@dmkravets

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) says the Obama administration must secure congressional approval for the United States to participate in an international anti-piracy treaty, a position at odds with the president.

The accord, known as the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement, exports on participating nations an intellectual-property enforcement regime resembling the one in the United States. Neither the United States nor any other country has ratified the…

Until last year, Christian Louboutin (Louboutin) never doubted the validity of its trademarked red soles for women’s high heels.  Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America, 778 F.Supp.2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).  Although the product design may not have been inherently distinctive, the lacquered red sole acquired secondary meaning in pop culture.  Through effective marketing, consumers on the street could spy a passerby sporting a flashy red sole and instantly connect the shoe with Louboutin as the source.  Moreover, the USPTO had granted a federal trademark registration for the red lacquered soles.  So how did all this land Louboutin with a mark no more valuable than a hill of beans?  This is where the concept of aesthetic functionality comes into play. 

            Even a valid trademark can be turned on its ear if found to be functional.  A mark is functional if:  (1)  the design “affords benefits” to the product not related to source identification and if (2)  the exclusive use of the design has a chilling effect on competition because the benefits are “not practically available through the use of alternative designs.”  Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §17. 

            For the courts, aesthetic functionality is akin to those optical illusion pictures where if you stare at the canvass long enough you are supposed to see an elephant in the middle:  Some circuits see it (2nd, 7th, 9th) while others are not sure it is there (5th).  In 1938, the roots of aesthetic functionality were planted by “Comment a” in the Restatement of Torts §742:  “When goods are bought largely for their aesthetic value, their features may be functional because they definitely contribute to that value and thus aid the performance of an object for which the goods are intended.”  The current influx of cases claiming aesthetic functionality as a defense indicates the concept is far from dead.

            One way to determine aesthetic functionality is via the “competitive necessity” test.  If a trademark’s protection means a “significant non-reputation-related disadvantage” for competitors, then it is aesthetically functional.  TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 27-28.  (2001) (quoting Qualitex v. Jacobson Prods., 514 U.S. 159, 165 (1995)).  Color itself qualifies as a trademark unless “exclusive use” by one producer would hinder competition.  Qualitex, 514 U.S. 159 at 165.  The same rule applies for elemental shapes because “the exclusive use of a basic element of design (shape, material, color, and so forth)” would “impoveris[h] other designers.”  Jay Franco & Sons, Inc. v. Franek , 615 F.3d 855, 860 (7th Cir. 2010). 

            So if color is allowed as a trademark, then why did the court rule against Louboutin’s exclusive use of red soles?  In aesthetic functionality, the industry in which a design element competes must be weighed.  For example, color in an industrial market “can be isolated to a single purpose” as that of identifying a source.  Louboutin, 778 F.Supp.2d at 451.  However, creative fields require greater “artistic freedom and fair competition.” Id. at 452.  In fashion, color “is used in designs primarily to advance expressive, ornamental and aesthetic purposes.”  Id. at 451.  Additionally, the court found Louboutin’s design choice of red benefits from nontrademark functions such as “to attract, to reference, to stand out, to blend it, to beautify, to endow with sex appeal.”  Id. at 454. 

            Another gray area of aesthetic functionality involves the use of unlicensed marks on products for purposes other than as a source identifier.  Here, the analysis involves determining the actual benefit sought by the consumer:  Is it the mark’s intrinsic value or its reputation?  The courts have allowed a company to use another’s trademark based upon its “own intrinsic utility” rather than as a indicator of source.  Intern. Order of Job’s Daughters v. Lindeburg & Co., 633 F.2d 912, 918 (9th. Cir. 1980) (customers purchased jewelry emblazoned with the collective marks to “expres[s] allegiance”).  In this context, the mark is used as a “‘functional’ feature of a product which constitute[s] the actual benefit that the consumer wishes to purchase.”  Id. at 917.  However, there are limits to this line of thinking.  The purpose behind appropriating a design cannot be to “piggyback” on the “trademark and the reputation it has acquired on the marketplace over a number of decades.”  Vuitton et Fils S.A. v. J. Young Enterprises, Inc., 644 F.2d 769, 777 (9th. Cir. 1981).  Hence, copying a mark will not be allowed if the allure of products is “tied to the reputation and association” of a mark indicating the products themselves lacked “‘intrinsic’ aesthetic appeal.” Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 457 F.3d 1062, 1073-74 (9th. Cir. 2006).

