January 30, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

First Transgender Judge in Texas History Arrives in Court

Phyllis Frye, formerly Philip Randolph Frye, recently became Texas’ first transgender judge. Frye was appointed by Houston Mayor Annise Parker, and unanimously approved by city council, to Associate Municipal Judge on November 17, marking an historical event for the transgender legal community.

Frye has been an active legal advocate and activist for the transgender community, championing transgender, gay and civil rights. For a long time, it was a crime in most cities across the country for anyone to cross-dress in public spaces. There have long been active city ordinances in place, which Frye helped repeal in 1980. Over 30 years ago, Frye risked to be arrested every time she entered City Hall.

As Associate Municipal Judge, Frye will be an Assistant Judge to City of Houston’s Municipal Courthouse, doing night court dockets and probable cause dockets on the weekends, and will also sit on low-level misdemeanor trials as a substitute judge.

Frye will continue to be senior partner at her law firm, Frye and Associates, who are well known for defending and advocating for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community. So far, Frye is the third transgender judge in the nation (but the first in Texas). The other two judges are in California.

“Phyllis Frye is a very well-known radical transgender activist. We don’t think it is consistent with the values of the vast majority of the people. We think it is an anti-family lifestyle and agenda,” said Dave Welch, the executive director of Houston Area Pastor Council.

Many right-wing Christian groups were not happy to hear about Frye’s new position because they fear this might be a precursor of something much larger if and when Frye continues up the chain of judgeship, to the higher echelon of the court system.

“As we all know, municipal court judges are the first step in the elevation of different judgeships. They typically go on to civil district court judges or family court judges and beyond, so this is not a benign appointment. It’s a statement. It really is. We’ll be calling on the churches to stand up and be involved,” Welch said.

Seth Wilburn writes for the Gomez Law Group, a Dallas employment lawyer and Dallas business lawyer. To learn more, visit Gomezlawyers.com.

January 25, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Know the Difference Between Intellectual Property and Patents

Knowing the difference between patents and intellectual property may stand you in good stead. Knowledge is power.

If you are on the verge of trying to corral all of your intellectual property (IP), because it is time to manage it adeptly and wisely, you need first need to know just what you are dealing with in the first place. If you do not really know what intellectual property is, you are going to have a problem. You need to at least have some basic knowledge before you move forward.

Intellectual property is any work created by a person or company. This may include, but is not exclusively confined to, the areas of trademarks, designs, copyrighted materials of literature, music, pictures, music and inventions. The area is actually quite vast and many things that may be seen to be intellectual property may not be. It depends on a variety of qualifiers. When in doubt, consult with legal counsel for a determination of what is and is not intellectual property.

If it helps any, there is a standard definition of what IP is that has been created by the World Intellectual Property Organization, or WIPO. That definition, in short, is that IP relates to information that may be included in tangible objects at the same time in an infinite number of copies at various locales worldwide. The IP is not in the copies, but in the information contained within them.

Thus, if you follow the WIPO definition, copyright protection of IP safeguards against copying of information and patents protect the method of creating a product. This may well be as clear as mud to you, and don’t feel badly. This is a confusing area of the law. Yes, even those lawyers that practice IP law for a living have their moments over definitions and what they mean.

There is one thing that people do not realize about IP; that an idea is not a form of IP. It becomes IP when work is done on it. For example, jotting down an idea and roughing out how to accomplish the desired end result. The more work you do on that idea, the more of an IP it becomes. The more ideas that get fleshed out, the larger one’s IP portfolio may become and time management becomes an issue. So does keeping abreast of all the legal ramifications of the various properties. This is what an IP lawyer is born and bred to do, provide advice. When you are stuck and cannot figure things out, speak to the attorney. It is the best investment you will ever make.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit Daviderikson.com. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

January 20, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Indecisive SAP Lost Lawsuit Over Stealing Intellectual Property From Oracle

Losing $1.3 billion at trial is a crushing blow. SAP lost their case against Oracle.

SAP and Oracle have been rivals since anyone can remember. Unfortunately, over time, SAP took a few more liberties than they perhaps should have and crossed some lines in the sand. They were sued by Oracle and they lost; a huge loss of $1.3 billion. The court’s decision will have major ramifications for other companies when it comes to copyright infringement issues.

This particular loss was so large that the company may be faced with folding its tent and vanishing into the desert sands. It’s either that or appeal, an unappealing proposition given the nature of the decision and the court’s verdict.

The court’s decision was quite blunt about finding SAP to have been outrageously flagrant in swiping software and documents from Oracle’s secured websites. So outrageous in fact, that they also awarded Oracle just about all of the damages they wanted. Given that, and the fact that if SAP chooses to appeal, they can pretty much count of being the poster boy for really bad publicity, it is doubtful they will appeal. The bad publicity would be good for Oracle, but enough said about what it would do to SAP.

