March 28, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Internet Defamation is Serious Business to Big and Small Companies

Businesses spend a lot of time doing marketing and public relations to build their brand, so it can be devastating to find that someone has posted a harsh statement on the Internet that is outright false. For all the efforts that a business puts into websites, social networking and online ads, one bit of misinformation can sometimes topple their credibility.

Two common grievances include businesses being accused of dishonest practices and discrimination. Competitors and unhappy individuals are usually the ones blamed for trying to undermine the business’ reputation on online chatrooms, Facebook, “protest websites”, and mass e-mails. But to show that a business is a victim of defamation, it must show that the published statement was false and resulted in a loss.

As soon as a business realizes that the unflattering material is on the Web, it is advised to keep thorough records of what is being posted. Compile a list of all websites that have the defamatory statements. This will be useful evidence in the courtroom or for takedown letters that reputation management services create. Also, keep records of sales numbers from before and after the harsh content appeared on the Web. This will help show the loss incurred and aid the court in calculating damages.

And do not fall into the knee-jerk reaction of trying to threaten the author, publisher or website. A lawyer can help get the bad content removed, but not if you are threatening them and have the police at your door to calm you down. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does protect webmasters and hosting companies from being held liable for what another user posts on their website unless it can be proved that the specific individual was responsible for its publication. An Internet company that permits criminal acts or intellectual property infringement may still be held liable, so it is advised to get an experienced attorney early on when an issue occurs.

In order to protect the business, a company will want to get legal counsel and serve the wrongdoer with a civil action alleging defamation and libel. Many businesses do not know who harmed them as oftentimes the degrading postings are by anonymous authors. Businesses are advised to provide a notice in whatever medium the original posting was made to make the anonymous author aware of their wrongdoing before any subpoena is enforced. The case will initially be against a “John Doe” defendant and through the discovery process, ISP records and other pertinent information will reveal their true identity.

Good attorneys will help their client win monetary compensation and an injunction that forces the author or website to remove the offending material and refrain from defaming the business in the future. Otherwise, the author could be fined or jailed for contempt of court.

The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates has decades of experience representing individuals and businesses in defamation cases from sole proprietorships to major international corporate entities. Their clients are actively involved in various industries including technology, marketing, communications, pharmaceuticals, retail sales, manufacturing and distribution, as well as restaurants and nightclubs, film, television and multimedia productions. Their lead Los Angeles business lawyer, Anthony Spotora, is one of the area’s top attorneys who is well versed in both business and Internet law.

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer and Los Angeles business attorney. To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

March 27, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Do Not Get Shot by the Misuse of Intellectual Property Rights in Video Games

Video games are not just fun pastimes and a lucrative $24 billion revenue industry. They are prized assets with intellectual property rights for their unique design, art, audio and code. Some games are created by innovative individuals, while others are licensed and owned by different parties for publicity and efficiency reasons.

An estimated 67 percent of U.S. households play video or computer games, with most of them enjoying sports or action games. With the amount of consumers and moneymaking opportunities, it is no wonder that the industry must protect its intellectual property rights and flex its legal muscles when needed.

Trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, and rights of publicity enable innovators and companies to develop new games that competitors cannot touch. Experienced video game companies and innovators know that an intellectual property attorney is key to keeping their competitive edge. From the initial stages of creating a game to staying ahead of the next “it” game or console, legal counsel is a must to defend your rights.

Trademarks protect a company from copycats that want to steal the success of a popular brand, character, title or symbol. By registering the trademark, no competitor can use the name, thus protecting the reputation and marketing efforts.

Copyright laws guard the software itself as well as the characters and icons or weapons, scenes, music, videos, pictures and dialogue. A good test for copyright infringement is to first determine whether the defendant had access to the copyrighted work and then to compare one of game A’s screenshots to game B’s screenshots. If they are qualitatively and quantitatively similar and an ordinary person would look at both and think they are copycats, then infringement will likely be found. Many software piracy cases involve this facet of the game and penalties have high monetary damages.

