LawPundit

Lawyers at the Forefront of BCS : Fox Sports on MSN Reports that BCS Presidential Group Expands from 8 to 12 : Chair is Former Law Dean Perlman

2009-11-19T23:13:00.001+01:00

As reported by FOX Sports at
CFB - - FOX Sports on MSN
the BCS presidential group - which manages BCS -
has expanded from 8 to 12.

The group is chaired by University of Nebraska-Lincoln Chancellor Harvey Perlman,
who was previously dean of the Nebraska College of Law.

Previous Posting Intended for Twitter Pundit

2009-11-19T19:40:00.004+01:00

To our subscribers and readers: OOps. By mistake, a posting intended for my Twitter Pundit blog landed on LawPundit. Sorry. I have deleted it.

The Google menu bar has a very useful "send this" feature which allows one to make quick postings to blogs about pages that one is viewing online, but you have to set the posting to the right blog, if you have multiple blogs, which I do. Occasionally, I forget to do this.

Innovation and America : Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek Asks : Is America Losing Its Mojo? Can America Still Innovate? | Newsweek Innovation & Technology

2009-11-19T02:13:00.001+01:00

How does America currently stand in terms of INNOVATION?

Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek Asks : Is America Losing Its Mojo? Can America Still Innovate?

Zakaria: Can America Still Innovate? | Newsweek Innovation and Technology | Newsweek.com

"Innovation is as American as baseball and apple pie. But some traditions can't be trademarked....

By most measures, America remains the world leader in technological achievement. Consider the 2009 Nobel Prizes: of the 13 people honored, nine were American. Once you take out the economics, literature, and peace prizes, the United States, with 5 percent of the world's population, still won close to 70 percent of the awards. Even amid a terrible recession, the country still dominates the fields of information technology, life sciences, and nanotechnology, all key industries of the future. The World Economic Forum routinely cites America as having the most competitive economy on the planet (though this year it was narrowly overtaken by Switzerland). When decision makers are asked to rank countries on innovation, the United States always comes first by a large margin."

Read the rest here.

Hat tip to CaryGEE.

CNN II: Can the law keep up with technology? - CNN.com

2009-11-19T01:22:00.000+01:00

And more from ... (one should really read the whole article) - Can the law keep up with technology? - CNN.com: "It is the challenge of 'a world without anonymity,' said Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, who has written extensively about privacy and the law. He is also the legal affairs editor at The New Republic.

'One thing that privacy protects is the ability not to be judged out of context on the basis of isolated snippets of information rather than genuine knowledge,' he said.

So if the law were to catch up to technology, could it actually remedy these situations?

Rosen believes the law can only act on society's consensus.

'The law is only good at policing the most extreme invasions and the most outrageous cases,' he said. 'It can't take the place of good manners, social norms and etiquette -- the kind of thing that has always governed negotiations about face-to-face behavior.

'We should never expect that the judges are going to save us from our own worst impulses.'"

CNN: Can the law keep up with technology? - CNN.com

2009-11-19T01:19:00.000+01:00

Can the law keep up with technology? - CNN.com: "A time of 'cultural shift'

Legal experts said it's difficult for the law to keep up with emerging technology.

'Generally, it is at least five years behind technology as it is developing,' said Andrea Matwyshyn, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, who tracks the intersection of law and technology.

There are several reasons why the law tends to play catch-up, experts said."

Trying to Figure Out Twitter? How About Real-Time Information to or from Anyone, Anywhere in the World - and YOU Choose your Information Partners

2009-11-18T13:35:00.003+01:00

We missed Twitter at the beginning, thinking it to be an application for the teenies.

At wired.co.uk, Steven Levy, in the online version of an article from the December printed issue of Wired UK magazine, asks:

How will Twitter grow up?

What is remarkable and what Levy particularly emphasizes is that the application of Twitter to real life has been greatly formed by the users, who did not limit themselves to the original Twitter question of "What are you doing today?", but have taken Twitter to a new dimension, such that Facebook, Google and everyone else are falling all over themselves to integrate Twitter with their own services.

For those of you trying to figure out Twitter and wondering whether it will last, consider that Twitter at its foundation is real-time "headline" information - to or from - anyone, anywhere on the globe, and YOU decide who your information partners are. You can't beat that.

The number of possible practical applications to the various facets of life is immense. Immense.

For example, take a look at the @Scobleizer lists.

