There's a video from Google on its Google Blog today, introducing today's revamped Google News -- and while it sounds nice (doesn't Google always sound nice?), I gotta wonder.
How much is Google monitoring what we're reading for its own devices?
Should we be selecting the stories we read, or was it better, when the editors sorted stories according to importance - what we the public might need to know?
The fact that the video uses "Tom Cruise" as an example of how to cull your news to fit your interests, does this tell us something scary about things today?
6/30/2010
6/29/2010
My New Free e-Book: Twitter Nuts n Bolts 4 Lawyers: a How-to Guide for Law Firms
Twitter Nuts n Bolts 4 Lawyers: A How-To Guide for Law Firms is my first free e-book. I'm offering this 10-step primer especially for lawyers. In ten steps, it explains how attorneys and law firms can get started on Twitter -- and be tweeting away, efficiently and effectively, in 15 minutes or less. That's right: 15 minutes.
Twitter Nuts & Bolts 4 Lawyers: a How-To Guide for Law Firms is free on the web; you can download or print your copy here.
Leading law firms tweet; check out Jackson Walker, Fulbright, and Vinson & Elkins to name a few. Corporations (read that clients) are using tweets to their advantage, as well. Follow @ScottMonty of Ford Motor Company as an example of how this is done, and done well.
Despite the Twitter explosion, a great many law firms have yet to start Tweeting on Twitter. My new e-Book helps them change that, fast and easy. And yes, for free.
Twitter Nuts n Bolts 4 Lawyers: a How-To Guide for Law Firms, in 12 pages, takes the reader through 10 Steps - from Joining Twitter (Step One) to Planning a Tweeting Strategy (Step Four) to Scheduling Tweets (Step Ten).
It's a basic manual -- a starting guide -- that empowers attorneys with the core information (complete with visuals) they need to become active on Twitter.
Please read and use Twitter Nuts n Bolts 4 Lawyers: A How-To Guide for Law Firms with my compliments.
Twitter Nuts & Bolts 4 Lawyers: a How-To Guide for Law Firms is free on the web; you can download or print your copy here.
Leading law firms tweet; check out Jackson Walker, Fulbright, and Vinson & Elkins to name a few. Corporations (read that clients) are using tweets to their advantage, as well. Follow @ScottMonty of Ford Motor Company as an example of how this is done, and done well.
Despite the Twitter explosion, a great many law firms have yet to start Tweeting on Twitter. My new e-Book helps them change that, fast and easy. And yes, for free.
Twitter Nuts n Bolts 4 Lawyers: a How-To Guide for Law Firms, in 12 pages, takes the reader through 10 Steps - from Joining Twitter (Step One) to Planning a Tweeting Strategy (Step Four) to Scheduling Tweets (Step Ten).
It's a basic manual -- a starting guide -- that empowers attorneys with the core information (complete with visuals) they need to become active on Twitter.
Please read and use Twitter Nuts n Bolts 4 Lawyers: A How-To Guide for Law Firms with my compliments.
6/28/2010
Oregon Supreme Court Reverses $100 Million Punitive Award Against Philip Morris Based on US Supreme Court Decision Re Punitive Limits
The $100 million punitive damage award against Philip Morris got reversed by the Oregon Supreme Court last week, with the state's high court returning the case back to the trial court for yet another consideration of how much the tobacco company should pay the family of Michelle Schwartz in punitives for her lung cancer death. (The opinion is available online in pdf format.)
The trial court judge already reduced the jury's initial $120,000,000 punitive award to $100 million; now, who knows where it will end up.
Why this second reduction by the Oregon Supreme Court?
Apparently, the tobacco company's defense argument - that jury instructions failed to stop the jurors from awarding punitives against Philip Morris for cancer deaths other than Michelle Schwartz's - prevailed upon appeal.
This, even though the jury's verdict was totally valid under the law that existed at the time that the verdict was reached and the judgment was signed by the trial judge.
What happened?
It wasn't a case of reevaluation of the court's charge: the defense's proposed jury instructions didn't get approved by the trial court judge, either. This decision is a direct result and reaction to the United States Supreme Court's decision that due process requires limitation on punitive damages.
