Our Lands
Thursday, November 27, 2003--Andis Kaulins [11/27/2003 10:37:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
Standards of Practice and the Permissibility of Blawg Comments on Attorneys' Legal Blogs
Standards of Practice and Blawg Comments
Here is the Legal Question:
If an attorney permits comments to be posted to his blog by readers of that blog, is he thereby violating the standards of practice of his bar association?
On just that question, Alexander Hartmann's blog jurabilis - bLAWg points us to a vigorous fax and blog exchange between two German lawyers at Udo Vetter's German "Law Blog" at udoslive.blogspot.com (November 27, 2003).
According to the exchange as posted by Vetter, German attorney Ute Rossenhoevel sent Vetter a fax requesting him to take a stand on the question of whether his allowing comments to his blog was in accord with the existing practice standards for attorney advertising in Germany. While admitting that these standards had been relaxed in recent years, Rossenhoevel refers to two German court cases dealing with attorney advertising, as follows:
Guest Books on Attorney Websites - Germany
1. Decision of the Regional Court of Appeals of Nuremberg (Oberlandesgericht Nuernberg), Germany, March 23, 1999, (Aktenzeichen 3 U 3977/98) - a decision involving the propriety of a "guest book" on the website of an attorney. The website JurPC of Professor Maximilian Herberger has created three "headnotes" for this German case which can be read here in German. Below is my unofficial unsanctioned English translation of those headnotes:
1. The operation of a homepage by an attorney is advertising within the context of § 43 of BRAO [BRAO, abbreviation for German Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung, the German Federal Regulations for Attorneys]; the question of whether "advertising" is present is to be decided pursuant to objective criteria and not according to the ideas or intentions of the homepage operator.
2. A guestbook which is part of a homepage is part of the advertising function which attaches to the homepage itself.
3. A guestbook opens up the possibility for positive statements to be published on the homepage of the attorney about his professional activities; the permissible border of objective information [which can be published about the practice as permissible "advertising"] is thereby overstepped, regardless of the issue of whether a particular statement made [in the guestbook] is true or not.
Guest Books on Attorney Websites - Hungary
It is interesting in this regard to note that the Bar Association of Hungary has also issued practice standards for lawyers which prohibit guest books on attorney websites.
Internet Information on Attorney Websites - Germany
2. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) of Germany, September 12, 2001 (Aktenzeichen: 1 BvR 2265/00) - concerning advertising text on a law firm internet page.
This decision is important because it was handed down by the German Federal Constitutional Court, which is the supreme court in Germany for constitutional questions. According to this case, the Federal Constitutional Court held that the regulatory bar authority could not prohibit factually true professionally-relevant text information on attorney websites since such expressions were guaranteed by Article 12 Section 1 of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz), a section which guarantees occupational freedom. Only information which was "misleading" could be prohibited by the regulating bodies.
Unresolved through that case of course is the question of whether a factually true "testimonial" or even the "possibility" of such a testimonial as a blog comment by a 3rd party is permissible on a blawg.
Propriety of Specific Legally-related Domain Names
I might add here another related internet case, the decision of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or abbreviated BGH, Beschluss vom 25.11.2002 AnwZ (B) 41/02) involving the use of the domain name "www.presserecht.de" (Presserecht = Law of the Press) by an attorney. The case was also discussed in a publication of the Federal Bar Association of Germany. Essentially, the court held that an attorney using such a domain name and in fact presenting information on press law, would not be misleading the public into thinking he was the only attorney in this area of law or that he had some kind of monopoly of information on press law. Additionally, the court held that a particular domain name can only be granted once - this was in the nature of the internet - and it was not an unfair advantage that the priority principle "first come, first served" prevailed.
Standards of Practice and the Permissibility of Blawg Comments on Attorneys' Legal Blogs
Standards of Practice and Blawg Comments
Here is the Legal Question:
If an attorney permits comments to be posted to his blog by readers of that blog, is he thereby violating the standards of practice of his bar association?
On just that question, Alexander Hartmann's blog jurabilis - bLAWg points us to a vigorous fax and blog exchange between two German lawyers at Udo Vetter's German "Law Blog" at udoslive.blogspot.com (November 27, 2003).
