August 01, 2008

Federal Circuit Reverses "Inequitable Conduct" S.J. for Microsoft; This Court, Indeed

Halftoningcolor
Overlaying dots tricks the eye into seeing one color.

Today the Federal Circuit reversed a decision that invalidated patents for inequitable conduct. The court also held that the district court so deviated from proper analysis as to justify directing the Chief Judge of the originating district to reassign the case.

The dispute involved patents relating to digital halftoning. The invention permits representation of images with dots. Lots of dots.

The court tossed the inequitable conduct conclusion because the district court focused, improperly, on post-filing publication of a paper that explored ways to make halftone images more pleasing. The public disclosure, the court held, didn't prove the "materiality" prong of the inequitable conduct defense. Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. , No. 06-1275 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2008).

Blawgletter notes, as we must, that the opinion uses the phrase "this court" 19 times -- and the word "indeed" four times -- in the course of 14 pages. While we generally admire judicial modesty, we marvel at the extent of judicial self-effacement. Indeed.

Feedicon Our feed hits you right in efface.

July 25, 2008

Quote of the Day: Groucho Marx (Finale)

Anightincasablanca
Chico and Groucho Marx in A Night in Casablanca.

As visions of Sea Smoke start dancing in Blawgletter's head -- for tonight Oxford promises to uncork some -- the time seems right to close out Groucho Marx's epistolary feud with Warner Brothers over the then-impending release of A Night in Casablanca (1946). 

We've seen Mr. Marx's first two letters, in which he responds to missives from the Warner legal department.  His opening salvo questions whether the studio owned the name "Casablanca" and from there ponders intellectual property rights in other monikers, including "Brothers", "Burbank", and "Jack".  The next, which answers a second Warner letter asking for a summary of A Night in Casablanca's plot, has Mr. Marx as a doctor of divinity who hawks can openers and pea coats.

The final instalment follows:

Dear Brothers:

Since I last wrote you, I regret to say there have been some changes in the plot of our new picture, "A Night in Casablanca."  In the new version I play Bordello, the sweetheart of Humphrey Bogart.  Harpo and Chico are itinerant rug peddlers who are weary of laying rugs and enter a monastery just for a lark.  This is a good joke on them, as there hasn't been a lark in the place for fifteen years.

Across from this monastery, hard by a jetty, is a waterfront hotel, chockfull of apple-cheeked damsels, most of whom have been barred by the Hays Office for soliciting.  In the fifth reel, Gladstone makes a speech that sets the House of Commons in an uproar and the King promptly asks for his resignation.  Harpo marries a hotel detective; Chico operates an ostrich farm.  Humphrey Bogart's girl, Bordello, spends her last years in a Bacall house.

This, as you can see, is a very skimpy outline.  The only thing that can save us from extinction is a continuation of the film shortage.

Fondly,

Groucho Marx

And so it ended.  Warner Brothers never responded, and the world today can watch A Night in Casablanca to our heart's content.

Feedicon14x14 Umm, Sea Smoke.

July 23, 2008

Quote of the Day: Groucho Marx

Groucho
Groucho Marx (1890-1977).

In 1942, Groucho Marx sent this letter after a studio threatened legal action over the impending release of A Night in Casablanca (1946):

Dear Warner Brothers,

Apparently there is more than one way of conquering a city and holding it as your own. For example, up to the time that we contemplated making this picture, I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged exclusively to Warner Brothers. However, it was only a few days after our announcement appeared that we received your long, ominous legal document warning us not to use the name Casablanca.

It seems that in 1471, Ferdinand Balboa Warner, your great-great-grandfather, while looking for a shortcut to the city of Burbank, had stumbled on the shores of Africa and, raising his alpenstock (which he later turned in for a hundred shares of common), named it Casablanca.

I just don’t understand your attitude. Even if you plan on releasing your picture, I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don’t know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.

You claim that you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without permission. What about “Warner Brothers”? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were. We were touring the sticks as the Marx Brothers when Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventor’s eye, and even before there had been other brothers—the Smith Brothers; the Brothers Karamazov; Dan Brothers, an outfielder with Detroit; and “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?” (This was originally “Brothers, Can You Spare a Dime?” but this was spreading a dime pretty thin, so they threw out one brother, gave all the money to the other one, and whittled it down to “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?”)

Now Jack, how about you? Do you maintain that yours is an original name? Well it’s not. It was used long before you were born. Offhand, I can think of two Jacks—Jack of “Jack and the Beanstalk,” and Jack the Ripper, who cut quite a figure in his day.

As for you, Harry, you probably sign your checks sure in the belief that you are the first Harry of all time and that all other Harrys are impostors. I can think of two Harrys that preceded you. There was Lighthouse Harry of Revolutionary fame and a Harry Appelbaum who lived on the corner of 93rd Street and Lexington Avenue. Unfortunately, Appelbaum wasn’t too well-known. The last I heard of him, he was selling neckties at Weber and Heilbroner.

Now about the Burbank studio. I believe this is what you brothers call your place. Old man Burbank is gone. Perhaps you remember him. He was a great man in a garden. His wife often said Luther had ten green thumbs. What a witty woman she must have been! Burbank was the wizard who crossed all those fruits and vegetables until he had the poor plants in such confused and jittery condition that they could never decide whether to enter the dining room on the meat platter or the dessert dish.

This is pure conjecture, of course, but who knows—perhaps Burbank’s survivors aren’t too happy with the fact that a plant that grinds out pictures on a quota settled in their town, appropriated Burbank’s name and uses it as a front for their films. It is even possible that the Burbank family is prouder of the potato produced by the old man than they are of the fact that your studio emerged “Casablanca” or even “Gold Diggers of 1931.”

