Thursday, December 5, 2013

Week Five EOC: Apple v. Samsung



In the early 1980's, the internet was in its infancy. It was regarded as a way that would change and connect the world, and it has, but at what cost? Before the internet, people relied on other methods to receive the news and other information, such as books, television, newspapers, magazines and radio. Nowadays, computers are found almost everywhere, with internet access right alongside it, to instantly be able to access any information you are seeking. While the majority of people who use the internet for entertainment purposes, business, and school or even to talk to family members across the country or even the world, there are people who use it for more sinister purposes, and has made for a melting pot of nefarious agendas.
Since its invention, the internet has been host to new breeds of criminals, and often times are never caught or prosecuted. The knowledge of these crimes has changed the ways in which you use the internet. In the ways that parents have taught their children to be cautious about strangers in the real world, it should be even more so instilled when regarding the internet in any way, shape or form. “Predators and scam artists know how to utilize the latest technology. Real crime runs rampant in the virtual world,” said NAAG President and Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who made this topic the focus of his one-year presidential term. (www.naag.org). Children and teenagers make up one of the largest groups of internet users; this makes it easier for predators to prey upon them. It is often because they are young, trusting, curious and naive that they are perfect targets, and with the added danger that it provides the predator with anonymity.

Several laws have been made to try and protect children from predators. In fact the President of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) is making it his focus for the Initiative Summit. “Unfortunately, as technology advances, online sexual predators find new ways to prey on our children,” President Bruning said. “As Internet access becomes more and more ‘wireless’ and allows people to move around, it becomes harder to track down and prosecute these offenders.” (www.naag.org) they have also been working on two goals: hastening the law enforcement subpoena process and removing child pornography from the internet. The Communication Decency Act (CDA) was passed in 1996, and it made it illegal to put “indecent” material where children could access it on the internet but the Supreme Court found that the term “indecent” was found to be too vague. Following the CDA was The Child Online Protection Act (COPA), in 1998, which was a narrower version of the CDA, where sites required proof of age before giving access to users. It was challenged and in 1999 they was a permanent injunction against its enforcement.

While there are many positive attributes to the internet there are also slightly darker attributes as well. As with everything in life and the worlds around us, for every day there is a night, for every good thing in the world there is something waiting in the wings to cause harm or to use it in a way it was never intended for. We have to educate our children more and tell them about all potential dangers and not just gloss over them because it may be uncomfortable. “Together, we can bring emerging trends to the forefront, be diligent in our efforts to harness new technology and limit the crime and corruption that come with it,” said President Bruning. (www.naag.org)

Week Nine EOC: Used Cars

1. Attempted murder.
2. Assault with a deadly weapon.
3. Tampering with witnesses.
4. Perjury.
5. Fleeing the scene of an accident.

Week Ten EOC: Lawyer Jokes

1.

Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?

A1: Three; one to do it and two to sue him for malpractice.


A1: It only takes one lawyer to change your light bulb to his light bulb.

A2: You won't find a lawyer who can change a light bulb. Now, if you're looking for a lawyer to screw a light bulb...

A3: Whereas the party of the first part, also known as "Lawyer", and the party of the second part, also known as "Light Bulb", do hereby and forthwith agree to a transaction wherein the party of the second part (Light Bulb) shall be removed from the current position as a result of failure to perform previously agreed upon duties, i.e., the lighting, elucidation, and otherwise illumination of the area ranging from the front (north) door, through the entryway, terminating at an area just inside the primary living area, demarcated by the beginning of the carpet, any spillover illumination being at the option of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and not required by the aforementioned agreement between the parties.

The aforementioned removal transaction shall include, but not be limited to, the following steps:

1.) The party of the first part (Lawyer) shall, with or without elevation at his option, by means of a chair, stepstool, ladder or any other means of elevation, grasp the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and rotate the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a counter-clockwise direction, this point being non-negotiable.

2.) Upon reaching a point where the party of the second part (Light Bulb) becomes separated from the party of the third part ("Receptacle"), the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of disposing of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a manner consistent with all applicable state, local and federal statutes.

3.) Once separation and disposal have been achieved, the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of beginning installation of the party of the fourth part ("New Light Bulb"). This installation shall occur in a manner consistent with the reverse of the procedures described in step one of this self-same document, being careful to note that the rotation should occur in a clockwise direction, this point also being non-negotiable.

