Court hears arguments in Microsoft patent case

Legal Insight 2011/04/18 08:36   Bookmark and Share

The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments from Microsoft Corp. asking it to overturn a $290 million patent infringement judgment against the world's largest software maker, a ruling that could have a profound effect on how corporations protect and profit from their future inventions.

An eight-justice court on Monday heard arguments from the Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft, which wants the multimillion dollar judgment against it erased because it claims a judge used the wrong standard.

Business groups are closely watching this case. The U.S. government made more than $64 billion off of international licensing and royalties from patents in 2009, with an expected growth rate of 15 percent a year. A ruling for Microsoft could make companies less likely to invest in new inventions, but a ruling for i4i, the company which brought the lawsuit against Microsoft, could make it harder for large corporations to fight off such challenges.

The cost of fighting off a patent lawsuit could be as much as $4 million per defendant, companies say.

top

Follow the Leader, Distantly

Legal Insight 2010/09/02 21:32   Bookmark and Share
Driving home yesterday afternoon, I was inspired to analogize safe driving practices with prudent business development.  Specifically, I likened good business judgment to following vehicles at a safe distance.  Just as following the next car too closely can result in accidents, mimicking a perceived leader in business can produce calamitous business results.

My analogy is paradoxical.  Being “safe” in business by putting distance between yourself and another leading competitor doesn’t seem very smart.  Intuitively, shouldn’t we be a tailgater, if for no other reason than to prepare to pass our competitor?  Yes, tailgating is risky, but calculated risk is what successful business is all about.

In my view, tailgating is stupid, both on the road and off.  It’s inappropriate and unnecessary risk.  The better risk is trailing at a safe distance. Although beating your competitor at his (or her) own game becomes more difficult, differentiating yourself becomes easier.  In being different, a business can both avoid repeating competitors’ mistakes and, perhaps more importantly, gain the broader market perspective required for novel (or at least rare) insight about better paths to trod.  In street parlance, you can avoid the pile up if you’re not part of it, maybe even spotting a detour with the extra time you’ve afforded yourself.
top

Divorce Lawyers' Role May be Changing

Legal Insight 2010/09/01 21:31   Bookmark and Share
Pro se representation in divorce cases is popular.  Probably half of everyone getting divorced today will choose to represent themselves.  Money may seem like the obvious reason, because attorneys are expensive.  Then again, cost is not as important if our help is indispensible, or even greatly needed.  So what value can attorneys offer the twenty-first century pro se crowd?

It may help to examine the several factors which explain the current trend toward self-representation.  As I said, money is obviously is motivating factor, but then there’s the Internet, instant communication between friends and colleagues, the sinking repute of lawyers, and the lower birth rate.  I submit that all these factors – and there are others no doubt – combine to explain why pro se representation is increasingly popular.

A recent
empirical study by Judith G McMullen and Debra Oswald corroborates my suggestions.  Their study concludes that people prefer self-representation for a variety of reasons, both financial and physiological.  Not surprisingly, those with the most to lose are most likely to seek counsel.  The study also suggests that, in general, people are adept at knowing when they need counsel.  As for the value of counsel, the study was largely inconclusive.

The wisdom of self-representation is debatable – at least in some cases – as is the definition of a “successful” divorce.  More certain is that self-representation in divorce cases will remain popular, if only because some people will never be able to pay even modest fees for legal counsel.  From a business perspective, then, the pro se trend is not necessarily lost opportunity.

On the other hand, I wonder whether, among all cases of self-representation, serious business opportunities exist.  Certainly some people choosing self-representation could afford counsel.  To the extend such people view attorneys as just another (expensive) poker in the fire, those attorneys with adaptable styles of representation may be able to win additional business.

There is some suggestion that traditional legal services actually lengthen divorce contests, and that attorneys may, at best, contribute nothing of value to non-adversarial methods of dispute resolution.  To be known as an attorney who reduces conflict while preserving what is most important to most people – getting through the divorce quickly while minimizing collateral damage – may be the go-to divorce attorney of the new century.

http://www.marathonlegalblog.com/trackback/13
top









Disclaimer: Nothing posted on this blog is intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice. Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Nothing submitted as a comment is confidential. Nor does any comment on a blog post create an attorney-client relationship. The presence of hyperlinks to other third-party websites does not imply that the firm endorses those websites.

Law Firm Website Design by Best Lawyer Website Design- Attorney Web Design That Works