With the explosion of “apps” for cell phones and computers, many consumers are amazed by how some games are looking similar to each other. The developer Twisted Pixel could go after Capcom because it mimicked Twisted’s Cut the Rope game with Rope Cut and The Blocks Cometh. So far though, the developer has not pursued legal action on them. “Since we owe Capcom so much for its many contributions to all of our childhoods, we will just keep our focus on making new games,” Twisted Pixel CEO Michael Wilford told Pocket Gamer. “That way [Capcom will] have something else to use for ‘inspiration’ next year.” Capcom responded with, “We are saddened by this situation and hope to rebuild the trust of our fans and friends in the gaming community.”

Innovators and companies must look after every part of their game. Enrolling for a patent ensures the technological exclusivity and original designs for 20 years typically. Patents involve user interfaces, algorithms, scene rendering, menu, editing and display choices. For example, U.S. Patent No. 4,662,635, Video Game With Playback of Live Events, uses pre-recorded live action sequences in specific video games. The patent owner and the game company sent many cease-and-desist letters to competitors as it was the first to develop this specific technology.

Trade Secrets assist business to keep select information secret. From business and marketing plans, to customer lists, and concepts and processes to creating the software and game assets, these are critical pieces of knowledge to keep under wraps.

The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates helps many developers, distributors, and publishers in the software and computer game industry. Their managing attorney, Anthony Spotora, has more than a decade of experience as a Los Angeles intellectual property lawyer. From negotiations to licensing agreements and advising on IP laws and structuring joint ventures, his firm can assist clients in the U.S. and abroad.

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer and Los Angeles business attorney. To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

March 18, 2011 in Business, Criminal Defense, Legal Articles, Personal Injury by jferris

Auto Accidents are Personal Injury Accidents

To many, a car wreck is a car wreck. To law enforcement and the justice system, an auto accident is a personal injury accident.

To get a better idea of what the term personal injury accident means, think car wreck. It is the best example of the personal injuries you may sustain after being hit by a negligent driver. Personal injuries may cover a multitude of things, such as whiplash, air bag injuries, broken bones, crush injuries and amputations.

Consider the case of the man who lost his leg after being hit by a passing car. The victim was pushing his SUV off to the side of the road because he ran out of gas. As he was pushing it, a 25-year old woman driving a Nissan Ultima hit him. As a result of the collision, one of the man’s legs was severed.

Thankfully, another motorist put a tourniquet on the man to stop the bleeding until EMS crews arrived. He was taken to the nearest hospital for medical assistance, as was the driver of the car that hit him. The police report did not indicate any charges had been laid, but they were calling for further investigation into the matter. There are many unanswered questions in this scenario, not the least of which is what was the female driver doing at the time of impact?

Was she paying attention to her driving? Was she speeding? Was she texting or under the influence of something? All these things need to be figured out in order for the case to move forward and for the man to be able to sue the female driver for compensation for his medical bills and his catastrophic, life-altering leg amputation.

If you have been in a similar situation and do not know who to talk to about compensation for your personal injuries, make it a point to connect with a seasoned Atlanta personal injury lawyer. These types of situations are not cases where the plaintiff can act pro se (on their own), or they run the very real risk of missing out on money they are legally entitled to as a result of their injuries. For catastrophic injuries like amputation, the awards tend to be higher.

Robert Webb is an Atlanta personal injury lawyer with Webb & D’Orazio, a law firm specializing in Atlanta personal injury, malpractice, criminal defense, and business law. Learn more at Webbdorazio.com.

March 18, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Texas Breach of Contract Lawsuit Emphasizes the Need for a Good Business Attorney in Oil and Gas Matters

The jury trial and appeal in the case of Mohican Oil & Gas, LLC v. Scorpion Exploration & Production, Inc. and Chapco, Inc. highlights the intricacies of contract disputes and business litigation matters in the oil and gas arena. Mohican hired the two other companies to oversee and drill Olmitos No. 2, a directional oil and gas well in Webb County, Texas. The jurors found that Mohican breached the oil and gas drilling contract and awarded Scorpion with $139,120 and Chapco with $60,000 in damages that the appeals case sustained.

Many facets of the contract were disputed during the trial. First, when Scorpion faced drilling process problems they asserted that the work changed from turnkey to daily charges. Scorpion had difficulties setting the intermediate casing and proceeding to production depths. They also encountered premature flowing and the wellbore fell in on itself. Also, Scorpion felt Mohican was obligated to provide them with a mudlogger to help drill the well, or at the very least, they were owed money for delays and damages incurred. The jury had to assess if Chapco served as the Texas Railroad Commission-named operator and answer numerous other questions.