Since this particular trial took three years to grind to a close, SAP needs to carefully consider what their next step will be for the future. As the initial verdict was $3.1 billion, there is a chance that the award may be reduced. Nonetheless, the money involved is unbelievable; certainly a hard lesson about stealing from the competition. There is not much doubt that the company was tagged with unarguably one of the largest software piracy penalties anyone has ever seen.

SAP hasn’t been heard from that much since the decision was rendered, other than to say they are trying to figure out what to do next. No kidding. The interesting thing is that there is a chance they will pay the fine, whatever it may be, largely because they have at least $4.1 billion on hand to dip into, thanks to reserves stockpiled. Mind you, the $1.3 billion will still knock the stuffing right out of them for a while and mean a long, hard comeback to regain their reputation.

While it may not affect their sales, if they choose to pay and go forward, since they are a world leader in their area of expertise, they still learned a valuable lesson. And that lesson is: you have to be very cautious about copyright infringement, because even if you think it’s not a big deal swiping something from another person, you could potentially wind up paying out a lot of money.

The wild card here is that there may also be a criminal investigation. Where that may lead will likely be another story.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit Daviderikson.com. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

January 16, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

A Push for Reform in the Texas Railroad Commission

It is expected that the Texas Railroad Commission will undergo upcoming serious changes. These changes include renaming the agency and replacing those in office with gubernatorial appointees who will only work part-time. Typically, being a railroad commissioner is one way to get into a powerful, high profile job because it usually leads to political office.

In an effort to regulate trains in Texas, the Texas Railroad Commission was formed by the end of the 19th century, thereby making it one of the oldest regulatory groups. However, today it has evolved into a world energy pricing superpower that even OPEC modeled itself after. The three elected Texas Commissioners serve six-year terms, staggered so that there is one on the ballot every two years.

Currently, the Texas Railroad Commissioners regulate quite a bit as the industries that fall under their umbrella include gas, oil, surface mining, pipelines and gas utilities. None of this is really evident by the Texas Railroad Commission title alone. Therefore, a reform seeks to change its name to Texas Oil and Gas Commission and enlist five appointed board members in lieu of the three elected officials.

Money continues to pour into whoever holds the commissioners’ positions, making it bothersome for reformers who seek to take the political clout off the ballot and rename the commission. The Sunset Advisory, a legislative agency made up of state lawmakers who reviews the commission’s performance every 12 years, brought up that by replacing elected officials with appointees, will hopefully reduce the conflict of interests that have made these positions enticing to power-hungry politicians.

Up to even the most recent elected commissioners, some went on to become ambassadors; some have achieved or are running for Senate seats. It is hoped by some that the Texas Railroad Commission will be abolished altogether and its replacement will instead focus on efficiency, conservatory and safety programs. The oil and gas industry are seeking to fight these reforms and probably will just opt for the name changes.

State Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) gives the Texas Railroad Commission a very unsatisfactory grade regarding the Sunset Advisory’s report.

“We need to change the way the commissioners are formed,” Burnam said. “We need to change the fact that this is probably the most corrupt regulatory agency in the state of Texas, and that’s hinted at very clearly in this report.”

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

January 15, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Department of Labor in Question by a Company Suing Them over Employee Classification

A company based in Corpus Christi filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Labor’s Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, on Nov. 19.

An investigation was prompted by the Department of Labor earlier in the year with claims that the company, Gate Guard Services, violated the Labor Standards Act of 1938. But it was the plaintiff who denied the allegation and contends that the contractors they hired were indeed self-employed under FLSA standards because of the nature of their jobs.

Gate Guard Services disputed the Department of Labor’s findings because they claim that the independent contractors, who were responsible to log in and recorder all drivers’ names upon entering the oil field, were not their direct employees, but were essentially self-employed. The workers were required to obtain the drivers’ information such as license plate numbers, next of kin, and up-to-date emergency contacts, in case of an emergency.

These independent contractors are required to provide their own tools, their camper and other equipment, sleeping only five to eight hours, as per their shift, in a 24-hour period. They are also paid $100 to $175 per day, with three meals a day, uninterrupted, and are allowed time for personal affairs when there are no vehicles present. Therefore, according to the lawsuit, Gate Guard Services did not provide instruction or kept daily interaction with the independent contractors other than once-a-week while servicing the septic tank.

The Department of Labor has found that Gate Guard Services owes approximately $6.9 million dollars in back wages to the independent contractors, including payment for overtime since July 2008.

However, the plaintiff has stood its ground against the allegations and requested the Department of Labor change its classification from employees to independent contractors. They said that they had complied FLSA wage provisions, stating that the independent contractors were on standby “waiting to be engaged” in between recording the entering vehicles in to the logs and therefore do not get paid for the down time. Therefore, by definition, independent contractors are considered self-employed and are not covered by the same provisions and expectations as an employee of a company under labor and tax laws.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

January 15, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Two Dallas Companies Cited for Lead Exposure

OSHA cited two Dallas companies, Fortune Plastic and Metal Texas LLC, for allegedly repeating violations of exposing certain employees to lead. They failed health and safety inspections at their worksites and are facing $125,000 in penalties.

