Comments for On Technology Law

Comment on Litigation “prenuptial agreement” would be more palatable with a limited opt-out window by D. C. Toedt

D. C. Toedt — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 02:51:27 +0000

Thanks for visiting, Dan, and for putting the ELA forward; I hope it catches on. You’ve done a real service to the business community.

Comment on Litigation “prenuptial agreement” would be more palatable with a limited opt-out window by Daniel B. Winslow

Daniel B. Winslow — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 02:27:17 +0000

Thank you for your remarks on the ELA. There will be some adjustment as companies experiment with adoption of the model clause. Like anything new, there will be some trepidation among potential users of the concept until they see others’ experience. Rather than an opt-out, I suggest a “toe in” approach might be best: companies can try the ELA for smaller contracts to stick a toe in the water. As companies gain experience, the ELA can be incorporated in larger contracts. We already have been told of companies considering the ELA for M&A, IP licensing as well as B2B contracts. Time will tell if it catches on. Best regards, Dan Winslow

Comment on Prediction: Spam-filtering patent lawsuit against Apple, Google, etc., will be knocked out early on Bilski “abstract idea” grounds by Karen G. Hazzah

Karen G. Hazzah — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 04:49:18 +0000

You’re right that this is exactly the type of claim that many would say is “abstract”. We won’t really know until we have some decisions that interpret Bilski v. Kappos.

I see this lawsuit was just filed. There are a number of cases which will be decided by the Federal Circuit in the near future that will give us a good idea this spam-filtering claim will fare under Bilski. RCT v. Microsoft will probably be the first case to be decided (oral arguments were held recently) but it’s claims look more like “math” so may be distinguishable from the spam filter claims.

Comment on Format your PDF docs as 5X7 landscape for on-screen reading, not as letter-sized paper by AdamsDrafting » Blog Archive » Reading PDF-Only Publications: On-Screen or Printout?

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:52:51 +0000

[...] are likely to read it may influence design of the PDF, although some of the design suggestions offered by D.C. Toedt are probably a bit too assertive for our needs. And if you have any suggestions, I’d be [...]

Comment on Cease-and-desist letters: Five ways to keep your client and yourself from looking foolish by D. C. Toedt

D. C. Toedt — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:26:18 +0000

@Samatha, I’ve got some in my client files, but they’re not public, so I’m not able to post them.

@Richard Russeth, thanks fro the kind remarks.

Comment on Cease-and-desist letters: Five ways to keep your client and yourself from looking foolish by Samantha

Samantha — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:23:44 +0000

Great evaluation points for what a constructive C&D should be! Do you have an example of a C&D written recently that was posted that followed these guidelines? I couldn’t think of any…

Comment on OJ Simpson’s appeal brief wasn’t very impressive by Jim Seltzer

Jim Seltzer — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:44:29 +0000

Misspellings and improper capitalization marginalizes the sense of continuity an cohesiveness so necessary in an appellate brief.

Comment on Cease-and-desist letters: Five ways to keep your client and yourself from looking foolish by Internet-Proof that Cease and Desist Letter | Priore Law

Internet-Proof that Cease and Desist Letter | Priore Law — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:38:32 +0000

[...] Toedt has a post titled “Cease-and-desist letters: Five ways to keep your client and yourself from looking foolish“ that provides some helpful steps you can take to avoid [...]

Comment on Cease-and-desist letters: Five ways to keep your client and yourself from looking foolish by Richard Russeth

Richard Russeth — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:44:13 +0000

Excellent advice and well said. I am reminded of the very public C&D letter that NYT sent to the WSJ in recent months… NYT lawyer could have benefited from this short column.

Comment on Does anyone else dislike having to click on “I agree” so much — and having to read the agreements again and again? by D. C. Toedt

D. C. Toedt — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:47:18 +0000

@Anonymous, I certainly don’t mind clicking on “I agree” the first time. But every time? No.

American Express knows I’m an existing customer (because I had to log in) and therefore have already agreed to the T&Cs. Apple knows (or ought to know) that I’ve got an existing iTunes installation and therefore have already agreed to the T&Cs.

In each case that should exempt me from having to read the T&Cs again.

Thanks for stopping by; I appreciate your having taken the time to comment.