NOTE: The above described steps may be performed, at the option of the party of the first part (Lawyer), by any or all persons authorized by him, the objective being to produce the most possible revenue for the party of the fifth part, also known as "Partnership." 


2.

Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Fifty four. Eight to argue, one to get a continuance, one to object, one to demur, two to research precedents, one to dictate a letter, one to stipulate, five to turn in their time cards, one to depose, one to write interrogatories, two to settle, one to order a secretary to change the bulb, and twenty-eight to bill for professional services.  


3.

A man who had been caught embezzling millions from his employer went to a lawyer seeking defense. He didn’t want to go to jail. But his lawyer told him, "Don’t worry. You’ll never have to go to jail with all that money.” And the lawyer was right. When the man was sent to prison, he didn’t have a dime. 

4.

A lawyer named Impos Syble was shopping for a tombstone. After he had made his selection, the stonecutter asked him what inscription he would like on it.

"Here lies an honest man and a lawyer," responded the lawyer.

"Sorry, but I can't do that," replied the stonecutter. "In this state, it's against the law to bury two people in the same grave. However, I could put `here lies an honest lawyer'."

"But that won't let people know who it is!" protested the lawyer.

"Sure it will," retorted the stonecutter. "People will read it and exclaim, "That's impossible!"


5.
 
Why was the lawyer skimming the Bible right before he died?

He was looking for loopholes!

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Week Eight EOC: Bratz Brawl



In the case of Bratz v. Mattel, It seems to me that it is a sound not only like a classic version of he-said she-said but it seems like a waste of time and money.  From what I have read it seems like Mattel wants a piece of the Bratz fortune simply because the creator was still under contract with Mattel and not because it had anything to do with the developmental process or success of the Bratz brand. Allegations range from four Mattel employees disguised themselves as potential buyers outfitted with fake business cards and fake invoices to gain entrance at toy fairs to acquire rival information. They also allege that Mattel was involved in one retailer removing all the MGA from its stores and threatened to ruin a deal with a video company that was producing Bratz videogames because of their “alliance with Bratz.”
Mattel fires back with alleged allegations that information MGA said was stolen was actually released publicly and not trade secrets along with alleging that MGA stole trade secrets by supporting Mattel employees to steal documents before coming to work at MGA. "We remain committed to protecting the intellectual property that is at the heart of business success," Mattel’s lawyer, (huffingtonpost.com)
This seriously sounds like one big he-said she-said, all because it seems like Mattel saw a 1 billion dollar revenue being made from the Bratz brand and decided they wanted and deserved a piece of the pie all because  the creator was still under contract with Mattel. That seems like a bunch of bull if you ask me. The fact that this made it all the way to the Supreme Court is astounding to me. Most likely because of the amount of money involved, no doubt. “While this may not be the last word on the subject,” Judge Kozinski said, “perhaps Mattel and MGA can take a lesson from their target demographic: Play nice.” (nytimes.com)In the end MGA was awarded 137 million instead of the $309 million they were rewarded in April 2011 for damages and legal fees. "I feel vindicated and I'm very excited," he said in an interview. "I'm happy for MGA, MGA employees and all the people who believed in us and did not abandon us for all these years." (latimes.com)

Sources:
Huffingtonpost.com – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/mattel-loses-lawsuit-with-mga-bratz_n_852223.html
NYTimes.com – http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/business/court-cuts-damages-owed-by-mattel-in-bratz-doll-case.html?_r=0
LATimes.com – http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/05/business/la-fi-mattel-bratz-20110805

Week Eight EOC: 10 Questions

1. How should I use a watermark? What protection does a watermark on my image give me?
2. Can I use metadata to protect my images against infringement?
3. What if someone takes my photo and posts it to Pinterest?
4. Is a watermark necessary to have the copyright of an image?
5. What should I know about infringement across nations?
6. Should I create an entity for my business (such as an LLC) or run it as a Sole Proprietor?
7. What kinds of things do I need to do if I’m going to set up a business entity for my photography?
8. What do photographers need to do to let the client know they are hiring the company, not the person?
9. Sales tax – what do I need to know about this?
10.  What do I need to know about the name of my business and trademark issues?
11. What is the purpose of a contract?
12. When do I need a model release?
13. Is a model release ever required to take a picture?
14. When do I need a property release?
15. If I find that someone has stolen my image, what steps can I take?
16. I uploaded a time lapse video to YouTube and I saw some of my photos from that video being used to promote the local news station. What can I do?