            What can a trademark practioner do to build a stronger trademark and reputation? At the trademark development stage, consider the industry setting when selecting a color or shape as your mark.  When a basic color or shape is desired, consider adding something of a flourish or design to make it distinctive.  Also, effective branding is key when navigating the aesthetic functionality minefield.  Talk with your client about the importance of overseeing how the marketing department words advertisements.  In the Franek case, the judge cited the wording of the company’s advertisements to establish the design as having both utilitarian and aesthetic function. If seeking trade dress protection for product design or product packaging, consider using “look for” advertising.  Spell it out for consumers:  This design = our company’s mark. 

            Last but not least, a warning about patent applications.  Circuits are divided as to whether a patent disclosure signifies functionality for all aspects of a product design.  An improperly written patent application can destroy the infinite trade dress protection afforded a product design.  If an aspect of product design is claimed as an element to be patented, then it is functional.  Thereby, on the patent claim, the features of the product design for which trade dress protection is sought need to be shown to be outside of the patent’s purpose and that they are merely arbitrary features, incidental, or ornamental.

Victoria Burke recently passed the California Bar Exam and was admitted to practice on December 1, 2011.  She attained her juris doctor degree from Southwestern Law School last May.  Her area of interest is intellectual property with an emphasis on trademark law.  She is a member of the executive committee of the Beverly Hills Bar Association IP/New Media Section.

By Kevin Mills

Does your client have an idea for an App?  A really cool one that is even better than the one your friend told you about just yesterday?

You are not alone.  As everyone knows, Apps are big.  And now we have an idea of just how big.  A little-reported study from TechNet,  a technology trade group,  finds that the demand for applications for games and other things has created 466,000 jobs in the U.S. since 2007.
Currently,   nearly one-half of mobile phones are smart phones. New uses for Apps will tie the phone to home appliances, other home uses and to new uses in the workplace.

Today,  there are more than 500,000 Apps available for the iPhone and Apple’s iPad tablet alone. Add to that a proliferation of other mobile devices designed to run on operating systems made by Google, Research in Motion and Microsoft.

It is amazing to think that this economy didn’t exist until 2007 when the iPhone first made its debut and Facebook turned its website into a platform for other programs designed for its rapidly growing audience.

The natural focus of discussions about Apps is on technology and functionality but there are significant legal issues  that should not be ignored.

 Every mobile software application has three distinct parts,  all of which have legal implications:  (1) the software that runs the application; (2) the “toolkit” that allows the application to operate on the mobile platform (such as Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS);  and (3) the application’s launch icon.

 (1) Usually the developer owns the rights to the software that runs the App. Care needs to be taken in forming the entity that owns that software. Depending on factors such as the source of development financing,  the people involved in the project,  the source of intellectual property used in the creation of the App,  the allocation of revenues generated, a different entity may need to be formed for each App developed.   In any event, whether a company structure is used or not,  there needs to be a written agreement between the parties developing the App as to how revenue and profit from each App will be split.

(2) In order to become a “registered developer” for a mobile device platform owner such as Apple or Google,  a software toolkit that will enable the App to run on that platform will need to be licensed.  That license agreement must be read carefully as sometimes ownership rights to the App software are granted in return for the toolkit license.  In addition,  other provisions in the license agreement need to be considered such as exclusivity, termination rights, reverse engineering of the App and prohibitions against developing Apps whose “look and feel” are too similar to other Apps already in use on the platform and the right to license the App to a competing platform.

(3) Regarding the icon used,  trademarking or copyrighting will be required.

Beyond that,  there needs to be a software developer agreement with each person working on the development of the Apps. The terms of such agreements can vary widely and need to be negotiated carefully.

There are also customer and consumer issues that need to be considered. Examples include privacy issues and involve stated privacy policies and, very importantly, subsequent changes made to them. Certain issues are too significant to be left to the terms of the privacy policy alone.  Instead, they should be brought directly to the user’s attention.  Privacy issues also spring from the use of information collected from people using the App.  In certain circumstances,  privacy obligations attach even to information in analytics reports that are seen by no one other than the owner of the App.

Of course, it needs to be specifically mentioned that any App designed for use by children requires special attention and needs to satisfy additional criteria.

 If you are forming a new start-up company to jump into the app fray, there are the usual corporate and company matters to be tackled; the elements of which are beyond the scope of this article.