According to the exchange as posted by Vetter, German attorney Ute Rossenhoevel sent Vetter a fax requesting him to take a stand on the question of whether his allowing comments to his blog was in accord with the existing practice standards for attorney advertising in Germany. While admitting that these standards had been relaxed in recent years, Rossenhoevel refers to two German court cases dealing with attorney advertising, as follows:
Guest Books on Attorney Websites - Germany
1. Decision of the Regional Court of Appeals of Nuremberg (Oberlandesgericht Nuernberg), Germany, March 23, 1999, (Aktenzeichen 3 U 3977/98) - a decision involving the propriety of a "guest book" on the website of an attorney. The website JurPC of Professor Maximilian Herberger has created three "headnotes" for this German case which can be read here in German. Below is my unofficial unsanctioned English translation of those headnotes:
1. The operation of a homepage by an attorney is advertising within the context of § 43 of BRAO [BRAO, abbreviation for German Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung, the German Federal Regulations for Attorneys]; the question of whether "advertising" is present is to be decided pursuant to objective criteria and not according to the ideas or intentions of the homepage operator.
2. A guestbook which is part of a homepage is part of the advertising function which attaches to the homepage itself.
3. A guestbook opens up the possibility for positive statements to be published on the homepage of the attorney about his professional activities; the permissible border of objective information [which can be published about the practice as permissible "advertising"] is thereby overstepped, regardless of the issue of whether a particular statement made [in the guestbook] is true or not.
Guest Books on Attorney Websites - Hungary
It is interesting in this regard to note that the Bar Association of Hungary has also issued practice standards for lawyers which prohibit guest books on attorney websites.
Internet Information on Attorney Websites - Germany
2. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) of Germany, September 12, 2001 (Aktenzeichen: 1 BvR 2265/00) - concerning advertising text on a law firm internet page.
This decision is important because it was handed down by the German Federal Constitutional Court, which is the supreme court in Germany for constitutional questions. According to this case, the Federal Constitutional Court held that the regulatory bar authority could not prohibit factually true professionally-relevant text information on attorney websites since such expressions were guaranteed by Article 12 Section 1 of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz), a section which guarantees occupational freedom. Only information which was "misleading" could be prohibited by the regulating bodies.
Unresolved through that case of course is the question of whether a factually true "testimonial" or even the "possibility" of such a testimonial as a blog comment by a 3rd party is permissible on a blawg.
Propriety of Specific Legally-related Domain Names
I might add here another related internet case, the decision of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or abbreviated BGH, Beschluss vom 25.11.2002 AnwZ (B) 41/02) involving the use of the domain name "www.presserecht.de" (Presserecht = Law of the Press) by an attorney. The case was also discussed in a publication of the Federal Bar Association of Germany. Essentially, the court held that an attorney using such a domain name and in fact presenting information on press law, would not be misleading the public into thinking he was the only attorney in this area of law or that he had some kind of monopoly of information on press law. Additionally, the court held that a particular domain name can only be granted once - this was in the nature of the internet - and it was not an unfair advantage that the priority principle "first come, first served" prevailed.
Permalink
Wednesday, November 26, 2003--Andis Kaulins [11/26/2003 04:10:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
Law Firm Websites and Blogs
Law Firm Websites and Blogs
Jerry Lawson at the eLawyer Blog has a posting on law firm website design entitled "Web Site Design As Necktie".
David Maizenberg at AirBlogger concurs in part and dissents in part. Maizenberg thinks that Lawson is right in stating that blogs will be increasingly important for law firms. However, Maizenberg writes as follows about websites, stressing that they will (or should) maintain their importance:
"I tell my clients that they don't merely provide legal services; their "brand" represents an experience: a bundle of activities and interactions that includes legal services, proactive counseling, responsive communications (extranet, wireless, etc), and information. Therefore, I try to ensure that their websites assert the firm's brand (without sacrificing usability of course), so that eventually the experience the firm provides is closely associated with its brand.
Ultimately, the brand will instantly signal - within the confusion and chaos of the marketplace - a clear experience to potential clients."
There is a lot of truth to that statement in a future where the fungibility of law firms will be an even bigger problem than now, especially since increasing percentages of work and client content will occur "neutrally" on the web.
See also David's related April 2003 article on Reed's Law at FindLaw, "A Lawyer's Guide to Reed's Law and the Power of Networks" discussing network interactivity and peer-to-peer networking.