This all seems to add up to a pretty bitter tirade, but I assure you it’s not meant to. I love Warners. Some of my best friends are Warner Brothers. It is even possible that I am doing you an injustice and that you, yourselves, know nothing about this dog-in-the-Wanger attitude. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to discover that the heads of your legal department are unaware of this absurd dispute, for I am acquainted with many of them and they are fine fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits and a love of their fellow man that out-Saroyans Saroyan.

I have a hunch that his attempt to prevent us from using the title is the brainchild of some ferret-faced shyster, serving a brief apprenticeship in your legal department. I know the type well—hot out of law school, hungry for success, and too ambitious to follow the natural laws of promotion. This bar sinister probably needled your attorneys, most of whom are fine fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits, etc., into attempting to enjoin us. Well, he won’t get away with it! We’ll fight him to the highest court! No pasty-faced legal adventurer is going to cause bad blood between the Warners and the Marxes. We are all brothers under the skin, and we’ll remain friends till the last reel of “A Night in Casablanca” goes tumbling over the spool.

Sincerely,

Groucho Marx

Feedicon One day I shot an elephant in my pajamas.  How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.   Monkey Business (1931).

July 08, 2008

Call Him Pollyanna

Pollyanna
Pollyanna relentlessly looked for the good in people.

The new President of the State Bar of Texas, Harper Estes, just wrote the best "My Opinion" column (in the Texas Bar Journal) that Blawgletter has ever had the privilege to read.  We challenge you to start reading it and then try to stop.  Betcha can't do it.

What makes it compelling?  For starters, it opens with a humanizing title -- "Call Me Pollyanna".  Which has at least one parallel in literature.  Remember that long whale story?  The one with Captain Ahab -- he of the peg leg and textbook manifestations of obsessive-compulsive disorder? 

Right.  Herman Melville's Moby-Dick (1851).  The novel opens with the main character in first-person narrator mode.  He says, immortally, "Call me Ishmael."

Call me Pollyanna grabs you in a similar way.  It draws you in.  You quickly see that the writer has a self-deprecating sense of humor.  You also infer that he has read a lot, relating themes and quotes not only from Pollyanna (the 1960 movie) but also from the likes of Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Sigmund Freud, and even Rabbi Tarfon.

President Estes also addresses a Serious Subject -- that of making a difference to our profession and our communities.  He gently exhorts the 83,000 members of the Texas Bar to work together "to educate the public about the rule of law and its importance, not only to our democracy, but to the everyday lives of all Texans."

We urge you to begin reading President Estes's column.  You won't want to stop.  And it just might turn you into a Pollyanna too.

June 26, 2008

After All

Itsasmallworld
The Simpsons parodied this Disney ride's theme song with: "Duff beer for me, Duff beer for you/I'll have a Duff, you have one, too."

Over the years, Blawgletter has developed -- shall we say -- aversions to certain common phrases.  When we see them, our eyes wish to avert from them.  Why?  Apart from their banality, they seem to us a crutch for unclear thinking, which unerringly produces opaque expression.

Take "after all".  We see it quite a lot in legal opinions, briefs, and memos.  It means, we think, something like "contrary to what you'd expect" or -- worse -- "in view of all circumstances".

Disney deploys the first meaning in its emblematic song and animatronic ride -- "It's a Small World After All".  We think of the globe as large, and yet the things we have in common makes it small.  Contrary to what you'd expect.

Legal writers whip out the second sense of the phrase.  For instance:

Blackacre exists only in the imagination of law professors and treatise-writers.  After all, who else would use such a ridiculous name?

After all what, we want to know.  In view of all we know about legal didacts and authors of black-letter precepts?

You will see that "after all" presupposes awareness that the reader may not possess -- especially if you, the writer, haven't furnished it.  When the audience sees the phrase, it either nods in knowing agreement or wonders what the heck you mean.  Which wonderment irritates and confuses.  Which detracts from persuasion.  Which is your job.

After all.

Feedicon FYI -- in the end, lots of phrases, as such, irritate our feed. 

March 01, 2008

ABA Offering Blogging Teleconference/Webcast Next Week

Grab a sandwich this coming Thursday for lunch at your computer.

At noon Central on March 6, the ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education will present "Pumping Up Your Online Presence with a Blog". The teleconference-and-webcast will last 90 minutes and carries 1.5 hours of continuing legal education credit.

Here goes the Program Description:

With over 75 million weblogs, or blogs, now online and an estimated 120,000 new weblogs being created each day, blogs have become a major part of online culture. There are many law-related blogs and some lawyers report increased client development from their blog postings. Others have been interviewed by national media outlets due to their blogs. Though blogs are relatively inexpensive and easy to produce, there is more to being a successful blogger than first meets the eye.

This program will address the growing “blogosphere” and how attorneys can use it to further their practices. Our experienced panel includes Jim Calloway and Tom Mighell, both of whom are listed in the “Top 100 Blawgs” by the ABA Journal. From a brief history of the blog to an examination of newer technologies such as RSS feeds, this program will give you the tools you need to build and maintain your own blog. If you are new to blogs, or just looking for the latest updates, this is the program for you.

Topics to be covered include:

Understanding of blogs
How to use blog features such as RSS feeds and feed readers
Examination of representative blogs
Tips on publishing a blog
How to harvest specialized legal information available in blogs

This program has separate audio teleconference and online PowerPoint presentation components. Registrants will have to dial into the audio teleconference and, in order to view the presentation slides, log into the website.

[Hat tip: The UCL Practitioner]

Feedicon Blogging tip:  Use block quotes.