« May 13, 2009 | Main | May 18, 2009 »
May 15, 2009
Boron oxide is damn sexy.
Always describe your sex toys in great detail--no matter how embarrassing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Florida district court finding of a valid patent on a sex toy. Ritchie v. Vast Resources, Inc., 2008-1528, -1529 (April 24, 2009). The court deemed the phrase, "appreciable amount," to be far too vague with respect to the amount of an oxide of boron present in the glass toy. In other words, the device was the result of ordinary experimentation on compositional structure one would expect from 'experts' in the area--and therefore obvious and unpatentable.
Henry Miller (1891-1980) toying with a new idea.
Posted by Rob Bodine at 11:59 PM | Comments (1)
International banking does a self-audit.
Banking as the industry that failed. See this week's The Economist and "Rebuilding the Banks". Excerpts:
There is still great uncertainty about the nature and extent of the support that governments will end up offering to their banks. But governments are now deeply embedded in banking systems.
The popular perception of bankers as Porsche-driving sociopaths obscures the fact that many of the industry’s staff are modestly paid and sit in branches, information-technology departments and call-centres. Job losses in the industry have been savage. “Being done” used to refer to hearing about your annual bonus. Now it means getting fired.
Posted by JD Hull at 12:44 PM | Comments (0)
Redux: Martindale-Hubbell: Should we all "just say no"?
From an August 8, 2009 post. Martindale-Hubbell is still "no joke". We would all miss M-H--from the ratings process to the familiar look of staid old friends the books have in any library--if it disappeared. But has anything changed?
Is a Martindale-Hubbell listing worth it anymore?
We're not unhappy with the M-H ratings process; generally speaking, if done responsibly and without in effect requiring the "purchase" of the rating, a credible if imperfect ratings process for the global legal community makes lots of sense. And M-H accomplished that decades ago.* But, in view of other and newer ways for law firms to have visibility and credibility, the price of listings at M-H is now officially a rip-off. Lots of fine lawyers seem to be complaining about it, at least in private, both in the U.S. and non-U.S. It's not that Martindale hasn't tried. See, for example, at Law.com the piece "Martindale-Hubbell Gets a Makeover" (mentioning Avvo, LawLink and Legal OnRamp, as new alternatives for marketing, networking and lawyer ratings).
Our humble take: as other ways to locate lawyers emerged, M-H never saw the light fast enough, and didn't successfully change or expand its other services to preempt a backlash. It continued to charge big listing fees that everyone complained about for years. More recently (say, the last 3 years), M-H expenses managed to stay in law firm budgets--but exceeded just about everyone's irritation levels. M-H listings now makes no business sense to anyone sane. Only the embarrassingly lame, gimmicky "Super Lawyer" concept could make Martindale look good these days.
Start the revolution?
*Martindale-Hubbell is no joke. It has a fine, time-honored and even classy reputation, and a history of good work and real utility in the profession. Our firm, Hull McGuire, has actively and earnestly participated in the M-H ratings processes for years; we are happy with the ratings our lawyers received. But, in good times or bad times, the current cost to list firm attorneys for any size firm, with or without multiple offices, is prohibitive and should be resisted on principle given other alternatives. It just isn't worth it. We predict that lawyers will bolt in droves in the next 2 years.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:24 AM | Comments (1)