Kevin Mills is an owner of the law firm of Kaye & Mills where his practice focuses on advising clients with transactions across a full range of issues in entertainment, media, technology, Internet and general business. His practice encompasses copyright; trademark; trade dress; trade secret; brand protection; content creation, protection and distribution; and general corporate, organizational and business matters.

by George M. Borkowski[1]

 It may come as a surprise to some that sound recordings – the actual performance of music and lyrics fixed in a recording medium, as opposed to the underlying composition – were not protected by federal copyright law until 1972 – and then only prospectively.  The Copyright Office has now recommended that the Copyright Act be amended to encompass such sound recordings. 

The reasons for the exclusion of sound recordings from the Copyright Act until 1972 are not entirely clear.  To protect sound recordings created prior to 1972, record companies and other rights holders had to rely on a variety of state statutory and common law, which is specifically permitted by the Copyright Act.  In California, for example, Civil Code section 980 grants the author of an original work of authorship consisting of a sound recording initially fixed prior to February 15, 1972, exclusive ownership of the sound recording until February 15, 2047. 

This situation obviously makes it more difficult for owners of pre-1972 sound recordings to protect their rights to those recordings.  State laws that may offer some protection have been described as a patchwork of often vague and inconsistent rights.  In addition, there is no presumption of validity that is accorded by a copyright registration from the Copyright Office, and chain of title thus may be more difficult to establish.  This is a significant limitation, given that these are older works and include, for example, recordings of old radio broadcasts.  It is also harder to have pre-1972 works that are being infringed on websites removed from those sites, given that the notice and takedown provisions of the DMCA (section 512 of the Copyright Act) apply only to copyrighted works.  Also, statutory damages (and often attorneys’ fees) are not available to plaintiffs in infringement actions of pre-1972 works.  Moreover, after February 15, 2067, the Copyright Act provides that all pre-1972 sound recordings will enter the public domain at once.  Ironically, this gives pre-1972 sound recordings – which are not protected by copyright – a longer term of protection than many old works that are subject to the Copyright Act for which protection expires after a set number of years.

In response to this issue, in 2009, Congress instructed the Register of Copyrights to conduct a study as to the “desirability and means” of extending federal copyright protection to pre-1972 sound recordings.  The Copyright Office took comments from numerous interested parties, including sound recording and other libraries, recording industry associations, broadcasters and satellite radio, music publishers, songwriters, universities, as well as other organizations and individuals.  It also conducted public hearings and met with interested parties.

The study has now been completed, and the Copyright Office has released several recommendations based on its results.  These recommendations include the following:

• Federal copyright protection should apply to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972.  (Special provisions will be needed to address ownership issues, term of protection, and registration.)
• All rights and limitations of the Copyright Act applicable to post-1972 sound recordings would apply to pre-1972 recordings, including a public performance right for digital audio transmissions, fair use, DMCA safe harbor for Internet service providers, and the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.
• Authors of pre-1972 sound recordings would have the right to terminate grants of transfers or licenses of copyright that are made after (but not before) the date federal protection starts.
• The term of protection for pre-1972 sound recordings would be 95 years from publication, but in no event beyond February 15, 2067.
• A transitional period would be instituted during which owners of pre-1972 sound recordings would be able to seek statutory damages and attorneys’ fees in infringement litigation notwithstanding the lack of registration of those works prior to filing suit.

There are several other recommendations as well.  The full report can be accessed at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/pre-72-report.pdf  If accepted, these recommendations should go a long way toward harmonizing copyright protection for all creative works of original authorship, regardless of the medium (and regardless of the reasons why pre-1972 sound recordings were treated differently to begin with).

Mr. Borkowski is a partner at Freeman Freeman & Smiley LLP.  He represents major entertainment and technology clients at the intersection of content creation and protection with technology, focusing on the impact of technology on traditional intellectual property rights and business models.  Mr. Borkowski has handled the full continuum of intellectual property, technology, and entertainment litigation, as well as anti-piracy and rights enforcement, and counseling.  He can be reached at george.borkowski@ffslaw.com  

In a blog post from the ABA by Deborah Cassens Weiss, the author writes that a law firm that helps clients defend their online reputations has purchased 3,000 domain names to keep them from being co-opted by the wrong people.  John Dozier of Dozier Internet Law in Richmond, Va. believes purchasing the domain names is effective insurance.  The post goes on to note that John Dozier has written a book about online defamation called Google Bomb.

