Video of AU Law's 2015 "IP/Gender - Mapping the Connections" conference (including my talk on "Patents and Perverts") and more!
The 2015 IP/Gender conference at American University's Washington College of Law was a smashing success; the video of the full event is posted here. I presented "Patents and Perverts" -- now tentatively retitled "Design and Deviance" -- whose abstract is posted on SSRN. If you're interested in my portion of the conference, if starts at the 5:02 mark. (As always, Professor Rebecca Tushnet has done a wonderful public service by transcribing the event essentials.)
Oh, and did you read this January 26th column on the "utility-design patent boundary" by my firm's Of Counsel, Yin Huang? If not, you should check that out, too...
After literally years of waiting, we've finally gotten a ruling from the Ninth Circuit in the (second) Omega v. Costco appeal...
The still-amorphous equitable defense is, however, addressed in the much more in-depth opinion concurring in the judgment (which, appropriately, calls out the other two judges on the panel for basing their ruling on a legal issue not even in dispute at this point in the litigation -- the so-called "first sale" doctrine -- rather than the "copyright misuse" question that was actually briefed and argued before the appellate court.)
Analysis and commentary forthcoming... (Sorry, it's a busy week; classes just started up again at NYU Law, and courses in other divisions of the university begin this coming Monday.) [UPDATE (2/6/15): You know, I think I'm just going to have to share my thoughts on the Omega decision at this February 19th panel/CLE co-hosted by NYU Law and The Copyright Society of the USA. Register ASAP!]
Chanel, fashion house, forces Chanel Jones, hairstylist, to settle by signing away rights to basically all public uses of name
"Consent judgments" (a/k/a "consent decrees") are very, very dangerous -- especially when wielded by a powerful corporation against a pro se defendant. The defendant in this case probably could have used some help, not only in drafting her (sort of heartbreaking) "Answer" to plaintiff's Complaint, but in negotiating more reasonable terms for the settlement agreement embodied in the Consent Judgment embedded below -- which, in its current form, essentially prevents her from using her name in commerce in any way, ever, under penalty of contempt of court, among other possible penalties.
By the way, consent decrees are probably unconstitutional. Just sayin'.