “Zynga to employees: Give Back our stock or you’ll be fired”, Zynga CEO Mark Pincus, in coordination with upper management, made the decision last year in preparation for an initial public offering (IPO) they had issued too much stock to employees. Their solution? Demand of employees that they return stock that was not yet vested, or be terminated.

According to information at the company’s website, Zynga Inc. is the world’s largest social game developer with more than 232 million monthly active users playing their games which include CityVille, FarmVille, FrontierVille, Words With Friends, Mafia Wars, Zynga Poker, Cafe World, and Treasure Isle. Zynga Inc. games are available on a number of global platforms including Facebook, MySpace, Yahoo, the iPad, the iPhone and Android devices. Through Zynga.org, Zynga players have raised more than $10 million for world social causes. Zynga Inc. is headquartered in San Francisco.

In determining which employees would be asked to return stock, Zynga was seemingly trying to avoid a situation where lower-level employees would become wealthy because they own a piece of the company, according to the November 11^th forbes.com article, “Zynga is Greedy Game Industry Scum, Steals from Employees to Help Bottom Line”. To quote author of the article, Louis Bedigian, “Its chief executive, Mark Pincus, has admitted to doing “every horrible thing in the book” to get revenues. So why should employees believe him now when he says he’s only thinking of the company’s future?”

In other words, Zynga wanted to avoid a “Google chef” situation. This refers to Google’s IPO in 2004. At that time, one of the company chefs, who’d been hired when the firm first launched, left with almost $20 million worth of stock after the stock went public.

Obviously, the first question would be, is that legal? Some employees don’t think so. One left the company another stayed; both have hired attorneys to see that they’re not forced to give up all of the stock.

It’s anyone’s guess how it will all pan out, but Zynga management justified their actions by touting that “it was best for the company.”

It’s also reported that Zynga was planning to go public following the Thanksgiving holiday. The IPO is expected to fetch in the neighborhood of $1 billion.

Mark Jonathan Pincus is an Internet entrepreneur best known as the co-founder of Zynga, which makes online social games. Pincus also founded Freeloader, Inc., Tribe Networks, and SupportSoft. In 2009, Pincus was named “CEO of the Year” in The Crunchies and in the same month of 2011 was named Founder of the Year for 2010. Zynga was named after an American bulldog once owned by Pincus.

According to information at Wikipedia.com, in a 2009 video Pincus is quoted as having said: “I did every horrible thing in the book too, just to get revenues right away. I mean we gave our users poker chips if they downloaded this Zwinky toolbar which was like, I don’t know, I downloaded it once and couldn’t get rid of it.”

High Stakes IP Litigation Attorney Andrew P. Bridges Joins Fenwick & West

rebneely — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 02:28:47 +0000

Fenwick & West LLP announced in recent days that high stakes IP litigation attorney Andrew P. Bridges has joined the firm as a partner in its IP & Technology Litigation group.

Bridges concentrates his practice on complex litigation in Internet, copyright, trademark, advertising, unfair competition, consumer protection and commercial law disputes. He is recognized on a regular basis as one of the Top 100 IP litigators in California. He joins the firm from the San Francisco office of Winston & Strawn. According to Corporate Counsel, he is one of the Top 10 “Go-To” IP litigation firms in the U.S.

Laurence Pulgram, Co-Chair of the firm’s IP & Technology Litigation Group was quoted as saying in a press release at the firm’s website: “Fenwick continues to seek out the best attorneys to deepen practice areas that are mission critical to our technology and life sciences clients. Andrew is an ideal fit—a globally known IP litigator who builds on the momentum and market share we have developed with an already outstanding group. We are thrilled to welcome him to the fold.”

Bridges was quoted as saying: “I was drawn to Fenwick & West for IP & Technology Litigation because of its depth and extraordinary track record of success in representing innovators and industry leaders in high-stakes IP litigation. Winston & Strawn is a great firm and I will miss working with my colleagues there, but I am really looking forward to joining my practice with such an accomplished team and look forward to growing the Group.”