On January 24, the Senate will have a procedural vote on the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The dynamics of SOPA are far-reaching and quite divisive. Supporters feel this legislation is the logical next step against foreign websites that circumvent current anti-piracy measures and those that offer counterfeit goods and pharmaceuticals. SOPA comes with the muscle of big name support. Some of the supporters include the MPAA, RIAA, NBA, MLB, NFL, as well as major studios such as Disney and CBS. Additionally, SOPA has the backing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Microsoft, major pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, and many others.

Yet, equally fervent are the opponents who worry about the resulting censorship from this Bill. Leading the charge in the opposition are Facebook, Twitter, Google, LinkedIn, Yahoo! and eBay to name a few. Besides vocalizing their objections, the opponents of SOPA are strategizing to make an attention grabbing protest. One idea involves an Internet blackout. Cnet describes this option as the “equivalent of a nuclear option.” Markham Erickson, executive director of NetCoalition (a trade association representing the leading global Internet and technology companies), confirmed to Fox News that such a blackout is under consideration. Erickson said, “a number of companies have had discussions about that.”

Currently, opponents have found success in boycotting SOPA supporters. When Go Daddy initially lent its support to SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), the company ended up suffering an exodus of domain customers. Those who feel the proposed legislation goes too far responded by sending Go Daddy a message. They spoke with their feet and left the company by transferring their domains to other providers. In order to stop the bleeding, Go Daddy released a statement withdrawing its support of SOPA. (Official statement from Go Daddy: http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=378)

One article that breaks down the intricacies of this controversial legislation is: “What is SOPA Bill 2012? 7 Things to Know About Controversial Legislation” from the International Business Times. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/272580/20111225/sopa-bill-2012-things-know-controversial-legislation.htm

A pending development in the Copyright Office will result in significant changes in the way an online service provider must designate an agent to receive notice of claimed copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).  As you will recall, an ISP that wants to invoke safe harbor protection under the DMCA for claims of copyright infringement by its users must, among other things, designate an agent to receive notice of claimed copyright infringement from content owners.  Failure to designate such an agent will make an ISP ineligible for DMCA safe harbor protection.

The current method of designating a DMCA agent is based on interim regulations that were promulgated by the Copyright Office when the DMCA was enacted in 1998.  Under the current rules, an ISP submits the name and contact information for its DMCA agent in a paper filing with the Office, which then maintains the information.  There is no enforceable requirement that this information be updated or maintained in a current state.  That obviously can create problems when designated agents change, or companies are bought or sold, or other changes occur at the ISP.

In recognition of these issues, the Copyright Office is proposing to amend its practices governing the designation of a DMCA agent by online service providers.  The proposal is to implement an electronic process under which service providers would designate DMCA agents to receive infringement notices.  If these new regulations are implemented, all online service providers would need to file new designations of agents within one year of the implementation of the new regulations.

The major proposed changes include the following:

• Implementation of an electronic (not paper) process, including an online submission form, by which service providers may designate agents to receive notice of claimed infringement, and the creation of an electronic database to search for designated agents.  ISPs that have already designated an agent under the current regulations will be required to file new designations.  The Office will no longer accept paper submissions.
• Any service provider that has filed an online designation of agent will be required periodically (most likely, every two years) to validate the information in its designation to keep the directory accurate.  Should an ISP fail to validate or amend its designation within the allotted time, the designation would expire and be removed from the directory.  This is significant, given that failure to have a designated DMCA agent will make an ISP ineligible for DMCA safe harbor protection.
• In addition to providing information about its designated agent, a service provider also would need to state its full legal name, physical address, and email address (in addition to that of its agent) so that the Copyright Office can send validation notifications to both the ISP and its designated agent.  Part of the reason for this proposal is to make it harder for rogue companies to hide from content owners who accuse them or their users of engaging in copyright infringement.
• The requirement of an actual signature would be eliminated.  The thinking is that, because all online filings will require the creation of an online account as well as payment of the accompanying fees with a credit card, checking account, or Copyright Office deposit account, the online system will reasonably be able to verify and authenticate the identity of the person submitting or amending the agent designation information.

There are additional proposals on more minor points that I have not mentioned here.  Whatever final regulations are implemented, it will be important for online service providers to submit and update DMCA agent information as required by the Copyright Office so as not to lose eligibility for the DMCA’s safe harbors.

The time for comments and reply comments closed on December 27, so we should expect new, final regulations in the not too distant future.  The proposed rules, plus comments from interested parties, can be found at the Copyright Office at this link:  http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/NPR/.

Mr. Borkowski is a partner at Freeman Freeman Smiley, LLP.  He  represents leading entertainment, video game and software companies and industry associations, as well as technology companies.

