► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Lawyers’

Friday Night Drinking Thread: No Copyrighted Cocktails!

by 1389AD ( 182 Comments › )
Filed under Food and Drink, Open thread at November 26th, 2010 - 8:30 pm

Cocktail with copyright symbol with red slash circle

I’m happy to report that there is at least one thing that intellectual property lawyers haven’t been able to lock down. Not yet, anyway. It’s the contents of our drink glasses.

The Atlantic is a typical proggy MSM rag, and it’s always fun to see it discredited by someone who has done some actual research in the field.

The Era of Copyrighted Cocktails? Not So Much

Posted by: Jessica Voelker on Sep 02, 2010 at 11:44AM

This Tuesday, an article appeared on the Atlantic.Com called The Era of Copyrighted Cocktails? Back in July, writer Chantal Martineau attended a seminar about protecting intellectual property at Tales of the Cocktail in New Orleans. The seminar was the intellectual property of Eben Freeman, a NYC barman who used to make drinks at the now-defunct Tailor in Manhattan. Freeman, an undisputed pioneer in the industry, feels that his ideas have been unjustly ganked by his cocktail-making colleagues.

“Someone needs to get sued,” Freeman told Martineau, “to set a precedent.” That intrigued me, but the article didn’t really investigate how such a lawsuit would work. So I called a lawyer, William Ferron of the Seed intellectual property Law Group in Seattle, and asked him.

“Sue for what?” asked Ferron. “There really isn’t protection for a drink recipe, so I don’t see this type of suit being cost effective or productive.”

Read the rest.

Cease and Desist

by Bunk Five Hawks X ( 153 Comments › )
Filed under Art, Humor, Open thread at June 29th, 2010 - 11:00 pm

Recently, Snork emailed me a .jpg image of the infamous Unicorn Meat (as shown below left). Here is part of the advertisement from Think Geek:

The Unicorn Meat advert went semi-viral after it was posted on April Fools’ Day this year. But there’s an update to the innocent prank.

I’d never heard of the National Pork Board, but apparently they sniffed out a clear case of trademark infringement. On 5 May 2010, the international law firm of Faegre & Benson faxed the owners of the Think Geek website a 12-page letter, excerpted below.

“This law firm represents National Pork Board in connection with its intellectual property rights.

We are writing to you in connection with your activities at the website www.thinkgeek.com, wherein you have been marketing a product called “Radiant Farms Canned Unicorn Meat” using the slogan “Unicorn- the new white meat.”

See, NPB owns the trademark “The Other White Meat” in the U.S., Canada, and the European Union.  Unfortunately their lawyers didn’t realize that Trademark Infringement does not extend to parodies, and that unicorns don’t really exist. [Full story here, via here.]

Speaking of the sparkly-assed rainbow-pooping bastards, lets have an Overnight Open Thread. With some Pâté.

The Multicultural Defense?

by WrathofG-d ( 6 Comments › )
Filed under Crime, Multiculturalism at February 5th, 2009 - 4:26 pm

In today’s (February 2009) California Bar Journal (the “official publication of the State Bar of California”) Diane Curtis reports on the growing acceptance of using culture as a defense.


Cultural differences: New defense tactic?

By Diane Curtis
Staff Writer

A Mexican-American man is convicted of second-degree murder for shooting a poker companion who used an offensive slur about the defendant’s mother. A Muslim Albanian man in Texas loses his parental rights for touching his daughter’s genitals. A Thai man who shows no remorse or other emotion for his part in a Garden Grove robbery in which two people were killed receives the death penalty.

All three were influenced in their actions by their native culture, says University of Southern California professor Alison Dundes Renteln, and that culture, she believes, should have been considered in each of those cases, an argument she makes in her chapter of the new book, “Multicultural Jurisprudence: Comparative Perspectives on the Cultural Defense,” which she co-edited with Marie-Claire Foblets of the University of Leuven in Belgium.

“Cultural differences deserve to be considered in litigation because enculturation shapes individuals’ perceptions and influences their actions,” she writes in the book. She is calling for formal acceptance in the legal community of a cultural defense in which legal systems acknowledge “the influence of cultural imperatives” in illegal acts.

A judge in fact did consider the Albanian man’s culture in which touching a child has no sexual meaning and is an accepted form of affection and comfort. The man was acquitted of child sexual abuse although he did lose his parental rights. Renteln says such consideration should be the rule rather than the exception, and she also questions whether the interests of the family were served by separating the father from his child.

“Touching children in the genital area should probably be discouraged not only because parents will encounter difficulty with the law, but also because children caught between two cultures may feel uncomfortable if they realize it is considered inappropriate conduct in the larger society. But incarcerating parents or breaking up families are illegitimate means of inculcating new values,” she writes in “The Cultural Defense.”

She says courts should get satisfactory answers to three questions:

1. Is the litigant a member of the ethnic group?

2. Does the group have such a tradition [as the litigant claims]?

3. Was the litigant influenced by the tradition when he or she acted?

Renteln welcomes further discussion and wants to be sure that possible abuses are addressed. But ultimately, she would like a formal recognition of the need to consider culture in trials. “It is imperative that the cultural defense be established as official policy,” she writes. “In order for this to be possible, policies must be formulated which ensure careful review of cultural claims … The right to culture is an important human right, but it should be protected only so long as it does not undermine other human rights.”

{Read The Entire Article}


Once again, the naive insistence on the nebulous concept of ‘multiculturalism’ is overpowering common sense. Our idealistic intentions are allowing us to ignore the reality that under the misunderstood guise of “human rights” and multiculturalism we are unwittingly turning our glorious ‘melting pot’ into a unsanitary buffet by simply importing injustice.