Bridges litigates cases for Internet, technology, and consumer-focused companies with regard to new business models, media, technologies and communications platforms. He has handled numerous high-profile matters, including the defense of Diamond Multimedia against the recording industry’s attack on the first popular portable MP3 music player; defense of Google and others against Perfect 10′s copyright, trademark and publicity law challenges to the Internet; CNET Networks against the effort of Snap-On Tools to thwart the launch of the Snap! Online portal; and ClearPlay, maker of DVD playback control software that enables consumers to have a “PG” experience of “R” rated movies, in a suit brought by Hollywood directors and studios seeking to ban the software.

Bridges has secured numerous settlements for clients in important cases, including ones for The Financial Times Limited, Bare Escentuals, OmniVision Technologies, Cox Communications, Full Sail University.

Darryl M. Woo, Chair of Fenwick’s Litigation Group was quoted as saying: “Andrew’s substantial background advising a wide range of prominent companies, coupled with his groundbreaking victories on cutting edge copyright, trademark and Internet issues in high-stakes litigation, adds breadth as well as depth to our leading IP & Technology Litigation practice. Andrew’s impressive list of accomplishments, stellar reputation, extensive subject matter knowledge and thought leadership will provide our clients with a tremendous resource. He is highly respected nationally and globally, and we couldn’t be more pleased he selected Fenwick & West to expand his practice.”

Chambers USA ranks Bridges in Band 1 for Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secrets, and he is also ranked in Band 1 for Trademark Litigation by World Trademark Review, listed in Best Lawyers in America, and honored in numerous other publications that relate to e-commerce and intellectual property law. The World Intellectual Property Organization’s Mediation and Arbitration Center has selected him as a domain name arbitrator, and he serves the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as an early neutral evaluator.

Over the past two decades, Fenwick & West attorneys have handled some of the most prominent IP, technology and patent litigation matters, including securing one of the 25 largest IP litigation payouts in U.S. history—a $400M settlement for its client Compuware against IBM.

The firm was recently named one of only 20 “Go To Law Firms on the Cutting Edge” for patent litigation, and was recently awarded “Most Innovative Use of Technology by a Law Firm” by American Lawyer Media for the firm’s proprietary electronic discovery tools.

The firm has nearly 300 attorneys in offices in Silicon Valley and San Francisco, California; Boise, Idaho; and Seattle, Washington, and is headquartered in Mountain View, California.

United States Government Demanding Google Info More Often

jim — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:06:41 +0000

According to new statistics released by Google, the United States law enforcement agencies across the country requested Google users’ personal information more often in the previous six months. The statistics show a 29 percent increase in requests over the past six months.

“We believe that providing this level of detail highlights the need to modernize laws like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which regulates government access to user information and was written 25 years ago—long before the average person had ever heard of email,” wrote Dorothy Chou, a senior policy analyst at Google, in a Tuesday blog post. “Yet at the end of the day, the information that we’re disclosing offers only a limited snapshot. We hope others join us in the effort to provide more transparency, so we’ll be better able to see the bigger picture of how regulatory environments affect the entire web.”

This data first started being released by Google in 2010, but law enforcement agencies in the United States and all over the world have been asking for the data for as long as Google had been collecting it. Global law enforcement agencies requested the info for roughly 11,000 accounts over the previous six months. In the United States, Google said it complied with about 93 percent of the 5,950 requests made by U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Google released the following statement regarding the data: “The number of requests we receive for user account information as part of criminal investigations has increased year after year. The increase isn’t surprising, since each year we offer more products and services, and we have a larger number of users.”

The data requests remain the highest in the United States, even though law enforcement agencies across the globe have been requesting the info as well. The large number of requests issued by United States’ law enforcement agencies show that the authorities in this country are doing their jobs but a full picture of the demands still cannot be gathered.