Or think of making your own Twitter list of all your favorite twittering restaurants or hotels or whatever and consulting that list when deciding where to go out for lunch or to dine in the evening or whatever else it is you want to do.

YPPSYS Ratings of Top 12 NCAA Division III 2009 Pre-Playoff Teams by NAYPPA

2009-11-18T01:31:00.002+01:00

YPPSYS Ratings of Top 12 NCAA Division III 2009 Pre-Playoff Teams by NAYPPA
based on net yards per play advantage (NAYPPA), strength of schedule, defense and adjustment for losses through November 14, 2009, after Week 11 of regular season games.

NAYPPA = net yards per play advantage
YPP OFF = net yards per play gained on offense
YPP DEF = net yards per play allowed on defense
Schedule = Schedule difficulty thus far in the season according to Massey Ratings (SchP=Schedule Partial)

To obtain the Rating from which the Rank is calculated, one starts with the YPP OFF, subtracts the YPP DEF, subtracts the difficulty of schedule as a variable calculated as 1/100 of the schedule rating so that for a schedule rating of 18 for example, .18 is subtracted (rounded up or down to the nearest figure, here rounded up to .2), and for each loss .2 is subtracted. A penalty of .1 is subtracted if the defense allows 5.0 or more yards per play, .2 for more than 6.0 yards per play, and .3 for more than 7.0 yards per play. In the case of equal ratings, the team with the toughest schedule is ranked first. One point of rating difference is equivalent to 9 points on the scoreboard.

The average yards per play component will be similar in NCAA Division III football to NCAA Division I. In NCAA Division I-A FBS college football the yards per play stats have been remarkably constant for all the years we have kept track of them - this year showing a median for 120 teams of 5.5 yards per play gained on offense and 5.4 yards per play permitted on defense. There is at most a 1/10th yard variation (.1) any season. This is in spite of continuous tweaking of offenses and defenses. For an average schedule: a team averaging less than 5.5 yards per play on offense has either a subpar offense or a subpar offensive coordination, while a team averaging more than 5.4 yards per play on defense has either a subpar defense or a subpar defensive coordination. One must of course adjust those stats by the difficulty of schedule for each team.

Schedule difficulty beyond Division I-A FBS does not show a linear decrease - it is more than that. Massey Ratings rank Sioux Falls 92nd in the country of all football teams, Wisconsin Whitewater 96th and Mount Union 146th. We have previously given Sioux Falls a rating of -1.1 in the YPPSYS system. Sioux Falls, according to Massey Ratings played the 392nd most difficult schedule, while Whitewater played the 350th most difficult schedule. Normally, 2/100ths of that amount would have to subtracted from the NAYPPA to get a rating which fits into the Division I-A FBS rankings. But that would be too much in view of the fact that Sioux Falls beat FCS North Dakota 28-13 as compared to e.g. Division I-A Texas Tech which beat North Dakota 38-13. Hence, instead of 1/100 of schedule difficulty, we here deduct 1.5/100 from the NAYPPA.

Polls Rank	After 11th Week	NAYPPA	YPP OFF	YPP DEF	Schedule	W-L	Rating
1	Mount Union	4.0	7.2	3.2	404	10-0	-2.0
2	WI-Whiteawater	3.5	7.4	3.9	350	10-0	-1.7
3	Wesley College	2.6	6.4	3.8	416	10-0	-3.6
4	St. Johns Univ.	0.7	4.8	4.1	351	10-0	-4.3
5	Linfield	2.1	6.5	4.4	456	9-0	-4.7
6	Central College	1.8	6.2	5.0	469	10-0	-5.3
7	Mary Hardin-Baylor	3.8	6.9	3.1	511	9-1	-3.9
8	Monmouth College	2.8	6.3	3.7	660	10-0	-7.1
9	Case Western Reserve	2.6	6.8	4.2	653	10-0	-7.1
10	St. Thomas	2.5	6.6	4.1	396	9-1	-3.4
11	Thomas More	2.0	5.8	3.8	513	10-0	-5.7
12	Wittenberg	3.7	6.6	2.9	616	10-0	-5.5

The above figures show in exemplary fashion for the net yards per play and schedule difficulty analysis system why Mount Union and Whitewater played in the Division III final last year as the best teams in that division and why many of the teams in the playoffs have no chance at all against teams that are much stronger than they are. It also shows how flawed the Division III poll rankings are. Obviously, St. Thomas and Mary Hardin-Baylor both belong in the top 5.