Problem is, the US Supreme Court didn't give any clear help to lower courts in how they are to determine the due process parameters on punitive damage awards. As Oregon Justice Martha Walters explains in last week's opinion, the United States Supreme Court "... has thrust upon state courts the role of determining whether a jury award of punitive damages exceeds the outer limits that substantive due process allows."
Here's what the U.S. Supreme Court opined in State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 US 408, 422, 423 (2003):
Gotta wonder if another state supreme court, say Texas, would see things the same way as Oregon in the application of this warning from the Supremes. And, will this result simply mean that Plaintiff's lawyers are going to be much more thoughtful about where they file suit against huge, monolithic corporations like Philip Morris?
Nothing like certainty in litigation.
The trial court judge already reduced the jury's initial $120,000,000 punitive award to $100 million; now, who knows where it will end up.
Why this second reduction by the Oregon Supreme Court?
Apparently, the tobacco company's defense argument - that jury instructions failed to stop the jurors from awarding punitives against Philip Morris for cancer deaths other than Michelle Schwartz's - prevailed upon appeal.
This, even though the jury's verdict was totally valid under the law that existed at the time that the verdict was reached and the judgment was signed by the trial judge.
What happened?
It wasn't a case of reevaluation of the court's charge: the defense's proposed jury instructions didn't get approved by the trial court judge, either. This decision is a direct result and reaction to the United States Supreme Court's decision that due process requires limitation on punitive damages.
Problem is, the US Supreme Court didn't give any clear help to lower courts in how they are to determine the due process parameters on punitive damage awards. As Oregon Justice Martha Walters explains in last week's opinion, the United States Supreme Court "... has thrust upon state courts the role of determining whether a jury award of punitive damages exceeds the outer limits that substantive due process allows."
Here's what the U.S. Supreme Court opined in State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 US 408, 422, 423 (2003):
"[a] defendant should be punished for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff, not for being an unsavory individual or business. Due process does not permit courts, in the calculation of punitive damages, to adjudicate the merits of other parties' hypothetical claims against a defendant under the guise of the reprehensibility analysis[.]"Would the same result happen if this case had been filed in another state?
Gotta wonder if another state supreme court, say Texas, would see things the same way as Oregon in the application of this warning from the Supremes. And, will this result simply mean that Plaintiff's lawyers are going to be much more thoughtful about where they file suit against huge, monolithic corporations like Philip Morris?
Nothing like certainty in litigation.
6/23/2010
Obama's Not Gonna Fire McChrystal
Sure, you gotta wonder about the General letting a Rolling Stone reporter roam around freely for a month.
Is he arrogant, stupid, crazy like a fox (I'm voting fox)? And, it's all about that Rolling Stone article. Not the war, not the General's job performance. It's all about what has been reported in that magazine interview that hasn't even hit the stands yet.
You can read the full text of Rolling Stone interview of General McChrystal in its entirety now. Rolling Stone has wisely already released it as an online publication.
But here's my prediction: McChrystal's not gonna be fired.
Let's see if I'm right.
Is he arrogant, stupid, crazy like a fox (I'm voting fox)? And, it's all about that Rolling Stone article. Not the war, not the General's job performance. It's all about what has been reported in that magazine interview that hasn't even hit the stands yet.
You can read the full text of Rolling Stone interview of General McChrystal in its entirety now. Rolling Stone has wisely already released it as an online publication.
But here's my prediction: McChrystal's not gonna be fired.
Let's see if I'm right.
6/21/2010
Federal Control of the Web for Purposes of Homeland Security: Threat of Terrorism or Threat of Revolution?
In today's news, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is pushing for federal control of the internet -- just as the FCC is fighting for control of internet service providers. The Federal Communications Commission just opened comments on whether broadband should be reclassified as a telecommunications system -- and therefore, under the same regulatory control as telephones, etc.
All, apparently in the name of a growing threat of "homegrown terrorism."
In a recent speech to the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, Secretary Napolitano pointed to foreign terrorists who use the World Wide Web to communicate with their cohorts here in the United States. She is quoted as saying, "[t]he First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet."
Napolitano pointed to our known foreign enemies -- we are in two wars, of course -- and in this context, monitoring our enemies' ability to conspire with spies (sounds melodramatic, but nevertheless, it's accurate) seems to make sense.