“Individuals and businesses cringe when contract disputes arise and monies owed change along with timeline goals being missed,” said Gregory D. Jordan, Austin business attorney and Austin oil and gas lawyer. “No contract is perfect, but a good business attorney should be able to answer the tough questions when a client feels the contract they’ve entered into isn’t being upheld.”

With oil and gas exploration increasing, there is an increasing need for business attorneys with specialized knowledge in oil and gas exploration. Gregory D. Jordan has over 30 years of experience in the oil and gas industry as a petroleum landman, engineer and attorney. He represents individuals and businesses in trials, arbitrations, and mediations and has experience with the Railroad Commission and Texas Workforce Commission. Jordan has over 20 years experience as an Austin oil and gas attorney, Austin business lawyer and Austin business litigation attorney.

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

March 17, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

The Battle over Land and Free Speech Heats Up in Texas Defamation Lawsuit

No ruling has yet been made in the appeal of the interesting case of Dallas land developer H. Walker Royall v. Carla Main, wherein Royall claims defamation for how he is depicted in her book, Bulldozed: ‘Kelo’, Eminent Domain and the American Lust for Land. The Appeals Court for the Fifth District of Texas first heard the case last fall, but there has been no decision yet in regards to defamation or banning the book.

Royall filed the lawsuit claiming that Main and her publisher, Encounter for Culture and Education, defamed him and “hurt his feelings”. His attorneys insist that Royall is a “private citizen who never sought publicity and who values his privacy.”

The lead attorney for Main contends that the developer may disagree with the book, but criticism is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. In the courtroom, neither the developer nor his attorneys apparently showed that the facts in the book are untrue. Main and her publisher wrote in the appellant’s reply brief that, “Encounter did publish a book about a controversial redevelopment project in which Royall had a leading role. Yet, the courts do not exist to protect hurt feelings and they certainly do not exist to allow participants in controversial public projects to squelch critical political speech.”

Bulldozed is about the seizing of private property from people and communities that did not have the ability to fight back. Main focuses on current events regarding eminent domain, including when Royall signed a development agreement in Freeport, Texas where the city took land owned by a longstanding shrimping business, Western Seafood, so that Royall could build a luxury yacht marina.

Main’s lawyers argued that eminent domain and major development projects involve public issues and thus are not subject to defamation claims and that there is no legal basis to ban distribution or further printing of the book. Her lawyers stated that any conclusions Main has raised from the facts, predictions about Royall’s development, and political views are protected under the First Amendment and cannot constitute libel.

In a defamation case, an individual plaintiff must usually show among other things that the defendant published a false statement that damaged his or her reputation and that the defendant acted with negligence or an otherwise sufficient state of mind. Austin defamation lawyer Gregory D. Jordan is watching the case closely as more defamation lawsuits are appearing where First Amendment rights are being asserted. Jordan is an accomplished Austin trial lawyer with more than 20 years of experience representing plaintiffs and defendants in defamation cases.

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

March 16, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Trade Secret Theft Verdict May Result in 393 Million Dollar Judgment

A Texas jury has recently rendered a verdict in a case against a subsidiary of SouthWestern Energy Co. relating to a 2005 confidentiality agreement it had entered with two oil and gas consultants. The case of Tovah Energy LLC and Toby Berry-Helfand v. David Michael Grimes et al was heard in the 273rd District Court in Shelby, Texas.

The Shelby County jury sided with the plaintiffs, who claimed that SouthWestern Energy Production Co. (SEPCO) stole their trade secrets and profited from them. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $11.4 million in compensatory damages, finding that SEPCO had violated the Texas Theft Liability Act by misappropriating trade secrets and had committed fraud related to a confidentiality agreement in 2005 pertaining to two oil and gas prospects in East Texas.

In addition, the jury found that, for purposes of disgorgement, SEPCO’s profits were $381.5 million, which the court may or may not order SEPCO to pay to the plaintiffs as part of any judgment.

The history of this dispute goes way back to the late ’90s, when Berry-Helfand and Muncey developed an allegedly exclusive method for gathering and analyzing data from many wells in the region, estimated to be over 100. The two and another geologist and defendant, Leon Wells, devised a method that could allegedly determine the prime locations for booming horizontal gas well drilling.

The attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the case, said “In a nutshell, they came up with a very sound method to determine the actual [well] locations, called the sweet spots, of where you would want to drill horizontal gas wells in this formation.”

An amended petition filed by SEPCO alleged that the defendants violated the law and breached their fiduciary duty along with breaking confidential relationships with SEPCO relating to the two prospects in the Texas James Lime formation.

SouthWestern has indicated it will consider appealing any judgment from the 273rd District Court. In the past six months, SouthWestern has lost approximately 17 percent of their market value.

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

March 15, 2011 in Business, Criminal Defense, Legal Articles, Personal Injury by jferris

Personal Injury Cases May Happen In Unusual Ways

Personal injury law is continually changing and evolving. Accidents can happen at the strangest times and in the strangest ways.

Not too many people have had the distinction of falling down a manhole, but is has happened and the consequences can be quite disastrous. Most manholes are covered, but in this particular case that we read about, the manhole was not covered and an 11-year-old girl fell just about 15 feet. She was trapped for 30 minutes before fire crews were able to get her out.

Once lifted to the surface, she was airlifted to a children’s hospital to check her over. She apparently did not receive any life threatening injuries and was released to recover at home. Nobody seems to know why the manhole cover was out of place, though there is speculation that a snowplow blade was the culprit. The city and the police are investigating the situation further.

While this case may sound like a fall where the young girl did not hurt herself, you have to consider that she fell 15 feet and landed on pipes and concrete. Injuries that may not be visible are a high risk in cases like this. For instance, she may have sustained spinal cord injuries that may not manifest themselves until later or she may also have cracked ribs or other bones – a fact that could go unnoticed at a hospital intently looking for more serious injuries and missing the not-so-obvious ones.

In any slip, trip and fall case, it is a good idea to discuss the case with a qualified Atlanta personal injury lawyer and find out what your rights are, what you do if the child’s injuries are worse than first thought, how to file a personal injury lawsuit and what to expect should your case go to court.

Injuries as the result of negligence (the missing manhole cover) may mean the city is liable/responsible for the child’s medical bills and other expenses relating to the accident. The first consultation with a an Atlanta personal injury lawyer is free and the advice if often priceless, when it provides you with the peace of mind that if your child’s injuries are more serious than first thought, you know what to do.

Robert Webb is an Atlanta personal injury lawyer with Webb & D’Orazio, a law firm specializing in Atlanta personal injury, malpractice, criminal defense, and business law. Learn more at Webbdorazio.com.

March 15, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Hundred Million Dollar Patent Verdict Thrown Out

In August 2009, a jury in the Eastern District of Texas awarded Austin-based Versata Software a $139 million judgment against another software conglomerate, SAP America. However, a motion that followed in October 2009 led to a ruling filed Thursday in which federal judge, Judge Charles Everingham IV, set aside the $139 million judgment and ordered that a new trial for damages be held.

Jury selection for the new trial is slated for April 29. The IDG News Service said that Judge Everingham found the court had “erred when it admitted [Chistopher] Bakewell’s testimony and his damages model. That error affected SAP’s substantial rights.”

The judge’s comments were in response to SAP’s motion that was filed in October 2009. SAP argued Christopher Bakewell’s expert testimony should have been stricken because of the use of his improper methodology. The motion stated, “Mr. Bakewell improperly relied upon the entire market value of SAP’s accused products … in urging the jury to award a running royalty of $70 for every one of the 2,792,199 SAP user ‘seats’ included in his royalty base.”

Originally, Versata alleged that SAP’s Business Suite software and services violated several of Versata’s patents when it was formerly called Trilogy Software. Versata sells product configuration products as well as business rules management and other products.

The original trial lasted seven days and the jury reached its verdict after deliberating for six hours. The jury came to a decision that SAP had infringed upon Versata’s two software product patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 B2 and U.S. Patent No. 5,878,400 when SAP sold and distributed their SAP CRM and ERP products.

Since Versata’s beginning in 1995, it had produced revolutionary technology that efficiently processes complex pricing structures in their patented multi-level pricing tables that SAP allegedly infringed upon.