Kudunomics: Information and Property Rights in the Weightless Economy | Berkman Center

2009-11-17T22:33:00.000+01:00

Kudunomics: Information and Property Rights in the Weightless Economy | Berkman Center

YPPSYS 2009 Pre-NAIA-Playoff Football Ratings of the Top 7 Ranked Teams

2009-11-16T20:26:00.001+01:00

YPPSYS Pre-NAIA-Playoff Football Ratings of the Top 7 Ranked Teams
based on net yards per play advantage (NAYPPA), strength of schedule, defense and adjustment for losses through November 14, 2009, Week 11 of regular season games.

YPPSYS Rank	TEAM	NAYPPA	YPP OFF	YPP DEF	Schedule	W-L	YPPSYS Rating
1	Sioux Falls Univ. SD	4.7	7.8	3.1	392	10-0	-1.1
2	Carroll College, Montana	1.9	6.4	4.5	381	10-0	-3.8
3	Lindenwood Univ. Mo.	4.5	8.8	4.3	540	10-0	-3.6
4	Morningside, Iowa	3.3	7.5	4.2	467	10-0	-3.7
5	St. Xavier, Illinois	3.0	6.7	3.7	463	11-0	-3.9
6	Ottowa Univ., Kansas	1.8	7.2	5.4	580	10-0	-7.0
7	Lambuth U. (Tenn.)	2.1	6.1	4.0	385	11-0	-3.6

One sees clearly that defending NAIA champion Sioux Falls this season stands head and shoulders above the other teams, although Carroll, Lindenwood, Morningside, St. Xavier and Lambuth are all almost dead even in terms of NAYPPA as adjusted for schedule difficulty. Ottowa Univiversity, Kansas, is hopelessly outclassed in these rankings and is over-ranked.

NAYPPA = net yards per play advantage
YPP OFF = net yards per play gained on offense
YPP DEF = net yards per play allowed on defense
Schedule = Schedule difficulty thus far in the season according to Massey Ratings (SchP=Schedule Partial)
To obtain the Rating from which the Rank is calculated, one starts with the YPP OFF, subtracts the YPP DEF, subtracts the difficulty of schedule as a variable calculated as 1/100 of the schedule rating so that for a schedule rating of 18 for example, .18 is subtracted (rounded up or down to the nearest figure, here rounded up to .2), and for each loss .2 is subtracted. A penalty of .1 is subtracted if the defense allows 5.0 or more yards per play, .2 for more than 6.0 yards per play, and .3 for more than 7.0 yards per play. In the case of equal ratings, the team with the toughest schedule is ranked first. One point of rating difference is equivalent to 9 points on the scoreboard.

NAIA stats on the whole will mirror those in the NCAA. The average yards per play component in NCAA Division I-A FBS college football has been remarkably constant for all the years we have kept track of it - this year showing a median for 120 teams of 5.5 yards per play gained on offense and 5.4 yards per play permitted on defense. There is at most a 1/10th yard variation (.1) any season. This is in spite of continuous tweaking of offenses and defenses. For an average schedule: a team averaging less than 5.5 yards per play on offense has either a subpar offense or a subpar offensive coordination, while a team averaging more than 5.4 yards per play on defense has either a subpar defense or a subpar defensive coordination. One must of course adjust those stats by the difficulty of schedule for each team.

Schedule difficulty beyond Division I-A FBS does not show a linear decrease - it is more than that. Massey Ratings rank Sioux Falls 92nd in the country of all football teams. This would be approximately a rating of -2.8 in our rating system, so that, e.g. in the case of Sioux Falls, which according to Massey Ratings played the 392nd most difficult schedule, ca. TWICE that amount would have to subtracted from the NAYPPA to get a rating which fits into the Division I-A FBS rankings. But that would be too much in view of the fact that Sioux Falls beat FCS North Dakota 28-13 as compared to e.g. Division I-A Texas Tech which beat North Dakota 38-13. Hence, instead of 1/100 of schedule difficulty, we here deduct 1.5/100 from the NAYPPA.