Lots of Homegrown Political Groups Organizing on Meetup.com
However, something interesting occurred the same morning that I was reading about this push to federalize the Internet -- over at Meetup.com.
You know Meetup.com. It's the cool site where people of shared interests coordinate group meetings over the web. Hikers, Dog Lovers, Poker Players, Business Networking Groups -- they're all there at Meetup.com. I was looking for writer groups to join, maybe a book club.
This morning, I was surprised to see the number of groups that have sprouted in the two months or so since I last visited San Antonio's Meetup.com that are politically charged. Some may be Tea Party groups. Some may be other things -- there was one here in San Antonio established to prepare for an inevitable Martial Law.
Going by the name US Martial Law and Financial - Instant Alert System, there are 327 members as of today's date. Think of that. The local Scrabble club has 34.
The Martial Law group is Libertarian, they're apparently supporters of Ron Paul, and is part of the "Constitutionalist" groups numbering 299 worldwide. Now, these groups appear to be Tea Party connected, too, so go figure.
Who Does the Federal Government Want to Monitor?
I'm a native of San Antonio. During the three years I represented kids in the San Antonio CPS courts, I learned a lot about border activities. First of all, I learned that the federal government simply isn't doing that much to protect our border with Mexico.
Here in San Antonio, I've talked with coyotes (professional human smugglers) and Texas Rangers and Border Patrol officers. Here, quite frankly, the consensus is that we feel pretty much on our own - and it's understood that it's not just Mexican Nationals that are entering our state. Nope. All sorts of nationalities are crossing into Texas these days. If they've got the cash, then there's a coyote willing to smuggle them (at great risk, of course).
So, what's the real concern here on internet regulation and control? Is it really the foreign threat? Or is it an internal one?
This agency - or executive branch - desire to grasp the reins of the internet needs to be carefully considered by all of us. Our civil liberties are paramount. Men and women have died, and are dying, for mine and yours.
I'm pondering all this today, and thought I'd share it with you. I'm suspicious that it's my fellow citizens that are the true targets of this intentional violation of civil liberties, not foreigners.
We're a country that revolted in the 1700s and again in the 1800s. Some would say the 1960s came close to a third revolution. How real is a threat of revolution today? It's something to ponder.
All, apparently in the name of a growing threat of "homegrown terrorism."
In a recent speech to the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, Secretary Napolitano pointed to foreign terrorists who use the World Wide Web to communicate with their cohorts here in the United States. She is quoted as saying, "[t]he First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet."
Napolitano pointed to our known foreign enemies -- we are in two wars, of course -- and in this context, monitoring our enemies' ability to conspire with spies (sounds melodramatic, but nevertheless, it's accurate) seems to make sense.
Lots of Homegrown Political Groups Organizing on Meetup.com
However, something interesting occurred the same morning that I was reading about this push to federalize the Internet -- over at Meetup.com.
You know Meetup.com. It's the cool site where people of shared interests coordinate group meetings over the web. Hikers, Dog Lovers, Poker Players, Business Networking Groups -- they're all there at Meetup.com. I was looking for writer groups to join, maybe a book club.
This morning, I was surprised to see the number of groups that have sprouted in the two months or so since I last visited San Antonio's Meetup.com that are politically charged. Some may be Tea Party groups. Some may be other things -- there was one here in San Antonio established to prepare for an inevitable Martial Law.
Going by the name US Martial Law and Financial - Instant Alert System, there are 327 members as of today's date. Think of that. The local Scrabble club has 34.
The Martial Law group is Libertarian, they're apparently supporters of Ron Paul, and is part of the "Constitutionalist" groups numbering 299 worldwide. Now, these groups appear to be Tea Party connected, too, so go figure.
Who Does the Federal Government Want to Monitor?
I'm a native of San Antonio. During the three years I represented kids in the San Antonio CPS courts, I learned a lot about border activities. First of all, I learned that the federal government simply isn't doing that much to protect our border with Mexico.
