Thursday, February 28, 2013
Week 8 BOC: Progress on final project
My experience in the pursuit for trying to get a lawyer has been a taxing one. I decided to go with calling around to some of the lawyers on internet to try and get a feel for what it was like. Not surprisingly i got a lot of assistance giving me the run around
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Week 7 EOC: Lawyers
JOHN E. BRAGONJE
Partner
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy.
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Phone702.474.2625
Fax702.216.6173
JOICE B. BASS
Partner
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy.
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Phone702.949.8345
Fax702.949.8378
W. WEST ALLEN
Partner
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy.
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Phone702.949.8230
Fax702.949.8364
JENNIFER K. HOSTETLER
Associate
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy.
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Phone702.474.2624
Fax702.216.6255
MATTHEW W. PARK
Associate
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy.
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Phone(702) 474-2655
Fax(702) 216-6238
THOMAS G. RYAN
Partner
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy.
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Phone702.949.8232
Fax702.949.8349
MENG ZHONG
Associate
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy.
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Phone702.474.2636
Fax702.216.6259
DAN R. WAITE
Partner
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy.
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Phone702.474.2638
Fax702.216.6177
ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Of Counsel
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy.
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Phone702.474.2658
Fax702.216.6221
RYAN T. O'MALLEY
Associate
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy.
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Phone702.474.2659
Fax702.216.6245
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Week 6 EOC: Illicit Trade
Illicit trade in goods have completely over run the market of goods for trade. As a perspective form a film maker it is becoming incresly hard new movie makers to produce movies that can make any profit what so ever.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Week 5 EOC: Paten Trolls
“Businesses now face potentially devastating financial penalties for false patent
marking of mass produced products thanks to 2009 U.S. Court of Appeals decision.
Under this decision, businesses that falsely mark an unpatented product can be
liable for up to $500 per item” (Davis Kuelthau attorneys at law, 1). Financial loss
numbers went spinning through several large monopoly company heads, at the
threat that “anyone” could take a falsely marked patent to court and split the profit
with the U. S. Government.
According to Searcey, “one plaintiff, Sarah Tompkins, who has sued more than a
dozen companies, is the wife of Allen, Texas, patent lawyer George Tompkins. –
Tompkins heard about it from his lawyer friends. He and his wife then spent hours
poring our Internet advertising to check for outdated patents on products. —The
couple trekked to retail stores to find falsely marked products on shelves” (Searcey,
5). These patent trolls would argue that it wasn’t fair to the rest of the public, that
the large conglomerate companies are enforcing nervousness into the smaller
companies about getting credit for their patents.
Others would digress even through strong feelings false patents. “That said, it
seems clear that the sudden goldrush mentality of patent attorneys suing all sorts
of companies for false marking is a pure money grab, where there’s little evidence
of any real harm at times. It just seems like a way to tie up the courts in hopes of a
golden lottery ticket (shared with the feds). That doesn’t seem efficient or useful—
and actually has some unfortunate similarities to basic patent trolling” (Masnick,
1). Understanding, the true meaning behind the craze of seeking out patents comes
down to me agreeing that companies do need to check their patents every four years
by law and pay the patent contribution. I see this as a double edge sword, I do agree
with Daniel Ravicher, a founder and executive director of New York nonprofit Public
Patent Foundation when he stated, “It chills competition, it misleads the public and
takes away from the credit patent holders deserve” (Searcey, 4 & 5). I also believe
that the trolling has lost the aspect of Ravicher’s argument simply for cash cow
profit.
marking of mass produced products thanks to 2009 U.S. Court of Appeals decision.
Under this decision, businesses that falsely mark an unpatented product can be
liable for up to $500 per item” (Davis Kuelthau attorneys at law, 1). Financial loss
numbers went spinning through several large monopoly company heads, at the
threat that “anyone” could take a falsely marked patent to court and split the profit
with the U. S. Government.
According to Searcey, “one plaintiff, Sarah Tompkins, who has sued more than a
dozen companies, is the wife of Allen, Texas, patent lawyer George Tompkins. –
Tompkins heard about it from his lawyer friends. He and his wife then spent hours
poring our Internet advertising to check for outdated patents on products. —The
couple trekked to retail stores to find falsely marked products on shelves” (Searcey,
5). These patent trolls would argue that it wasn’t fair to the rest of the public, that
the large conglomerate companies are enforcing nervousness into the smaller
companies about getting credit for their patents.
Others would digress even through strong feelings false patents. “That said, it
seems clear that the sudden goldrush mentality of patent attorneys suing all sorts
of companies for false marking is a pure money grab, where there’s little evidence
of any real harm at times. It just seems like a way to tie up the courts in hopes of a
golden lottery ticket (shared with the feds). That doesn’t seem efficient or useful—
and actually has some unfortunate similarities to basic patent trolling” (Masnick,
1). Understanding, the true meaning behind the craze of seeking out patents comes
down to me agreeing that companies do need to check their patents every four years
by law and pay the patent contribution. I see this as a double edge sword, I do agree
with Daniel Ravicher, a founder and executive director of New York nonprofit Public
Patent Foundation when he stated, “It chills competition, it misleads the public and
takes away from the credit patent holders deserve” (Searcey, 4 & 5). I also believe
that the trolling has lost the aspect of Ravicher’s argument simply for cash cow
profit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)