YPPSYS COLLEGE FOOTBALL RATINGS AND RANKINGS - NCAA DIVISION I-A (FBS) through November 14, 2009, after Week 11 games

2009-11-16T18:40:00.002+01:00

YPPSYS COLLEGE FOOTBALL RATINGS AND RANKINGS for NCAA DIVISION I-A (FBS) through November 14, 2009, after Week 11 games

TOP 25 (see all the teams ranked at SportPundit)

Rank	After 11th Week	NAYPPA	YPP OFF	YPP DEF	Schedule	W-L	Rating
1	Florida	2.6	6.5	3.9	17	10-0	2.4
2	Alabama	2.3	6.2	3.9	6	10-0	2.2
3	Cincinnati	2.7	7.4	4.7	47	10-0	2.2
4	TCU	2.4	6.5	4.1	37	10-0	2.0
5	Texas	2.2	5.7	3.5	31	10-0	1.9
6	Oregon	1.8	6.1	4.3	7	8-2	1.3
7	Pittsburgh	1.7	6.6	4.9	50	9-1	1.0
8	Boise State	1.8	6.5	4.7	80	10-0	1.0
9	Virginia Tech	1.5	6.1	4.6	1	7-3	0.9
10	USC	1.5	6.4	4.9	10	7-3	0.8
11	Oklahoma	1.8	5.7	3.9	26	6-4	0.7
12	Nebraska	1.6	5.6	4.0	35	7-3	0.6
13	Penn State	1.8	6.1	4.3	81	9-2	0.6
14	Clemson	1.2	5.6	4.4	13	6-3	0.5
15	Ohio State	1.5	5.6	4.1	57	9-2	0.5
16	Texas Tech	1.6	6.3	4.7	40	6-4	0.4
17	Miami (Florida)	1.0	6.0	5.0	4	7-3	0.3
18	Georgia Tech	0.7	6.5	5.8	5	10-1	0.3
19	Mississippi	1.3	6.0	4.7	36	7-3	0.3
20	LSU	0.7	5.2	4.5	16	8-2	0.1
21	Oklahoma State	0.8	5.7	4.9	34	8-2	0.1
22	Utah	1.1	5.9	4.8	63	8-2	0.1
23	BYU	1.3	6.5	5.2	74	8-2	0.1
24	Stanford	0.8	6.7	5.9	21	7-3	0.0
25	Iowa	0.8	5.3	4.5	39	9-2	0.0

As one can see from the above ratings and rankings, almost no other objective parameter in college football ranks teams as easily as NAYPPA, net average yards per play advantage, i.e. the yards gained per play on offense and the yards allowed per play on defense - and the difference between them. When that figure is adjusted by the strength of schedule, this completely objective ranking system is in some respects superior to polls currently in use which sometimes pay too much attention to the win-loss record rather than to the actual strength of a team. NAYPPA also easily permits a comparison of football teams from different football eras - e.g. especially with respect to the question of the best college football teams of all time.

YPPSYS COLLEGE FOOTBALL RATINGS AND RANKINGS for NCAA DIVISION I-A (FBS) are based on 1) net yards per play advantage (NAYPPA), 2) strength of schedule, 3) a small adjustment for good defense (we are in the process of improving this variable) and 4) adjustment for losses through November 14, 2009, after Week 11 of regular season games.

The average yards per play component in NCAA Division I-A FBS college football has been remarkably constant for all the years we have kept track of it - this year showing a median for 120 teams of 5.5 yards per play gained on offense and 5.4 yards per play permitted on defense. There is at most a 1/10th yard variation (.1) any season. This is in spite of continuous tweaking of offenses and defenses. For an average schedule: a team averaging less than 5.5 yards per play on offense has either a subpar offense or a subpar offensive coordination, while a team averaging more than 5.4 yards per play on defense has either a subpar defense or a subpar defensive coordination. One must of course adjust those stats by the difficulty of schedule for each team.

NAYPPA = net yards per play advantage
YPP OFF = net yards per play gained on offense
YPP DEF = net yards per play allowed on defense
Schedule = Schedule difficulty thus far in the season according to Massey Ratings (SchP=Schedule Partial)
YPP Statistics are from cfbstats.com

To obtain the Rating from which the Rank is calculated, one starts with the YPP OFF, subtracts the YPP DEF, subtracts the difficulty of schedule as a variable calculated as 1/100 of the schedule rating so that for a schedule rating of 18 for example, .18 is subtracted (rounded up or down to the nearest figure, here rounded up to .2), and for each loss .2 is subtracted. A penalty of .1 is subtracted if the defense allows 5.0 or more yards per play, .2 for more than 6.0 yards per play, and .3 for more than 7.0 yards per play. In the case of equal ratings, the team with the toughest schedule is ranked first. One point of rating difference is equivalent to 9 points on the scoreboard.

