by Lee Gesmer | Feb 5, 2009 | Miscellaneous
If you’re fascinated with India, as I am, there’s an interesting series of articles described as an “innovation tour,” of India by Vinit Nijhawan, Executive-in-Residence in the Boston University School of Management. In a series of “dispatches” Nijhawan “takes readers on a journey, from New Delhi’s teeming cell phone (and cell phone unlocking) marketplace to Chandigarh, home to a great engineering college and a nascent life sciences industry forming . . . around agricultural products”, to quote from Xconomy.
An introduction and links to the installments (five so far), can be accessed here.
by Lee Gesmer | Feb 2, 2009 | Noncompete Agreements
You’ve got to wonder what Steelcraft was thinking when it decided to file a lawsuit against its former employee, James Hensel.
It’s hard enough to enforce a written noncompete agreement, much less an oral agreement, but that’s what Steelcraft tried to do in this case. The absence of a written agreement didn’t deter Steelcraft, which sought a preliminary injunction against Hensel. Steelcraft was able to allege nothing more than an “oral” noncompete agreement. One of several requirements for enforceability of a noncompete agreement is that it be reasonable in duration and geographic scope, and even though Steelcraft alleged an oral agreement, it said nothing about that element, rendering the agreement unenforceable in the eyes of Worcester County Superior Court Judge Richard T. Tucker.
Steelcraft also alleged that Hensel had taken Steelcraft trade secrets (the decision doesn’t discuss precisely what these were), but once again its argument was rejected on the grounds that it had failed to establish that it had properly protected the alleged secrets. For good measure, the judge noted that Steelcraft had failed to enter into a confidentiality agreement with the former employee.
There’s a bit more to this case (favorable to Hensel, harmful to Steelcraft), but the point is made: if you fail even to get a written noncompete agreement from your employee, don’t expect that you’ll be able to stop him from competing based on an oral agreement. “He said – She said” just doesn’t work here.
To read the full decision in Steelcraft v. Mobi Medical click here.
by Lee Gesmer | Jan 28, 2009 | Antitrust, Copyright
[Update: the FTC did file a reply brief. Link here]
All the briefs are in on the FTC petition for cert in its antitrust case against Rambus, (unless the FTC decides to file a reply brief, which is unlikely to change things much). I’ve added the Rambus opposition to the Rambus Group page on scribd.com, here. Now its time for the antitrust community to hold its breath and see whether the Court takes the case. Some knowledgeable commentators have opined that FTC/Rambus case has the best chance of any antitrust case obtaining review this year, but that plus a dime will get you …. well, nothing I guess. If the petition is allowed, it will be very exciting times for antitrust and standards setting law and policy wonks.
In federal court in Boston the Gatehouse Media v. New York Times case (described in these two (1, 2) earlier posts) has settled, as I suspected it would. The
settlement agreement (or a preliminary agreement which is binding in the event a “definitive agreement” is not reached), is on scribd.com, here. It appears that this agreement was not intended to be made public (at least not yet), but apparently someone leaked it, so it’s public now.
As I read this, Gatehouse prevailed, hands down over the NYT/Boston.com. Gatehouse will erect “technical solutions” to prevent Boston.com from copying the Gatehouse original content, and Boston.com will respect those “solutions.” If a “solution” proves ineffective, Gatehouse will notify Boston.com, and Boston.com will back off right away. Why the parties went about it in this manner (which implicates DMCA-like anti-circumvention) I’m not sure, but I appears to accomplish the same result as if the NYT/Boston.com simply said “we won’t copy your ledes.”
From what I can seek, Boston.com/yourtown has already dropped its ledes and links to the Gatehouse sites, at least based on a quick sampling.
[postscript: here is a link to the report of Gatehouse’s copyright expert, Douglas Lichtman, Professor of Law, UCLA. The report is an analysis of the case under copyright fair use principles, and a rebuttal of the NYT/Boston.com’s unclean hands argument]
by Lee Gesmer | Jan 26, 2009 | Readings and Novelties
I come across passages that I’ll share from time to time. I post them because they tickle my fancy or because I find they contain some insight, perspective or humor that appeals to me. This quote seemed apropos given the economic meltdown of 2008 and the vast destruction of wealth that accompanied it.
“The poor man’s son, whom heaven in its anger has visited with ambition, admires the condition of the rich. It appears in his fancy like the life of some superior rank of beings, and, in order to arrive at it, he devotes himself forever to the pursuit of wealth and greatness. Through the whole of his life, he pursues the idea of a certain artificial and elegant repose, which he may never arrive at, for which he sacrifices a real tranquility that is at all times in his power, and which, if in the extremity of old age, he should at last attain to it, he will find to be in no respect preferable to that humble security and contentment which he had abandoned for it. Power and riches appear, then, to be what they are, enormous machines contrived to produce a few trifling conveniences to the body. They are immense fabrics, which it requires the labor of a life to raise, which threaten every moment to overwhelm the person that dwells in them, and which, while they stand, can protect him from none of the severer inclemencies of the season. They keep off the summer shower, not the winter storm, but leave him always as much and sometimes more exposed than before to anxiety, to fear and to sorrow, to diseases, to danger and to death.”
The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith (1759).
by Lee Gesmer | Jan 22, 2009 | Courts
The Boston Globe reports that U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner has stayed last week’s decision allowing a motion hearng in the Tenenbaum music downloading case to be “narrowcast” on the Internet, pending an appeal to the First Circuit by the RIAA. Apparently, the RIAA feels strongly enough about this issue to ask for immediate appellate review, and Judge Gertner agreed to keep cameras out of court, at least for the moment.
My take? Cameras in the courtroom should be within the discretion of the judge, who exercises control over that courtroom, and the First Circuit should deny the RIAA’s appeal. The more that the public sees what goes on in our federal courts, the better for our judicial system.