Here in San Antonio, I've talked with coyotes (professional human smugglers) and Texas Rangers and Border Patrol officers. Here, quite frankly, the consensus is that we feel pretty much on our own - and it's understood that it's not just Mexican Nationals that are entering our state. Nope. All sorts of nationalities are crossing into Texas these days. If they've got the cash, then there's a coyote willing to smuggle them (at great risk, of course).
So, what's the real concern here on internet regulation and control? Is it really the foreign threat? Or is it an internal one?
This agency - or executive branch - desire to grasp the reins of the internet needs to be carefully considered by all of us. Our civil liberties are paramount. Men and women have died, and are dying, for mine and yours.
I'm pondering all this today, and thought I'd share it with you. I'm suspicious that it's my fellow citizens that are the true targets of this intentional violation of civil liberties, not foreigners.
We're a country that revolted in the 1700s and again in the 1800s. Some would say the 1960s came close to a third revolution. How real is a threat of revolution today? It's something to ponder.
6/18/2010
Peggy Noonan Compares Obama to Carter, Calls Him "Snakebit"
In today's Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan gives a new perspective on President Obama, "A Snakebit President" -- it's worth the read.
6/16/2010
6/10/2010
Abby Sunderland, 16, Lost at Sea While Sailing Around the World Solo - What's the Legal Implication Here?
Teen sailor Abby Sunderland, 16, isn't communicating with anyone -- but her sailboat shouldn't be completely underwater according to her brother, since an alarm for that event hasn't sounded. Sixteen years old, Abby is determined to circumnavigate the globe alone in Wild Eyes, her sailboat. (For details on her story, check out the details at SailWorld.com, which includes photos of the sailboat with Abby at the helm.)
Abby turned on emergency beacons before 6AM this morning
However, no one has heard from Abby since early this morning, when Abby was somewhere in the Indian Ocean, closest land being Reunion Island in Madagascar. She turned on a couple of beacons around dawn.
Rescue operations are underway. Boats are headed toward the spot that everyone thinks Abby will be, but they'll need around 40 hours to get there, and seaplanes are also (hopefully) in route.
Family Updating Her Blog With Rescue News
It's a sailboat that the family reports on Abby's Blog today was built with 5 air-tight bulkheads (which will keep the boat afloat even if there has been major damage). Wild Eyes, moreover, was built to right itself if it were tipped over.
And it may well have tipped over, since Abby already reported that the sails have dunked into the ocean waters twice during rough weather that included 25 - 30 foot high waves.
The family is updating folk with posts on Abby's Blog - where Abby was posting regularly until this event. They are asking for prayers and support.
And I will pray for Abby and her family -- but as a lawyer, especially one that represented children for several years, I gotta wonder.
Are the parents legally responsible here in the event that Abby has been lost at sea?
One does have to ask: what the heck is a 16 year old teenage girl doing out there, doing this? No matter her skill level, under the law she is a child.
Legally, these parents are responsible for whatever happens to their minor child (at least they would be in Texas). If something happens to Abby, is there criminal liability?
Danger is Danger
Having represented children in the local's Children's Court in abuse and neglect cases - as their attorney ad litem, where Child Protective Services had become involved in the child's situation - my perception of this event may be different than some others.
Most of the kids that came thru Children's Court were from socioeconomic lifestyles that are at the opposite end of the continuum from the way of life that Abby Sutherland's sailing family enjoys.
However, danger is danger. Putting your child in a life-threatening, dangerous spot is not acceptable: if you do it intentionally, it's abuse; if you do it unintentionally, it's neglect.
The opinion of the Backseat Lawyer is this: no 16 year old teenager should be alone on a sailboat in the middle of the Indian Ocean no matter how cool they think it is, or no matter how lucrative that adventure might be.
For updates: Abby's Blog
Abby turned on emergency beacons before 6AM this morning
However, no one has heard from Abby since early this morning, when Abby was somewhere in the Indian Ocean, closest land being Reunion Island in Madagascar. She turned on a couple of beacons around dawn.
Rescue operations are underway. Boats are headed toward the spot that everyone thinks Abby will be, but they'll need around 40 hours to get there, and seaplanes are also (hopefully) in route.