Media Piracy: The ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement which appears to be in the works is to Impact Illicit Internet Content and Require Policing

2009-11-16T00:31:00.003+01:00

An ACTA Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is in the works on an international scale.
Signatory countries will be required to police users for illicit content.

See Knock it off: Global treaty against media piracy won't work in Asia

Lawyer to Lawyer Referrals - LawRex.com

2009-11-16T00:03:00.000+01:00

Lawyer to Lawyer Referrals - LawRex.com

Copyright Watch to Collect and Monitor Copyright Laws Around the World : Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

2009-11-15T22:01:00.000+01:00

The EFF via
Copyright Watch
is to collect and monitor copyright laws around the world.

See
Keeping a Global Eye on Copyright Law | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Social Networking Raises New Legal Issues at the Workplace

2009-11-15T20:48:00.001+01:00

Social networking at the workplace is raising myriad new legal issues.

Philip M. Berkowitz reports at the New York Law Journal, November 12, 2009,
in Social Networking and the New Workplace.

University of Nebraska College of Law Launches Space & Telecom Law LL.M.

2009-11-15T20:11:00.001+01:00

The University of Nebraska College of Law in Lincoln, Nebraska has launched the first LL.M. of its kind in the United States for Space & Telecom Law and the first degree of its kind in the world to be taught in English.

See UNL | College of Law | Space & Telecom Law | Home

BigLaw Lawyers on Twitter

2009-11-15T17:48:00.000+01:00

BigLaw Lawyers on Twitter

EUobserver EU Online Content and Creative Rights Conference in Brussels takes place on the 1st of December 2009

2009-11-12T22:20:00.004+01:00

The 4th annual EUobserver Online Content and Creative Rights Conference will take place in Brussels on the 1st of December 2009, 14:00 - 17:30 CET, at the Musical Instruments Museum, Montagne de la Cour Hofberg 2, B-1000 Bruxelles.

See the Programme .pdf.

The EUObserver writes:

"The December gathering in Brussels will bring together European artists, industry representatives, consumers and lawmakers to debate these issues. Managing creative content online will be one of the major policy challenges for the new European Commission and European Parliament over the next five years."

The confirmed cast of speakers can be viewed here.
An early bird ticket pass to the conference currently costs a discounted 90 €.

See also EUobserver - Conferences

A Small-Business Guide to Patents and Trademarks - Intellectual Property - from the NYTimes.com - Darren Dahl

2009-11-12T21:20:00.000+01:00

A Small-Business Guide to Intellectual Property from the NYTimes.com - DarrenDahl

The 50 Best Inventions of 2009 from TIME in partnership with CNN

2009-11-12T20:36:00.000+01:00

TIME at Time.com in partnership with CNN selects

The 50 Best Inventions of 2009

Being a Paralegal – What it Entails : Guest Posting by Donna Mitchell

2009-11-12T10:42:00.000+01:00

Being a Paralegal – What it Entails

It has been rated as the 17th best job in the USA, a lofty position indeed when you consider the fact that the list had 200 jobs. And the reason the paralegal profession was able to secure this place was because it required relatively little education, involved a lower amount of on the job stress, and because the demand for paralegals is on the rise and expected to continue to go up. But surveys aside, what do paralegals really do? What does a typical day in the life of a paralegal entail?

A paralegal may not be a lawyer, but they still have to understand all the complexities of any case they are working on.
Some paralegals may have to work with clients as well, depending on the nature of the case. They are involved in talking to people and getting information relating to the case from them.
They are involved in routine work that includes following various procedures and filling a large number of forms.
At the same time, they may also be involved in sorting out complex cases and organizing data and information pertaining to the case.
Paralegals are usually involved in detail work, the likes of which some people may look at as grunge work. They need to be meticulous and capable of holding their concentration so that they don’t get their facts mixed up or wrong.
They must be good at organization and be able to process the information needed from a mound of facts and figures related to the case.
Paralegals are not secretaries who are involved in routine and mundane work. They are often entrusted with tasks that involve a greater amount of responsibility that must be carried out meticulously with no room for errors.
They spend most of their time doing research on cases on the Internet, which means they need to have good search skills.
They must be able to know what the attorneys who are working on the case require and be prepared with the relevant information when needed.
Paralegals are generally expected to do whatever is necessary in the preparation of a case and in the line of routine office work.
They should be willing to take a backseat to the lawyers, even if they’ve done most of the groundwork on a case.
A good and successful paralegal is not someone who knows everything, but someone who is willing to learn on the job, ask questions when they’re not sure so that they don’t make mistakes and work constantly on improving their skills so that they become more efficient at their jobs.