Recently, representatives from the MPAA and The Net Coalition debated the merits of the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) legislation on Los Angeles public radio station KPCC’s AirTalk. Michael O’Leary, senior executive vice president of the Motion Picture Association of America, exchanged heated comments with Markham Erickson, executive director of The Net Coalition, an organization that represents leading global internet and tech companies such as Google and Amazon. While at times, the discussion devolved into snarky, off-topic accusations of who makes more profits and who is behaving in a more self-serving manner, the discussion was a good representation of the dichotomous positions of the tech industry and the film industry when it comes to SOPA.

The proposed SOPA legislation aims to aggressively protect copyrighted content on the internet by allowing the government to shut down and block access to offshore sites that enable online piracy of copyrighted content. During the discussion on AirTalk, the MPAA’s O’Leary insisted that the legislation is necessary to protect American jobs. He stated that the legislation not only protects creative communities such as the movie and music industries, but also protects consumers by ensuring that the pharmaceuticals, electronics, and fashion items that they purchase online are legitimate and safe.

The Net Coalition’s Erickson countered that although he is not opposed to stopping online piracy, the proposed SOPA legislation is an over-reaching, ineffective piece of legislation that will do little to stop online piracy while at the same time dangerously diminishing internet freedom. Erickson cited the example of Wikileaks to illustrate his point that that stopping payment processors and advertisers from working with offshore sites is an effective solution to the online piracy problem. But, he said, the SOPA legislation goes way beyond that by also having the government impose technological measures that would block users’ access to offshore sites. He stated his concern that this kind of over-regulation would damage the internet’s infrastructure, limit internet freedom, and hamper innovation.

You can listen to the full piece here

(http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/12/21/21848/online-privacy-act/).

Azita Mirzaian earned her J.D. from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.  Her areas of interest include copyright protection, trademarks, and other intellectual property matters

.

I am so very excited about our upcoming concerts on March 11, the
Shrine performance in April, and of course Carmina in July. We will
resume rehearsals on Monday, January 9 and will immediately begin work
on the Faure, folksongs, and Carmina. Please encourage your colleagues
to audition for the choir. I will be auditioning singers before the
first few rehearsals. Encourage all to audition, but especially
gentlemen. We need to double our men’s sections for the upcoming
performances.

For more information visit Los Angeles Lawyers Philharmonic or email info@lalawyersphil.org.

When you think of Encyclopedia Britannica you probably think of High School research assignments and the voice of authority. I know I do. As a young child I had a Funk-and-Wagnalls set the folks dutifully purchased in installments from the grocery store. Britannica was the gold standard, a reason to go to the library, or a more affluent friend’s house. Britannica was where it was at, the undisputed leader in the encyclopedia space.

That was then. Now we have wikipedia. Where Britannica’s claim was an optimax ratio of authoritative knowledge to shelf space, wikipedia raises the stakes by letting us all participate. Just need a quick fact? You can use wikipedia passively. See something that needs tweaking, a typo or mis-quote? Change it. Better still, read the discussion page and see what has already been said, then make your change in the context of that information. And where Britannica was deemed the final word, wikipedia is just a jumping off point, with reference links galore for those who like to really dig deep on an issue.

As an example, wikipedia founder/contributor “Jimbo Wales”, recently posted the following on wikipedia:

(Please help me publicize this widely.)
A few months ago, the Italian Wikipedia community made a decision to blank all of Italian Wikipedia for a short period in order to protest a law which would infringe on their editorial independence. The Italian Parliament backed down immediately. As Wikipedians may or may not be aware, a much worse law going under the misleading title of “Stop Online Piracy Act’ is working its way through Congress on a bit of a fast track. I may be attending a meeting at the White House on Monday (pending confirmation on a couple of fronts) along with executives from many other top Internet firms, and I thought this would be a good time to take a quick reading of the community feeling on this issue. My own view is that a community strike was very powerful and successful in Italy and could be even more powerful in this case. There are obviously many questions about whether the strike should be geotargetted (US-only), etc. (One possible view is that because the law would seriously impact the functioning of Wikipedia for everyone, a global strike of at least the English Wikipedia would put the maximum pressure on the US government.) At the same time, it’s of course a very very big deal to do something like this, it is unprecedented for English Wikipedia.