The Patriot Act allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation to demand information from companies such as Google in secret. The FBI can also tell the ISP holders to refrain from telling the subscribers about any demand of the data from law enforcement.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Pat Leahy (D-VT) has helped author a bill to update the Electronic Privacy Communications Act.

“Before the end of the calendar year, the Judiciary Committee will consider legislation that I have drafted to update the ECPA and to bring this law fully into the digital age,” Leahy said in a press statement. “I hope that all Members will join me in commemorating this important milestone anniversary and in supporting the effort in Congress to update this law to reflect the realities of the digital age.”

Google + is Changing Corporate Legal Management

jim — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:00:09 +0000

Google+ (also sometimes written as Google Plus) is a fairly new social networking that was meant to be Google’s direct competition to other social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Google+ is software that is installed on to a computer. It is very easy to access once installed and is extremely easy to customize to a person or a company’s specific needs.

Because of the ease of use of the software, many companies are using Google+ to help their company perform basic daily functions within the company. So how is Google+ changing the world of corporate legal management? How are they showing other businesses how to use Google+ to a company’s advantage?

What is corporate legal management exactly? It is the job of the legal management, or in-house lawyers to deal with all the in-house legal matters that come in to a corporation at any given time. It is their job to sort through large amount of information and to give the “okay” for a legal based decision. It is also their job to give a “no” if there are possible legal ramifications

These are not easy tasks to perform for one person but for a large group of people it can become very complicated. Prior to Google+ they were able to complete these tasks using email, presentation software and word processing software. . With the invention of Google+ corporate legal teams are able to perform this entire task in one secured location, where everyone is one the “same page” literally.

What makes Google+ different than other social networking sites? As already discussed a huge advantage Google+ is the ease of use and its ability to be customize for each individual company. What makes Google+ so wonderful for company’s especially large ones lies in its “circles”? The Circles as they are called are small groups of people you are subscribing to all in one place. If you are a corporate lawyer in charge of a small group of other lawyers, you can manage them on in one place instead of communicating with them each separately.

A task that may have taken hours to communicate can now only take seconds. This is saving not only time but also can save a company money. Need an approval of a project or need to know the legal ramification of something? With Google+ you can ask your “circle” to help you with the task and they can get right on researching the topic or giving approval. In the age of time equals money, a person can easily understand why a corporation would use Google+.

It is easy to see why a company that is in charge of micro managing a team of corporate lawyers and who are also in charge of micro managing tasks–would use a wonderful invention like Google+ to their advantage.

Google hires top lobbying firms in response to FTC probe

EmploymentCrossing — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:39:43 +0000

The Federal Trade Commission takes a stab at Google resulting in a new addition to Google’s massive legal team. Initially, they did not provide names of their lawyers until demands reached their Global offices. The search provider seems genuinely shaken by these antitrust allegations. The players are just getting into position for the legal battle that will ensue.

Read the original article here:
Report: Google Hires Three Am Law 100 Lobbying Firms Ahead of FTC Probe

Google Seeks to Acquire Bankrupt Nortel’s Patents

rebneely — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:13:22 +0000

According to the April 4^th news.cnet.com article, “Google, under legal siege, seeks Nortel patents”, Google has thrown its hat in the ring to the tune of $900 million dollars, for the opportunity to acquire some 6,000 patents and patent applications from the now bankrupt Nortel Networks. The acquisition would fortify Google’s position in legal battles – a position the company seems to be finding itself in more and more as it expands into new markets.

Nortel was quoted as saying that the patents and patent applications would include: “…spanning wireless, wireless 4G, data networking, optical, voice, Internet, service provider, semiconductors and other patent portfolios,” and also that “The extensive patent portfolio touches nearly every aspect of telecommunications and additional markets as well, including Internet search and social networking.”