By-line:

This guest post was contributed by Donna Mitchell, who regularly writes on the topic of online paralegal schools. She welcomes your comments and questions at her email address: donna.mitchell@rediffmail.com

Guest Postings at LawPundit

2009-11-12T10:26:00.003+01:00

If you have a particular law-related guest posting that you would like to see featured at LawPundit, just contact me at my email address which you will find - centered - near the bottom of every LawPundit blawg page. Such a guest posting is featured in the next LawPundit posting.

User Consent to be Required for Internet Cookies in Europe by the EU Revised ePrivacy Directive : Website & Blog Ads & Counters Implicated

2009-11-11T21:24:00.000+01:00

A new EU law passed as part of the revised ePrivacy Directive of the European Union will require user consent for Internet cookies in Europe. Only some formalities remain in the way of this becoming the law in force in Europe.

The possible implications are enormous for the advertising industry and for any website and blog that uses any kind of affiliate service that uses cookies or counters of any kind - that is just about everyone.

One can only hope that future clarifying government laws and regulations of Member States put a sensible face on this law and permit broad scale browser-based opt-ins and opt-outs for certain types of cookies without being bombarded by consent requests from nearly every Internet web page or blog visited by the user. The conception that "counts" of visitors somehow "invade privacy" is a ludicrous concept and it is hoped that this is excluded from the "consent" category.

The EDPS (European Data Protection Supervisor) issued the following Press Release on November 9, 2009:

"ePrivacy Directive close to enactment: improvements on security breach, cookies and enforcement, and more to come

Following last week's agreement on the EU telecoms reform, nothing stands in the way for the ePrivacy Directive to enter into force. The formalities required for formal adoption will be undertaken in the coming weeks. The revised ePrivacy Directive ^(*), as amended by the European Parliament and adopted by the Council must be implemented by the Member States within 18 months.

The new provisions will bring vital improvements in the protection of the privacy and personal data of all Europeans active in the online environment. The improvements relate to security breaches, spyware, cookies, spam, and enforcement of rules. The EDPS cooperated closely with the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission on the legislative work leading to the final text ^(**).

Peter Hustinx, EDPS, says: "I welcome the many improvements in the protection of privacy in the revised ePrivacy Directive. But it is now crucially important to broaden the scope of the security breach provisions to all sectors and further define the procedures for notification. Also, the new rules must be effectively enforced. I note in particular the emphasis on more effective enforcement of the rules on spyware and cookies. This has special relevance where privacy rights must be protected in relation to so called targeted advertising."

The changes introduced include:
for the first time in the EU, a framework for mandatory notification of personal data breaches. Any communications provider or Internet service provider (ISP) involved in individuals' personal data being compromised must inform them if the breach is likely to adversely affect them. Examples of such circumstances would include those where the loss could result in identity theft, fraud, humiliation or damage to reputation. The notification will include recommended measures to avoid or reduce the risks. The data breach notification framework builds on the enhanced provisions on security measures to be implemented by operators, and should stem the increasing flood of data breaches;

reinforced protection against interception of users' communications through the use of - for example - spyware and cookies stored on a user's computer or other device. Under the new Directive users should be offered better information and easier ways to control whether they want cookies stored in their terminal equipment;

the possibility for any person negatively affected by spam, including ISPs, to bring effective legal proceedings against spammers;

substantially strengthened enforcement powers for national data protection authorities. They will for example be able to order breaches of the law to stop immediately and will have improved means of cross-border cooperation.
__________
[Footnotes]
(*) Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications)

(**) EDPS first (pdf) and second (pdf) opinions on the ePrivacy Directive review [LawPundit comment: the pdf links were not active]
__________

For more information, please contact the EDPS Press Service at:
press@edps.europa.eu
EDPS - The European guardian of personal data protection
www.edps.europa.eu"

Read reports about this development at:

Out-Law.com (Pinsent Masons) - Hat tip! - Consent will be required for cookies in Europe - where Struan Robertson, editor of Out-Law.com, writes in an editorial:

"EDITORIAL: A law that demands consent to internet cookies has been approved and will be in force across the EU within 18 months. It is so breathtakingly stupid that the normally law-abiding business may be tempted to bend the rules to breaking point.