SOPA is, as L.A. Progressive readers already know, a terrible bit of legislation, right up there with the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Orwellian H.R. 3162 of 2001, lovingly known as USAPATRIOT (and, yes Virginia, someone got paid to work up that false-flag acronym), and one can only hope readers of this site will flood all of their friends and family with Wales’ request for feedback, but the real point of this particular entry is this: Wikipedia is yours. It is a participatory effort to which you are cordially invited. It’s power to the people whether the government likes it or not…unless of course we let the various governments of the world break the interenet with officious nonsense in the name of “fighting piracy”, which brings us to the tech tip for the day:

Pirates notoriously rape, pillage, murder. They are less known for making or sharing unauthorized copies of “Lawrence of Arabia” or “The Hurt Locker”. The use of the word “pirate”, with all it’s truly horrendous connotations, is a technological ploy, using the technology called language, designed to prevent serious, substantive conversation about the pros and cons of various methods of promoting science and the useful arts, much as the “War is Peace” connotations of H.R. 3162, the so-called “patriot” act uses the technology of language to paint anyone who opposes it as a traitor. Today’s tip, then: Be on the look out for when language is being used against you, to bind you, to paint you into a corner, rather than to communicate, as with the so-called “Stop Online Piracy Act“.

Tech Tip: The Pervasive Power of the Plain

November 8, 2011 By Robert Link Leave a Comment

There is some irony in my having been assigned this column. I’m as tech savvy as the next person, I suppose, but my tastes run to the tragically un-hip. I read my email in a way that only shows me actual text, no html, no pictures, and not even black-text-on-white background but a matrixesque green on black, generally.

But it isn’t because I am anti-tech. It is because I am pro-tech and specifically pro-tech-that-serves-me rather than pro-tech-that-serves-the-one-percent. There was a time one could confidently say that the same features that made Windows the easiest interface to learn also made it the greatest host for virus writers. I work with old-school apps and open-source software largely because it just isn’t as heavily targeted.

But it isn’t just protection from third-party malefactors. Corporate software, like other consumer goods, runs largely on the principle of planned obsolescence. The latest new-shiny makes outmoded and outdated the formerly-new-shiny with which one is currently saddled. It takes a real effort of will and appeal to wisdom not to get on the never ending consumer conveyor belt of having the latest greatest gadget.

One facet of the American dream, of course, is a new car every two years. Only a fool would imagine the capital invested in transportation, the tens of thousands of dollars spent on new wheels, could really have reached their useful end a mere 24 months later. That dream was of and for an America of corporate greed and profits.

Now pretend that where I wrote “car” I wrote, “operating system” or “smart phone” or whatever happens to be the hot new-shiny when you read this. While the 1% has most of us on that never ending circle, there are many fine folks making sure you and I have access to the tools we need to get things done, for no more price than downloading it and taking the time to learn a little.

Considering the purported correlations of ease of learning new interfaces and neurological function (and I’m thinking specifically of remarks in Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel“) one could argue it’s worth your while just for the health benefits.

With the above in mind, then, today’s tech-tip: Learn about charityware, like the venerable text-editor, “Vim, and even if you aren’t likely to take the time to learn how to use the product, consider it an act of faith in the future to make a donation.

Robert Link

Comments welcome at either venue.

The internet is a network of networks. If that sentence makes your eyes glaze over just a bit, if you get a little dizzy just thinking about what the difference is between a giant network and network of networks, you are not alone, but it is an important difference, and without understanding that difference one cannot really appreciate the net neutrality debate.

CRAIGSLIST TERMS OF USE

1. ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS

craigslist provides a collection of online resources, including classified ads, forums, and various email services, (referred to hereafter as “the Service”) subject to the following Terms of Use (“TOU”). By using the Service in any way, you are agreeing to comply with the TOU. In addition, when using particular craigslist services, you agree to abide by any applicable posted guidelines for all craigslist services, which may change from time to time. Should you object to any term or condition of the TOU, any guidelines, or any subsequent modifications thereto or become dissatisfied with craigslist in any way, your only recourse is to immediately discontinue use of craigslist. craigslist has the right, but is not obligated, to strictly enforce the TOU through self-help, community moderation, active investigation, litigation and prosecution.

If you haven’t read through them, the ILTSO Standards are a solid resource for the legal profession. Attorneys, from solos to BigLaw, are look for guidance when using technology in law practice. There is a strong focus in the Standards on the use of cloud computing and mobile devices for law practice. The Standards also include an ethics section. Obviously, the document will need to be updated regularly which is another purpose of this nonprofit.