Wheel Mouse Browser Tricks - Change Font Sizes and Get Quick Browser Navigation
Looking for more information on this topic, I was led to SCLLA Blawg (no posts since April 2003), which lists two mouse tricks for wheel mice under IE that are so useful that I post them here again:
Depress the keyboard key CTRL and move the mouse wheel forward or backward to resize the website page font - useful to reduce large script to smaller script for a better overview, or to increase the size of smaller script to larger script for better reading.
Depress the keyboard key SHIFT and move the mouse wheel forward or backward to navigate webpages visited during the current browsing session. This is a very quick way to to do this.
Law Firm Websites and Blogs
Law Firm Websites and Blogs
Jerry Lawson at the eLawyer Blog has a posting on law firm website design entitled "Web Site Design As Necktie".
David Maizenberg at AirBlogger concurs in part and dissents in part. Maizenberg thinks that Lawson is right in stating that blogs will be increasingly important for law firms. However, Maizenberg writes as follows about websites, stressing that they will (or should) maintain their importance:
"I tell my clients that they don't merely provide legal services; their "brand" represents an experience: a bundle of activities and interactions that includes legal services, proactive counseling, responsive communications (extranet, wireless, etc), and information. Therefore, I try to ensure that their websites assert the firm's brand (without sacrificing usability of course), so that eventually the experience the firm provides is closely associated with its brand.
Ultimately, the brand will instantly signal - within the confusion and chaos of the marketplace - a clear experience to potential clients."
There is a lot of truth to that statement in a future where the fungibility of law firms will be an even bigger problem than now, especially since increasing percentages of work and client content will occur "neutrally" on the web.
See also David's related April 2003 article on Reed's Law at FindLaw, "A Lawyer's Guide to Reed's Law and the Power of Networks" discussing network interactivity and peer-to-peer networking.
Wheel Mouse Browser Tricks - Change Font Sizes and Get Quick Browser Navigation
Looking for more information on this topic, I was led to SCLLA Blawg (no posts since April 2003), which lists two mouse tricks for wheel mice under IE that are so useful that I post them here again:
Depress the keyboard key CTRL and move the mouse wheel forward or backward to resize the website page font - useful to reduce large script to smaller script for a better overview, or to increase the size of smaller script to larger script for better reading.
Depress the keyboard key SHIFT and move the mouse wheel forward or backward to navigate webpages visited during the current browsing session. This is a very quick way to to do this.
Andis Kaulins [11/26/2003 02:40:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
Bluebook Blogbook
Bluebook Blogbook
David Maizenberg of Airblogger has a November 25, 2003 posting announcing "The Legal Blog Bluebook", an open-source blog on "lawyer blog tech culture". This Bluebook Blogbook is a blog which sees itself as a "a guide to legal blogging" and poses a number of interesting technical and legal questions about blawgs upon which comment is invited. This may prove to be an increasingly valuable legal blog as legal standards for blawgs are issued down the road by bar associations and courts. Take a look.
Bluebook Blogbook
Bluebook Blogbook
David Maizenberg of Airblogger has a November 25, 2003 posting announcing "The Legal Blog Bluebook", an open-source blog on "lawyer blog tech culture". This Bluebook Blogbook is a blog which sees itself as a "a guide to legal blogging" and poses a number of interesting technical and legal questions about blawgs upon which comment is invited. This may prove to be an increasingly valuable legal blog as legal standards for blawgs are issued down the road by bar associations and courts. Take a look.
Andis Kaulins [11/26/2003 02:33:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
Law Firm Rankings
Law Firm Rankings
Law Firms in the US ranked by size through the National Law Journal (NLF) are referred to via LawSites.
For rankings of law firms by other criteria see the links at Internet Law Web
which include The Vault - Guide to the Top 100 Law Firms - and the Legal500.com - a list of Top 500 firms worldwide.
Law Firm Rankings
Law Firm Rankings
Law Firms in the US ranked by size through the National Law Journal (NLF) are referred to via LawSites.
For rankings of law firms by other criteria see the links at Internet Law Web
which include The Vault - Guide to the Top 100 Law Firms - and the Legal500.com - a list of Top 500 firms worldwide.