Kent Walker, Google’s general counsel, was quoted as saying in a blog post today: “The patent system should reward those who create the most useful innovations for society, not those who stake bogus claims or file dubious lawsuits…But as things stand today, one of a company’s best defenses against this kind of litigation is (ironically) to have a formidable patent portfolio, as this helps maintain your freedom to develop new products and services. Google is a relatively young company, and although we have a growing number of patents, many of our competitors have larger portfolios given their longer histories. So after a lot of thought, we’ve decided to bid for Nortel’s patent portfolio in the company’s bankruptcy auction.”

Morning Roundup

joshua — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 23:45:56 +0000

Good morning everybody! Today is Monday, November 8th. Here’s a look back at Friday’s stories.

SolicitorsSearch.com released a report on the impact social media and social networking sites can have as a low-cost marketing solution for law firms…

The National Association for Law Placement’s (NALP) latest diversity statistics cited the recession as a likely factor in a ‘historic’ decline in law firm diversity…

Report on Effective Legal E-Marketing

daniel — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:19:53 +0000

SolicitorsSearch.com released a report on the impact social media and social networking sites can have as a low-cost marketing solution for law firms.

Using twitter for microblogging, for example, is an effective means of making a companies institutional identity more personal. Sharing information quickly to potential clients, as well as broadening the scope to an international audience are some of the other advantages.

Google uses a mechanism which prioritizes content that is both recent and relevant, thus blog writing is also amenable to receiving better search rankings.

The report also shows that one tool should not be used in isolation, and that it is important to utilize several of the popular mediums for social networking.

Morning Roundup

joshua — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 12:50:46 +0000

Good morning everyone! Today is Thursday, November 4th. Here’s a quick look back at yesterday’s stories.

Although California’s controversial measure to legalize and tax medicinal marijuana failed, several cities joined with Oakland in imposing city-based taxes…

Ira “Ike” Sorkin, perhaps best known for his role representing Bernie Madoff, will leave Dickstein Shapiro for Lowenstein Sandler…

A settlement was reached in the Google Buzz class action suit…

Kilpatrick Stockton will merge with IP firm Townsend and Townsend…

Settlement Reached in Google Buzz Class Action Suit

joshua — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 22:21:03 +0000

On Tuesday, users of Google’s Gmail service received information in their inbox regarding a settlement in a class action lawsuit brought against Google by users of the service related to the launch of “buzz” as part of Gmail in February of this year. Within days of the launch, there were numerous complaints from internet privacy advocates about the way Google handled private information, including exposing the most frequent contact list to other Gmail users without notification or consent.
The court has given preliminary approval to a settlement agreement in the case under which no Gmail users will receive compensation, but requires Google to do three things. First, Google is required to make changes to the privacy settings within Gmail and to provide its users with better information and control over the privacy settings. The settlement agreement acknowledges that Google has already taken this step. Second, Google must do more to educate its users about the privacy aspects of its service, and the final plan for this must be approved by plaintiffs’ attorneys. Third, Google will pay $8.5 million dollars into a general fund that will be distributed to various groups that advance privacy interests. This money will not be paid to individual users because under the terms of the settlement both sides agree that most users did not suffer compensable damages and the class size is too large for a fair distribution of the funds.
Final approval of the settlement will be considered by the court in January. In the meantime, full details of the settlement including information on how to object or how to opt out can be found here.

Morning Roundup

joshua — Tue, 11 May 2010 14:09:06 +0000

Good morning everyone! Today is Tuesday, May 11th. Here’s a brief look at yesterday’s stories.

Bowie & Jensen Opens Manhattan Office…

Facebook Hires Tim Muris To Help Clean Up Its Act…

Oprah Seeks To Compel Testimony Of Former Patent Prosecutor…

Elena Kagan Nominated By Obama For Supreme Court…

Oprah Seeks To Compel Testimony Of Former Patent Prosecutor

joshua — Mon, 10 May 2010 17:19:32 +0000

According to the Boston Herald, Winfrey’s Harpo Productions filed a motion last week, asking that a Federal Court judge compel former Fish & Richardson attorney, Scott Harris, to produce documents and testify on certain matters relating to a suit against Harpo currently pending in Federal Court in the state of Illinois.

