I used to litigate "complex commerical" disputes, but, through five years of whittling-it-down (and maybe getting a bit whittled in the process), I've pretty much reduced myself to two fields -- patent law (65%) and RICO litigation (25%) (the other 10% is everything else -- mostly trademark and copyright work, though I do love a good fiduciary-breach case). Being a (somewhat) young lawyer, I'm always on the lookout for new online resources.
Today, by chance, I stumbled across an excellent on-line resource on the RICO act from Jeff Grell. Grell is a former partner at Leonard Street -- a smallish Minneapolis firm that I've worked with and respect -- and his take on this amazingly-confusing-and-misused-law is pretty good. I'm not endorsing everything he says, but, if you don't usually practice in this area, his website is definitely worth a look.
On Patent law, I'm a Harmonite by breeding, though I acknowledge the limitations of his tome. Chisum, if you have the wallspace, remains the gold standard. (Chisum is available on WestLaw and Lexis, though I still prefer the dead wood version.)
Look for a post from me on the Abu Ghraib RICO lawsuit on Monday (yes, there is one -- both a lawsuit and a Monday). 'Till then, consider this an open thread.
What is your hourly rate, need to copyright a title for newsletter?
Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog | October 02, 2004 at 07:21 PM
Von, if you have a minute, could you offer some advice to Josh Marshall on how to write teasers?
Posted by: liberal japonicus | October 03, 2004 at 01:34 AM
What is your hourly rate, need to copyright a title for newsletter?
I don't want to give out my specific rate over the web, but it's in the low-to-mid-200s. You probably don't need me to protect your newsletter, however -- and a trade- or servicemark, rather than a copyright, may in fact be the best route to go. E-mail the ObWi site if you'd like to chat regarding this -- there's no fee, obviously, if I can't help you and certainly no fee for an initial phone call prior to retention. (Typical disclaimers apply: Your e-mail is not protected by the attorney-client privilege, I'm not your attorney, nothing in this exchange creates an attorney-client relationship, etc.)
Thanks, Liberal Japonicus.
von
Posted by: von | October 03, 2004 at 10:14 AM
Von,
Mind if I ask you about a theoretical RICO suit that I've been entertaining in the back of my legally ignorant mind?
The RIAA, which consists of all major record labels, got Congress to apply some surcharges to all CD burners and blank CDs sold with the notion that pirating of music would take place and they deserved some sort of compensation. It seems to me that there are plenty of businesses at least, who used CD-ROM for backups and general storage, who could prove no piracy of any sort took place. This seems to be nothing more than outright theft, a kind of racketeering on behalf of major record labels, who assume that we're all out there illegally duplicating their material and deserve to be paid. The difference between this and mob coming by and demanding "protection money" I can't see.
Is that a case? Or am I hopelessly wrong?
Posted by: Jonas Cord | October 03, 2004 at 12:01 PM
Point of clarification for TTWD, because I was unintentionally imprecise: Copyright is perfectly appropriate to protect the contents of your newsletter, but trademark protection may be better suited for the title of your newsletter, depending on your precise circumstances.
Jonas, I don't want to comment on such a suit for a variety of reasons, but I can say that a claim based on "abuse of legal process" (regardless of how phrased) is extraordinarily difficult to bring in and of itself -- and making it part of a RICO claim would make it that much tougher. In other words, without getting into the (very complex) particulars, I don't think that dog will hunt.
(I make it a practice to never say never, however.)
Posted by: von | October 03, 2004 at 04:49 PM
but I can say that a claim based on "abuse of legal process" (regardless of how phrased) is extraordinarily difficult to bring in and of itself...
That's what I figured. Thanks for clearing that up for me...
Posted by: Jonas Cord | October 03, 2004 at 06:08 PM