Andis Kaulins [11/26/2003 01:39:00 AM] - Home - About - Our Book
Knowledge Merger - British Library and Amazon
Knowledge Merger - British Library and Amazon
ZDNet reports a Reuters News article of November 25, 2003 that the British Library and Amazon had entered into an e-commerce deal, stating that:
"The British Library announced on Monday it had formed an alliance with Web retailer Amazon.co.uk to sell to the public catalog listings of over 2.5 million literary works from its collection."
We see here that the alliance of online bookselling and knowledge "storage" as a product point to a world of the future in which information - including libraries - will cost bucks at every level.
It is an interesting development not only for itself, but also for the law, expanding the legal field to new kinds of "mergers".
Knowledge Merger - British Library and Amazon
Knowledge Merger - British Library and Amazon
ZDNet reports a Reuters News article of November 25, 2003 that the British Library and Amazon had entered into an e-commerce deal, stating that:
"The British Library announced on Monday it had formed an alliance with Web retailer Amazon.co.uk to sell to the public catalog listings of over 2.5 million literary works from its collection."
We see here that the alliance of online bookselling and knowledge "storage" as a product point to a world of the future in which information - including libraries - will cost bucks at every level.
It is an interesting development not only for itself, but also for the law, expanding the legal field to new kinds of "mergers".
Andis Kaulins [11/26/2003 01:09:00 AM] - Home - About - Our Book
Business, Commerce and Finance - Research - Dictionaries
Business, Commerce and Finance - Research Project Start - Consult a Dictionary or Glossary
Tom Mighell writes at Inter Alia in "Defining your search strategy" that:
"Mary Ellen Bates can always be counted on to offer a tremendously useful Internet search tip. This month, she tells us that sometimes the best way to start a research project is to consult a dictionary or glossary for words connected to your search topic."
As co-author of the Langenscheidt Routledge English-German German-English Dictionary of Business, Commerce and Finance (also available as a CD-ROM), I can only second those observations. Read the Borlase Guides about Black's Law Dictionary to see how the failure of an experienced publisher to understand the importance of dictionaries can lead to a reduction in the value of a standard legal work.
Business, Commerce and Finance - Research - Dictionaries
Business, Commerce and Finance - Research Project Start - Consult a Dictionary or Glossary
Tom Mighell writes at Inter Alia in "Defining your search strategy" that:
"Mary Ellen Bates can always be counted on to offer a tremendously useful Internet search tip. This month, she tells us that sometimes the best way to start a research project is to consult a dictionary or glossary for words connected to your search topic."
As co-author of the Langenscheidt Routledge English-German German-English Dictionary of Business, Commerce and Finance (also available as a CD-ROM), I can only second those observations. Read the Borlase Guides about Black's Law Dictionary to see how the failure of an experienced publisher to understand the importance of dictionaries can lead to a reduction in the value of a standard legal work.
Wednesday, November 19, 2003--Andis Kaulins [11/19/2003 09:50:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
Libel Slander Defamation and Blogs
Libel Slander Defamation and Blogs
Stuart Levine in his Tax & Business Law Commentary has an October 30, 2003 posting entitled: " Don't Say I Didn't Warn Ya' ", referring to a potential libel case involving two blogs.
Libel, slander and defamation are always possible problems when we exercise our first amendment right to free speech and freedom of the press, both of which are not without limit. There are and must be bounds for everything in law.
Definitions of Libel Slander and Defamation
Essentially, defamation is an "attack" on the reputation of a person. It is called libel if it is in writing and is known as slander if it is spoken.
Explanations of Libel Slander and Defamation
See the following pages for more general orientation, definitions and explanation of the above-mentioned and associated terms:
Libel Defense Resource Center - includes an online 50-State survey of libel law
The First Amendment Handbook by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - it treats libel in depth as it affects the media
What is Libel? - short description from writing-world.com
Puerto Rico Criminal Libel Law Struck Down as violating the 1st Amendment (February 4, 2003)
Terms associated with libel cases
Defenses to claims of libel
Privilege and claims of libel
Libel laws generally in some countries other than the US: the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany
Liability Insurance for Defamation
If you are a blogger, make sure you have the right liability insurance,
as discussed by Attorney Ivan Hoffman,
and watch your words.