Harpo is being sued by Illinois Computer Research, LLC a company that purchased the rights to patented software from Harris that allows readers to preview excerpts of books electronically. ILS was also involved in a similar suit against Google. Harpo, on behalf of Oprah’s Book Club, claims that the patent is unenforceable and that it prevents the free dissemination of information to would be readers.

In 2008, Harris was involved in a suit with Fish that settled in which Fish alleged Harris used Fish’s customer list to solicit the sale of his own patents. Harpo states in its motion that Harris had knowledge that companies, such as Barnes & Nobles, were already applying similar technology to post book excerpts before Harris’ patent application and that the Fish firm can provide evidence in support of that theory.

Fish would rather put the unseemly incident behind them and has fought to keep whatever evidence it has in its possession out of the lawsuit.

Congress Considers U.S. Patent Overhaul

joshua — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:29:03 +0000

A bipartisan group of U.S. Senators, led by Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy, is poised to agree on a compromise bill that would overhaul the U.S. patent system.

Details of the plan, which is opposed by inventors, have not been revealed publicly. However, Leahy told the Associated Press the plan “will benefit all corners of the patent community.

“We are close to a compromise that will address these issues. No one will think this a perfect bill, but we are close to a comprehensive patent reform bill that benefits all corners of the patent community.”

The Patent Reform Act made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2009. It proposed various changes to patent law, including lowering the amount of damages patent owners can gain in patent infringement litigation.

Opponents of the bill have called the reform ‘misguided.’ A bipartisan group of lawmakers explained their dissent in a letter.

“The recession has illustrated the need for the U.S. to maintain a diverse economy and promote policies that encourage American companies to research, develop and manufacture products in the United States,” the letter said.

“Key to these pro-growth policies are strong patent protections that ensure the patent application process is efficient and fair for big and small companies alike,” it added.

Critics of the proposal also cite the changes of the method of calculating damages in a patent suit from common law methodology to a statutory methodology. Technology companies such as Microsoft and Google support the change, but critics include pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

The U.S. patent system has not been overhauled since 1952.

Morning Roundup

joshua — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:33:56 +0000

Good morning everyone! Today is Thursday, February 25, and here’s a quick look back at yesterday’s news…

Morrison Foerster added a lateral in New York…

A former US Attorney joined up with Locke Lord…

Marc Daniel joined Arnold & Porter in Washington DC…

Latham & Watkins added one in Hong Kong…

Revenues dipped slightly while profits stayed flat at Arent Fox…

And speaking of Arent Fox, the firm picked up a lateral from Jones Day…

Jenner Block had a good year in 2009…

Jones Day picked up another California lateral…

Covington & Burling grow in Beijing…

Three Google executives have been convicted in absentia by an Italian court for privacy violations…

And Morgan Stanley’s chief legal officer has stepped down…

Google Execs Found Guilty in Italy for Privacy Violations

joshua — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:11:59 +0000

A decision by an Italian court to convict three Google executives of privacy violations has drawn outrage on both side of the Atlantic Ocean. Officials for the Internet company used words like “astonishing” and “outraged” to describe the decision. Even the former information commissioner of the United Kingdom, Richard Thomas, said the case gave privacy law “a bad name.”

The case, which was being closely watched due to the potential ramifications on Internet freedom, revolved around an Internet video that was posted online which showed an autistic child being beaten and bullied. The Google employees were accused of breaking Italian law by allowing the video to be accessed online. While they were absolved of defamation, Magi convicted the trio of privacy violations for not acquiring consent from all the parties involved.

“The judge has decided I’m primarily responsible for the actions of some teenagers who uploaded a reprehensible video to Google video,” Google’s global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer, who was convicted in absentia, said in a statement.

