by Lee Gesmer | Dec 13, 2008 | Corporate Law
My partner Sarah Richmond has published an article in the December 12, 2008 issue of Mass High Tech titled Startup Founders: Success Requires Risk and Sacrifice –
In this time of economic uncertainty, what can a founder of a startup do to increase his chances of attracting an outside investment and maximize the likelihood of his ultimate financial success? The answer may be counterintuitive: founders should not try to “hedge” their commitment to their new business in an effort to minimize downside risk. Without the founders taking on some risk, making sacrifices and giving an unfettered commitment to their startup, they will have a much harder time attracting investors and achieving their ultimate goals. Continue reading ….
by Lee Gesmer | Dec 12, 2008 | Miscellaneous
“Never write if you can speak;
never speak if you can whisper;
never whisper if you can nod;
and never nod if you can wink.”
Martin Lomasney (1859-1933) Massachusetts State Senator, State Representative, Alderman and Ward Boss of Boston’s Ward Eight.
by Lee Gesmer | Dec 12, 2008 | Trademark
Here is a link to the decision of federal district court judge John W. Darrah (N.D. Ill.), denying the defendants motion to dismiss in the trademark suit brought by the Jones Day law firm against the web site Blockshopper.com, which reports on upscale residential real estate transactions in Chicago and other cities. I wrote about this case in some detail here. Jones Day’s assertion that a post on the site describing real estate purchases by two Jones Day attorneys could create confusion (and therefore constitute trademark infringement) has been widely ridiculed. The judge, however, disagreed. His decision is highly legalistic, and takes Jones Days’ allegations at face value, despite the fact that they are (in the opinion of many knowledgeable observers) implausible on their face (to put it mildly). Go figure.
by Lee Gesmer | Dec 12, 2008 | CFAA
Suffice it to say, very few people realize that violating the “terms of use” (aka the small print that no one reads) on a web site may constitute violation of a federal law that has both criminal and civil penalties. Yet, this was the basis for the prosecution of Lori Drew, the woman who allegedly created a MySpace account under the name of “Josh Evans.” Using this account, Drew developed an online relationship with Megan Meier, a 13-year-old girl. “Josh Evans” said hurtful things to Megan, who took her own life.
Pamela Jones lays out the legal issues in this case on Groklaw, here, where she links to many key documents, and embeds the EFF’s amicus brief, in its entirety.
I was trying to figure out how to explain to you all that is involved in the case of the U.S. v. Lori Drew, the cyberbullying case that so many lawyers are expressing concerns about. I felt I needed a lawyer to explain it, but where would I find one who felt like doing some unpaid work, and over the Thanksgiving holiday to boot?
Then I had a brainstorm. I could show you the amicus brief [PDF] submitted in the case by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and Public Citizen, which was also signed by “14 individual faculty members listed in Appendix A who research, teach and write scholarly articles and books about internet law, cybercrime, criminal law and related topics at law schools nationwide”. Appendix A is at the very end. If you look at the list, you’ll see that it’s some of the finest and most knowledgeable lawyers and law professors specializing in cyberlaw. The brief was written by Jennifer Granick of EFF and Philip R. Malone of Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society’s Cyberlaw Clinic.
I think when you read it, it will turn your hair white. Continue reading ….
by Lee Gesmer | Dec 11, 2008 | Antitrust
Whole Foods, in the wake of the D.C. Circuit’s decision reinstating (in a manner of speaking) the FTC’s challenge to the Whole Foods – Wild Oats merger, has filed a most unusual lawsuit in the federal district court in the District of Columbia. Whole Foods is seeking to terminate the FTC’s administrative proceedings investigating the merger. The stated grounds are violation of the Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA).
Here is a link to the complaint (scribd.com).
This lawsuit is unusual, to say the least. The essence of Whole Foods complaint seems to be that the FTC has prejudged the case and set an unreasonably aggressive discovery schedule. I’m not aware of any grounds for this legal theory at this stage of an administrative proceeding, but I’m sure that Whole Foods’ lawyers have done their homework, and that these claims have some legal merit. Stay tuned.