A complaint was made alleging the companies were exposing their workers to lead after the workers were found to be cutting lead cables being readied for recycling. OSHA launched an inspection on May 12 and found them to be repeatedly failing to comply with OSHA requirements, such as monitoring workers’ exposure to lead at various frequencies and for not notifying or supplying workers of the monitoring results.

According to OSHA, a serious hazardous violation is one that could have caused death or serious physical harm. Serious hazardous violations are the employer’s responsibility. In some cases, employers have already known or should have known of the potential risk to which their workers are exposed.

OSHA has many procedures to manage hazardous situations, from controlling hazardous energy, to implementing safer, flexible cords and using open-sided floors and platforms. In the instance of Fortune Plastic and Metal Texas LLC, procedures to prevent exposure to lead concentration higher than 50 micrograms per cubic meter for over an eight-hour stretch were not implemented, neither were work controls to reduce lead exposure to their workers.

OSHA states that lead exposure is one of the most common overexposure elements at worksites all over the nation; therefore, they treat lead exposure as top priority. OSHA puts violating companies on a national priority list, giving them 15 business days to comply with the regulations or request a conference to argue the citations.

Lead exposure affects human bodily systems and can cause various health impairments and diseases after long, acute exposure, or even after as few as several days. Being exposed to lead over several years is referred to chronic exposure. More severe and frequent medical symptoms increase with the concentration of lead in the blood.

Symptoms of lead poisoning include loss of appetite, stomach cramps, vomiting, constipation, nausea, insomnia, general malaise, moodiness, headache, joint or muscle aches, anemia, and low libido.

Severe lead poisoning due to occupational exposures can be as serious enough to cause fatalities. Long-term, chronic overexposure can have adverse effects on many bodily systems, such as the circulatory, urinary, nervous and reproductive systems.

Seth Wilburn writes for the Gomez Law Group, a Dallas employment lawyer and Dallas business lawyer. To learn more, visit Gomezlawyers.com.

January 10, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

February 2011 Aircraft Registration Conference in Naples to Highlight Critical Business Aviation Issues and Experts

Fort Lauderdale, Fla. – Business aviation experts and attendees will meet in Naples, Florida on February 3-4 to discuss groundbreaking industry issues and chart the course ahead. The 2011 Aircraft Registration Conference at the Naples Grande Beach Resort, the Waldorf Astoria Collection, will highlight the many changes in the aviation business and as well as legal matters.

Stewart Lapayowker, an aviation transaction attorney, will speak about aircraft transactions and how drafting and negotiating letters of intent are critical to the aircraft purchase process. “Year-end trends are pointing to an increase in business aircraft acquisition activity, although there is still inventory as a result of loan defaults and repossessions,” said Lapayowker, who also hosts a bi-weekly Internet radio talk show, “Plane Talk Radio” on www.planetalkradio.com. “This conference is a must for anyone involved in business aviation. You’ll come away with insight that will help you throughout the year.” Lapayowker’s firm is also a sponsor of the conference.

The conference is organized by the National Business Aviation Association and will bring together an esteemed group of professionals. The FAA’s Manager of Aircraft Registration, Walter Binkley, will discuss the FAA’s new controversial re-registration rule. And the FAA’s Aeronautical Center Counsel, Joseph Standell, will speak about the status of foreign trusts, re-registration and enforcement actions.

An all-star panel will separately focus on loan and lease defaults, remedies, and repossessions. Day one will conclude with the presidents of the National Business Aviation Association, National Air Transportation Association and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association discussing the latest and most important regulatory and legislative developments.

With many international transactions increasing, the second day of panels will cover importing and exporting, customs, ITAR and EAR considerations, closings and orchestrating deals in South and Latin America. And rounding out the list of notables will be Gulfstream’s President, the Managing Director of Bank of America Leasing, and representatives of PNC Bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Citibank, and Jet Aviation.

To attend the conference, go to www.nbaa.org/events/arc/2011 and for a list of panels and speakers, click on www.mcafeetaft.com/Repository/Files/Aircraft-Registration-Conference-2011-Brochure.pdf

The Law Offices of Stewart H. Lapayowker regularly assists clients with a variety of issues related to aviation, including the sale, purchase, regulatory analyses, and financing of corporate aircraft. For more information, visit Businessaviationcounsel.com.

About Stewart H. Lapayowker, P.A.:

Based in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., the law firm of Stewart H. Lapayowker, P.A. focuses its practice on private and corporate aviation transactions worldwide, including throughout the United States, South America, the European Union, Asia and the Middle East. He also hosts a bi-weekly radio show, “Plane Talk Radio”, with archived shows available at www.blogtalkradio.com/planetalkradio.

MEDIA CONTACT

Don Silver

Boardroom Communications

1.954.370.8999

donsil@boardroompr.com

Stewart H. Lapayowker, P.A.

5360 N.W. 20th Terrace

Suite 205

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309

Banyan Terminal at Ft. Lauderdale Executive Airport

Call: 954.202.9600