Added Google spokesman Bill Echikson to the Associated Press: “We will appeal this astonishing decision. We are deeply troubled by this decision. It attacks the principles of freedom on which the Internet was built.”

Also convicted were David Drummond, Google’s senior vice president and chief legal officer, and retired chief financial officer George Reyes. Arvind Desikan, senior product marketing manager for Google, was acquitted.

Buzz Off, Google; Internet Giant Slapped with Suit

joshua — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:06:56 +0000

Google and its Buzz technology have been hit with a class-action complaint filed by a 24-year-old Harvard Law student. Working with law firms in San Francisco and Washington D.C., Eva Hibnick filed what is the first reported suit against Google ‘s Buzz, a social network that launched last week.

According to the complaint, Google automatically signed-in Gmail users to the social network, which provided status updates and other personal information without user’s permission. Hibnick told ABC News, which first reported the suit, that “I feel like they did something wrong. They opted me into this social network and I didn’t want it.”

As news spread of the automatic opt-in, and complaints began to roll into Google, the company responded by offering ways for people to sign out of the service. However, according to the complaint, it was too late and the damage was done.

The suit alleges several federal laws were broken, including the Federal Communications Privacy Act, the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Federal Stored Communications Act. The suit was filed in San Jose federal court on behalf of all Gmail users.

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP Urge Rejection of Revised Google Books Settlement

joshua — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:41:55 +0000

Attorneys from Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP, representing Consumer Watchdog, will appear in federal court today to urge the rejection of the revised Google Books settlement because it remains anticompetitive and violates both U.S. and international law.

The proposed class action settlement case stems from a suit brought by The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers.

“The proposed amendments to the Google Book Settlement are insufficient, and the settlement remains fundamentally flawed. If approved, this settlement would improperly destroy potentially millions of absent authors’ exclusive copyrights and would give Google an unfair monopoly that is not in the public interest,” said Daniel Fetterman of Kasowitz, Benson.

In essence Google’s latest arguments seem to boil down to this: ‘Our motto is don’t be evil, so you can trust us to control the world’s digital library.’ Consumer Watchdog supports digitizing books. The problem is this proposed settlement gives unfair control to one company and the law says you can’t do that no matter how good they say their intentions are,” said John M. Simpson, consumer advocate for Consumer Watchdog.

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP is a national firm with more than 325 lawyers specializing in complex, highly sophisticated litigation.

West Palm Beach Firm Sues Over Fraudulent Copy of its Own Website

joshua — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:29:28 +0000

Gordon & Doner, West Palm Beach injury attorneys, have filed suit against an unknown copier as John Doe, and GoDaddy.com after learning its own website, fortheinjured.com, had been copied and passed off as a British law firm, maslinassociates.com.

Except for some minor changes, the fraudulent site used, in many cases, the same text, designs and even photographs of the attorneys.

“It’s really strange,” said Adam Doner, whose photo was used on the copied site and identified as Evans Maslin. “Talk about identity theft. The public needs to be aware of this. I can’t believe we’re the only one this has happened to.”

McHale & Slavin in Palm Beach Gardens will represent Gordon & Doner in the trademark infringement suit, along with Doner. “Our lawyer, Michael Slavin, surmises that it may be a ploy to knock us down on Google,” Doner said.

Gordon & Doner spends thousands monthly to rank high in the Google search engine. “A competitor could do this,” Doner said. “This Google and Yahoo stuff is very competitive.”

Gordon & Doner has 11 lawyers with nearly 140 combined years of experience in personal injury and litigation.

Morning Roundup

joshua — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:20:28 +0000

Good morning everyone! Today is Thursday, November 19 and this is your quick look back at the headlines.

A judge in Louisiana held that the US Army is liable for some Katrina damage…

Google debuts its new case law database….

Winston & Strawn has two new offices in Asia…

David Hamilton is getting his up or down vote for confirmation…

and the ABA is looking for a new leader….