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Week Seven EOC: Lawyers



1.       Law Office of Brian J. Smith, Ltd.
702.757.4022
9525 Hillwood Drive, Suite 190, Las Vegas, NV 89134
Criminal Defense

2.       Lyons Law Firm
702.545.6518
512 South 8th Street, Las Vegas, NV 89101
Family ,Employment, Business, Bankruptcy, Short Sales & Loan Modifications

3.       Kern Law
6787 W. Tropicana Ave., Suite 243, Las Vegas, Nv 89103
Predatory Lending, Small Business Support and Foreclosure Mediation.

4.       Goldstein Patent Law
888.919.0967
Las Vegas, Nv & Nationwide
Patent Attorneys

5.       Weiss & Moy, P.C.
 480.999.1620
Clark County, Nv
Intellectual Property Lawyer

6.       Marquis Aurbach Coffing
702.979.2405
10001 Park Run Drive, Las Vegas, Nv 89145-8857
Intellectual Property Lawyer

7.        Weide & Miller, Ltd.
888.336.9296
7251 West Lake Mead Boulevard, Suite 530, Las Vegas, Nv 89128
Intellectual Property and Technology Firm

8.       Payne & Fears LLP  
702.382.3574
7251 W. Lake Mead Boulevard, Suite 525, Las Vegas, Nv 89128
Big Firm Experience, Personalized Service

9.       Shimon Law Chartered  
702.312.4175
5510 S. Fort Apache Rd., Suite 21, Las Vegas, Nv 89148
Intellectual Property Law

   Hutchinson & Steffen, LLC  
702. 385.2500  
10080 West Alta Drive, Suite 200, Las Vegas, Nv 89145
Full Service Law Firm

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Week Five EOC: Legal Change With Modern Internet


In the early 1980's, the internet was in its infancy. It was regarded as a way that would change and connect the world, and it has, but at what cost? Before the internet, people relied on other methods to receive the news and other information, such as books, television, newspapers, magazines and radio. Nowadays, computers are found almost everywhere, with internet access right alongside it, to instantly be able to access any information you are seeking. While the majority of people who use the internet for entertainment purposes, business, and school or even to talk to family members across the country or even the world, there are people who use it for more sinister purposes, and has made for a melting pot of nefarious agendas.
Since its invention, the internet has been host to new breeds of criminals, and often times are never caught or prosecuted. The knowledge of these crimes has changed the ways in which you use the internet. In the ways that parents have taught their children to be cautious about strangers in the real world, it should be even more so instilled when regarding the internet in any way, shape or form. “Predators and scam artists know how to utilize the latest technology. Real crime runs rampant in the virtual world,” said NAAG President and Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who made this topic the focus of his one-year presidential term. (www.naag.org). Children and teenagers make up one of the largest groups of internet users; this makes it easier for predators to prey upon them. It is often because they are young, trusting, curious and naive that they are perfect targets, and with the added danger that it provides the predator with anonymity.

Several laws have been made to try and protect children from predators. In fact the President of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) is making it his focus for the Initiative Summit. “Unfortunately, as technology advances, online sexual predators find new ways to prey on our children,” President Bruning said. “As Internet access becomes more and more ‘wireless’ and allows people to move around, it becomes harder to track down and prosecute these offenders.” (www.naag.org) they have also been working on two goals: hastening the law enforcement subpoena process and removing child pornography from the internet. The Communication Decency Act (CDA) was passed in 1996, and it made it illegal to put “indecent” material where children could access it on the internet but the Supreme Court found that the term “indecent” was found to be too vague. Following the CDA was The Child Online Protection Act (COPA), in 1998, which was a narrower version of the CDA, where sites required proof of age before giving access to users. It was challenged and in 1999 they was a permanent injunction against its enforcement.

While there are many positive attributes to the internet there are also slightly darker attributes as well. As with everything in life and the worlds around us, for every day there is a night, for every good thing in the world there is something waiting in the wings to cause harm or to use it in a way it was never intended for. We have to educate our children more and tell them about all potential dangers and not just gloss over them because it may be uncomfortable. “Together, we can bring emerging trends to the forefront, be diligent in our efforts to harness new technology and limit the crime and corruption that come with it,” said President Bruning. (www.naag.org)