The fate of Europe's cookie law became improbably entwined with a debate over file-sharing. To cut a long story short, it broke free. On 26th October, it was voted through by the Council of the EU. It cannot be stopped and awaits only the rubber-stamp formalities of signature and publication...." more....

ComputerWeekly.com - EC gets tough on spammers, data breachers and snoopers, where Ian Grant writes:

"The directive provides for the mandatory notification of personal data breaches for the first time in the EU. Any communications provider or ISP who is involved in a breach of individuals' personal data must inform them if the breach is likely to hurt them. This included events where the loss could result in identity theft, fraud, humiliation or damage to reputation....

The directive also reinforced protection against interception of users' communications through spyware and cookies on a user's computer or other device....

The directive will also make it easier for consumers to take spammers to court, including those in other countries." more....

Marisa Taylor of Digits at Wall Street Journal WSJ Blogs writes in Europe Approves New Cookie Law:

"[O]nce the law goes into effect, users must provide consent to cookies being stored on their computers, meaning that they could be bombarded with annoying pop-ups or pages asking for permission. The new legislation does offer an exception for when a cookie is “strictly necessary” — for example, if a user is shopping online, a cookie can go from a product page to the checkout page without the need for consent. The law could have broad repercussions for online ads. "Almost every site that carries advertising should be seeking its visitors’ consent to the serving of cookies,” wrote Struan Robertson, a lawyer specializing in technology at Pinsent Masons and editor of Out-Law.com. "It also catches sites that count visitors — so if your site uses Google Analytics or WebTrends, you’re caught."" [emphasis added by LawPundit] read more ...

Winter Casey, reporter at BroadbandCensus.com headlines his article European Union Says It’s Up To Users If They Want A Lot Of Cookies and writes;

"The European Union’s independent supervisory authority devoted to protecting personal data and privacy said Monday that member states will soon be required to implement new privacy rules including requirements that users be offered easier ways to control whether they want cookies stored on their computer equipment."

See also

Clickz.com

Individual.com - EDPS supports revised European ePrivacy Directive

ITBusinessEdge.com - EU Green Lights ePrivacy Directive

What is Patentable? Bilski Patent Case Oral Argument Heard at the United States Supreme Court : We Hope for Adoption of the Transformative Standard

2009-11-11T00:28:00.001+01:00

On Monday, November 9, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Bilski patent case, the judicial resolution of which is bound to have far-reaching consequences on the way that the United States and the rest of the world view and treat patents (see the original transcript of the arguments here - hat tip to Kevin E. Noonan at PatentDocs in Supreme Court Bilski Argument).

Although the Supreme Court may decide the case narrowly with respect to the particular facts of the Bilski business method patent case, the reasons which the Supreme Court sets out as the basis for its decision will nevertheless have broad application in law, for the Supreme Court can not duck the pressing legal patent issues and must provide a flexible standard NOW, inserting stability into a system currently ruled by chaos.

Joe Mullin at The American Lawyer in Supreme Skepticism Over Bilski Claims Puts Method Patents on Shaky Ground writes in this regard that:

"For the first time in almost 30 years, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday considered the issue of what types of technology should be eligible for patent protection when it heard oral arguments in Bilski v. Kappos.

Across the board, the justices indicated a deep skepticism toward the invention described in the patent application at issue, which was rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and describes a method for trading commodities. Some of the justices went even further--expressing both a fair amount of disdain for the idea of granting broad "method" patents and a concern that ruling in favor of the petitioners would lead to patent grants on fundamental ways of conducting business or organizing human behavior. "

We have posted about the landmark Bilski case from the very beginning and our line of reasoning - prior to the court decisions - anticipated what the courts decided:

In re Kubin : Hitting the NAIL on the Head : Sequencing Poor Federal Circuit Court Decisions out of the Biotechnology Patent Genome via KSR and/or Bilski Reasoning

In re Bilski : Patentable Subject Matter : Federal Circuit Overturns Pure Business Method Patents : Requires Machine Process / Physical Transformation

Federal Circuit to Review Business Method Patents for Future Viability : There is a Great Likelihood of a New Upcoming Legal Standard

The Patentability of Business Methods and the Upcoming Federal Circuit Hearing en banc in Ex parte Bilski

For our part, we hope that the standard adopted is the transformative one. Transformation is the operative element that is common not only to patents but also to copyright law, for it is "transformation" which is the inventive step.