News Flash: Court Opinions Present the Reasons that Support the Decision

joshua — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:48:45 +0000

I’m sure this will come as a surprise to everyone, but according to Google “Distinguished Engineer” Anurag Acharya, “Court opinions don’t just describe a decision but also present the reasons that support the decision”. So much for the theory that judges are arbitrary and capricious!

Acharya’s pronouncement on the state of the law is the rationale behind Google’s newest addition to its Google Scholar service. Federal and state case law and patents are now available. The service is free, and is relatively easy to use. You can search by citation or by using keywords. Advanced search functions let you choose between state and federal cases, search by state, and let you include or exclude articles and journal entries as well.

Podesta Group Adds Lobbyists

Erik Even — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:14:13 +0000

The Podesta Group has added at least six principals this year.

Podesta saw a 44% rise in gross lobbying revenue from 2007 to 2008.

So far this year, the firm has filed 18 registrations for new federal lobbying clients, including Deloitte, Michelin North America, and Sallie Mae. The firm’s existing clients include Google, Wal-Mart, and Reed Elsevier, the company that owns Lexis-Nexis.

The new additions include Teal Baker, an official in President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, who returns to Podesta after leaving in 2007.

Peggy Binzel is a former legislative director for then-US Representative Jack Fields of Texas.

Beth Inadomi returns to Podesta; she is a former counsel on the Senate Commerce Committee.

Aranthan Jones II worked for then-US Representative William Jefferson, Louisiana Democrat.

Andy Lewin worked for US Representative Dennis Moore, Democrat of Kansas, and then-US Representative Max Sandlin, Democrat of Texas.

Bob Taylor was deputy assistant secretary of defense for Senate affairs.

The Podesta Group is a lobbying and public affairs firm based in Washington, DC. It was founded in 1988 by brothers John Podesta and Tony Podesta, and has previously been known as Podesta Associates and PodestaMattoon.

Google Faced With Antitrust Lawsuit

Erik Even — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:14:02 +0000

TradeComet.com LLC, a New York-based company, claimed in federal court on Tuesday that Google Inc. violated antitrust laws by raising a subsidiary’s advertising rates after deciding the subsidiary was a competitor.

In its suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, TradeComet.com claims that Google initially supported SourceTool.com, TradeComet’s subsidiary. SourceTool.com is a business-to-business search engine that connects suppliers of industrial products to buyers. Google eventually deemed SourceTool.com a competitior, and according to TradeComet.com, raised its search advertising rates by 10,000 percent “with no notice.”

A Google spokesman said in a statement that, “We have not yet had a chance to review the complaint in detail, but, as we have consistently made clear, the advertising market in which Google operates is highly competitive, and advertisers have a huge range of choices.”

TradeComet.com is represented by the law firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP. Rick Rule, of Cadwalader said in a press release that “We believe this complaint has strong merit and represents a serious antitrust violation.”

Keker & Van Nest Partners Leave to Found Firm

Erik Even — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:54:03 +0000

Four partners at litigation boutique Keker & Van Nest are setting out to found their own firm, Durie Tangri Lemley Roberts & Kent.

Daralyn Durie, Ragesh Tangri, Clement Roberts and Ryan Kent are founding the firm along with Stanford patent law professor Mark Lemley, who was of counsel at Keker.

The new firm, which opened yesterday, is handling matters for marquee clients including Google, Genentech, Comcast and Ticketmaster.

In 2006, Durie won a huge patent infringement trial for Comcast. More recently, she represented Google in its settlement with authors and publishers in a copyright dispute over putting books online.

Durie, Tangri and Lemley first talked about starting their own firm when they were law students at UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law in the early ’90s.

The new firm’s rates will be up to 20% less than what they were charging at Keker, and they’ll also be more open to alternative fee arrangements.

The firm has just one associate right now. Durie says the firm could grow to eight to 10 lawyers, but not much more. The firm won’t be highly leveraged and instead will look to take advantage of the efficiency of experienced partners, she said.