Versata announced at the end of the jury trial that they were intending to seek a permanent injunction against SAP to prevent them from infringing on their patents in the future.

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

March 13, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Always Mind Your Business Manners As They May Come Back To Bite You In The Rear

Often referred to as the Name Game, companies usually try out a variety of names for various innovations they intend to trademark.

If you have spent any time trademark watching, you would find out fairly quickly that if you watch the latest applications for trademarks, you can figure out who is about to introduce what to the marketplace. Likely this is only for serious geeks, but it does have an element of a treasure hunt about it.

For example, in 2010 Hewlett Packard sent in an application to trademark the term “PalmPad.” Not many were too excited about the name that they thought would be given to their webOS tablet. It is hardly catchy and does not really have commercial appeal. Then, along came another trademark application for the HP TouchPad – still not that classy a name, but perhaps a tad better than PalmPad, although that may be arguable in certain circles.

Never fear, it seems there are several more options that have also been sent in for trademarking, including HP Touchcanvas, HP Duopad and HP Touchslate. These are hardly barnburners, but were evidently prompted by the U.S. Patent Office turning down the PalmPad application. Why did the patent office turn down the application to trademark the name PalmPad?

If you have a good sense of humor or slightly skeptical nature, you will be interested to know that it was turned down because PalmPad was too close to an existing trademark, and that trademark would be Palm. Yes, the very same company that Hewlett Packard bought so it had access to the webOS software so it could ship it off to the market under the Hewlett Packard (or Palm) name. Looks like that went over like a lead balloon with the patent office.

This makes for an interesting conversation when it comes to trademark infringement and why it pays to have potential marks registered. In today’s fast paced marketplace, it is not hard to imagine one company either stepping on another’s toes or inadvertently using something that had no right to use.

International business is complex. IP and trademark infringement is even more complex and expensive. It pays to have a skilled Los Angeles business litigation lawyer with this type of knowledge on hand to answer your questions and keep track of who has what or who shouldn’t have what. It is called protecting your company.

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.

March 12, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Intellectual Property a Hot Topic in China with Huawei Suing Motorola

There is no end in sight to who is suing who over intellectual property infringement – be that in the U.S. or in China.

Intellectual property, or IP for short, is a rather interesting area of the law, often fraught with strange happenings when someone tries to steal someone other company’s IP and claim it for their own. This is not just a local problem, as in solely based in the United States. You will find IP disputes on a global scale and quite commonly in China.

The latest hot news from China regarding IP infringement involves Huawei, a Chinese equipment manufacturer, which has pointed an irate finger at Motorola for transferring parts of their IP to equipment maker Nokia Siemens Networks in the midst of the sale of their telecom equipment manufacturing division. While this might sound pretty straightforward, it is not.

The whole story is rather confusing, but basically it boils down to when Huawei was trying to negotiate a supply agreement with Sprint, someone ostensibly tried to illegally transfer part of Huawei’s IP. No one is particularly thrilled with any of the legal machinations, but somewhere, buried in the accusations and counter accusations, lies a nugget of truth.

The story goes that the European company bought Motorola’s telecom division within the last year for $1.2 billion. Huawei just about snagged it, but was not able to get a U.S. regulatory approval, even though they had a better offer.

It appears that Huawei had been working together with Motorola since 2000 on a variety of projects that included network cores and radio waves. The American company sold Huawei-made hardware under the umbrella of their own name.

While all that was taking place, Motorola and Huawei inked an agreement to keep Huawei’s IP and their technologies a secret, which only makes sense if you want to stay in business and be competitive. The idea behind the agreement was that Motorola was only going to be involved as reseller. What has happened is that part of that IP was woven into the Nokia Siemens Networks buyout without the permission of Huawei.

You are pretty much going to need a pen and paper to figure out who is related and not related to whom if you want to figure this mess out, but suffice it to say that it appears that Motorola may have stepped in it, so to speak. Here is the sticking point though – Motorola did not offer the Chinese company any guarantees that their IP would be guarded and that nothing would be passed to third parties.

On the other side of the fence, Huawei feels they have sustained commercial damage and launched this recent suit to protect their technologies. It is no wonder they did file an IP infringement lawsuit, as they want to protect their research and development. Any company with over 100,000 workers and over 50,000 patents likely has a right to get touchy about someone stepping on their toes.

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.