A copyrighted work is after all - in most cases - simply a unique transformation of commonly used words of the language or languages written. Since nearly every word is in a sense "copied" from prior art, and since many elements of any written work are common to many works due to the linguistically identifiable rules of grammar and syntax, almost any truly transformative work still necessarily contains many copied "elements". It is therefore the transformative nature of a work as a whole which must be judged and not its individual parts per se.

As far as patents are concerned, the same reasoning applies. Any transformation of "matter" or of a more abstract element of technology such as software or medical knowledge necessarily "copies", i.e. it relies on many elements of prior art to reach a new discovery. An inventive step is never taken in a vacuum and can therefore as good as never be divorced from the environment in which it takes place.

An invention is the whole work and it is entirely conceivable to imagine a fantastic new written work or invention made up totally of otherwise copyrighted or patented parts - for which the copyright or patent holders of those parts should in the case of such an invention nevertheless get nothing, because a transformation has taken place in the new whole.

A transformative standard can also be equally applied to software products (as a whole) or to new medical advances (as products), i.e. the transformative software (as a product) should be patentable, but NOT elements of the software code, and similarly, transformative medical discoveries should be patentable, but NOT the methods used to achieve them, e.g. transformative new ways to synthesize a gene should be patentable, but not the gene itself.

In the case of business methods, a transformative software product implementing a particular business method should be patentable - but NOT the business method itself. Until a business method is APPLIED, no transformation has occurred. Therefore, only a product which performs such a transformation can be patented.

We see no serious problems with a transformative standard - which need not be tied to machines or any other technology. The inventive step should be universally recognizable as a reproducible transformation.

The view voiced by some commentators and also expressed by some judges and also U.S. Supreme Court Justices that the Bilski patent might be rejected as being merely "an abstract idea" is an intellectual cop-out and begs the question of drawing the necessary line between "an abstract idea" and "an inventive step". WHERE that line is to be drawn is the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine and the Supremes therefore can not avoid the establishment of a standard simply by rejecting Bilski's business method as "an abstract idea".

The question is, when does a non-obvious abstract idea become an invention? And that question, the Court must answer. They have little choice.

We suggest that the only viable answer is the transformative standard.

Limited-Edition Design Sneakers are the Status Symbols of Choice : CNN : Sneakerheads pay big bucks for rare kicks : Shoes and More

2009-11-10T21:03:00.000+01:00

Do you know any young lawyers who wear "design" sneakers to the office? There may be a good reason. Limited-edition design sneakers are status symbols of choice among many young people.

See 'Sneakerheads' pay big bucks for rare kicks at CNN.com

"kicks" is jargon for "shoes"

In part because of what has been labeled "the Great Magazine Die-Off of 2009",
online websites and bloggers dominate this market.
See AdWeek's "Sneakerheads Rule".

Web frontrunners include such websites as NiceKicks.com and Sneakerhead, plus also more general fashion websites that concentrate big on sneakers such as HypeBeast or UBIQ Life.

The Complex Sneakers Blog is probably the most popular blog in this field, but we warn you of the many pictures and videos of pinup girls. I personally checked out the site - all in the interest of our readers, of course - and everything looks to be hunky dory.

Other blog and website examples in this field are:

First Pullover

Sneakart

KicksOnFire

sneakers Collected

JS-Kit's ECHO is a Useful Application for Website and Blog Publishers Which Integrates User Comments and Photos in a Social Media Networking Style

2009-11-10T20:59:00.001+01:00

Google Wave - now in beta - is coming as one example of a new way to deal with information on an interactive social media networking basis. Lesser known is the new online application from JS-Kit called Echo which we are going to add to one of our online sites and see how it works, because it appears to us to be a blockbuster application in permitting social media type networking comments and interaction to website pages and blog postings.

See JS-Kit Community Wiki / Echo - For Publishers

Introducing Echo from JS-Kit on Vimeo.