Family Updating Her Blog With Rescue News
It's a sailboat that the family reports on Abby's Blog today was built with 5 air-tight bulkheads (which will keep the boat afloat even if there has been major damage). Wild Eyes, moreover, was built to right itself if it were tipped over.
And it may well have tipped over, since Abby already reported that the sails have dunked into the ocean waters twice during rough weather that included 25 - 30 foot high waves.
The family is updating folk with posts on Abby's Blog - where Abby was posting regularly until this event. They are asking for prayers and support.
And I will pray for Abby and her family -- but as a lawyer, especially one that represented children for several years, I gotta wonder.
Are the parents legally responsible here in the event that Abby has been lost at sea?
One does have to ask: what the heck is a 16 year old teenage girl doing out there, doing this? No matter her skill level, under the law she is a child.
Legally, these parents are responsible for whatever happens to their minor child (at least they would be in Texas). If something happens to Abby, is there criminal liability?
Danger is Danger
Having represented children in the local's Children's Court in abuse and neglect cases - as their attorney ad litem, where Child Protective Services had become involved in the child's situation - my perception of this event may be different than some others.
Most of the kids that came thru Children's Court were from socioeconomic lifestyles that are at the opposite end of the continuum from the way of life that Abby Sutherland's sailing family enjoys.
However, danger is danger. Putting your child in a life-threatening, dangerous spot is not acceptable: if you do it intentionally, it's abuse; if you do it unintentionally, it's neglect.
The opinion of the Backseat Lawyer is this: no 16 year old teenager should be alone on a sailboat in the middle of the Indian Ocean no matter how cool they think it is, or no matter how lucrative that adventure might be.
For updates: Abby's Blog
6/04/2010
Third Party Litigation Funding: Outside Investors Fund Litigation for a Piece of the Pie
Companies opening their checkbooks to pay for lawsuits? Yepper, looks like Third Party Litigation Funding has crossed over the pond. Attorneys in the United States appear to be following the trend set by litigators in Great Britain and Australia with Third-Party Litigation Funding. Seems there are a couple of companies already offering to finance American business lawsuits in exchange for a cut in the settlement proceeds or judicial award. (They also share the risk of loss if their side loses the case.)
It's reasonable to think that there will be other financiers entering the fray. After all, Great Britian has been testing the waters on this lawsuit funding investment option for several years now (albeit not without controversy).
Two Front Runners: Juridica Investments Ltd and Burford Capital
Juridica Investments Limited explains that its goal is to "make the legal system better for business claims." And its risk analysis is simple: Juridica has funding for business claims only -- it's not interested in personal injury matters, toxic torts, or the like. Ewww.
Burford Capital is a British company that is also ready to invest in business litigation, both in the United States and across the globe. Burford is traded on the London stock exchange as BUR, in case you'd like to check the company out. These aren't fly by night organizations by a long shot.
What are they looking for? In one interview with Juridica CEO Richard Fields, it was suggested that the British third party financier (TPF) was interesting in disputes ranging between $15 and $25 million involving business causes of action.
Can torts be far behind? Just think of the Toyota class action litigation, ponder the inevitable Oil Spill claims .... I'm thinking that the question of when Third Party Litigation Funding enters into the American Tort arena is sooner rather than later.
It's reasonable to think that there will be other financiers entering the fray. After all, Great Britian has been testing the waters on this lawsuit funding investment option for several years now (albeit not without controversy).
Two Front Runners: Juridica Investments Ltd and Burford Capital
Juridica Investments Limited explains that its goal is to "make the legal system better for business claims." And its risk analysis is simple: Juridica has funding for business claims only -- it's not interested in personal injury matters, toxic torts, or the like. Ewww.
Burford Capital is a British company that is also ready to invest in business litigation, both in the United States and across the globe. Burford is traded on the London stock exchange as BUR, in case you'd like to check the company out. These aren't fly by night organizations by a long shot.
What are they looking for? In one interview with Juridica CEO Richard Fields, it was suggested that the British third party financier (TPF) was interesting in disputes ranging between $15 and $25 million involving business causes of action.
Can torts be far behind? Just think of the Toyota class action litigation, ponder the inevitable Oil Spill claims .... I'm thinking that the question of when Third Party Litigation Funding enters into the American Tort arena is sooner rather than later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)