Online Liability for Defamation
Links to the fledgling law of "online liability" are found at:
The First Amendment Center
in an article by Jarrod F. Reich, "Internet & First Amendment: Online Libel" (Reich is still a law student at Vanderbilt)
There seems to be no question that every blogger is liable for what he or she writes on a blog.
Who May be Excluded from Liability
A the same time, the operating website, e.g. blogger.com, typepad.com, or radiouserland.com are seemingly thus far NOT liable for what YOU post online to your blog on those sites, at least based on the following commentary:
In a November 7, 2003 article by Douglas Lee, an Illinois attorney, entitled, "Obscure Internet libel provision hits the big time", Lee discusses Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 as interpreted by the 9th Circuit in Batzel v. Smith where a 2-1 court decision provides virtual libel immunity to website operators (as opposed to those who have actually written the materials).
What about bloggers who post 3rd-party materials to their blog, i.e. materials they have not written themselves, but which are libelous. Can they be held liable for this material?
As written by the Associated Press at "Bloggers win Libel Protection", Eric Brown, who represented the winning defendent in the suit at Batzel v. Smith, stated:
"It clarifies the existing law..... It expands it in the sense that no court had really addressed bloggers, list serve operators and those people yet, certainly not on the level of the 9th Circuit Court."
No Blogger Immunity - Bloggers CAN Be Sued For Libel
But there should be no blogger euphoria over Batzel v. Smith, nor does the case grant bloggers immunity,
according to the postings of Balkinization ("Can Bloggers be Sued for libel? - Of course they can"), Inter Alia and Unintended Consequences.
Read particularly what Balkin writes. I often do not agree with him on his political postings, but in his legal analysis he is simply superb.
Libel Slander Defamation and Blogs
Libel Slander Defamation and Blogs
Stuart Levine in his Tax & Business Law Commentary has an October 30, 2003 posting entitled: " Don't Say I Didn't Warn Ya' ", referring to a potential libel case involving two blogs.
Libel, slander and defamation are always possible problems when we exercise our first amendment right to free speech and freedom of the press, both of which are not without limit. There are and must be bounds for everything in law.
Definitions of Libel Slander and Defamation
Essentially, defamation is an "attack" on the reputation of a person. It is called libel if it is in writing and is known as slander if it is spoken.
Explanations of Libel Slander and Defamation
See the following pages for more general orientation, definitions and explanation of the above-mentioned and associated terms:
Libel Defense Resource Center - includes an online 50-State survey of libel law
The First Amendment Handbook by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - it treats libel in depth as it affects the media
What is Libel? - short description from writing-world.com
Puerto Rico Criminal Libel Law Struck Down as violating the 1st Amendment (February 4, 2003)
Terms associated with libel cases
Defenses to claims of libel
Privilege and claims of libel
Libel laws generally in some countries other than the US: the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany
Liability Insurance for Defamation
If you are a blogger, make sure you have the right liability insurance,
as discussed by Attorney Ivan Hoffman,
and watch your words.
Online Liability for Defamation
Links to the fledgling law of "online liability" are found at:
The First Amendment Center
in an article by Jarrod F. Reich, "Internet & First Amendment: Online Libel" (Reich is still a law student at Vanderbilt)
There seems to be no question that every blogger is liable for what he or she writes on a blog.
Who May be Excluded from Liability
A the same time, the operating website, e.g. blogger.com, typepad.com, or radiouserland.com are seemingly thus far NOT liable for what YOU post online to your blog on those sites, at least based on the following commentary:
In a November 7, 2003 article by Douglas Lee, an Illinois attorney, entitled, "Obscure Internet libel provision hits the big time", Lee discusses Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 as interpreted by the 9th Circuit in Batzel v. Smith where a 2-1 court decision provides virtual libel immunity to website operators (as opposed to those who have actually written the materials).
What about bloggers who post 3rd-party materials to their blog, i.e. materials they have not written themselves, but which are libelous. Can they be held liable for this material?
As written by the Associated Press at "Bloggers win Libel Protection", Eric Brown, who represented the winning defendent in the suit at Batzel v. Smith, stated:
"It clarifies the existing law..... It expands it in the sense that no court had really addressed bloggers, list serve operators and those people yet, certainly not on the level of the 9th Circuit Court."
No Blogger Immunity - Bloggers CAN Be Sued For Libel
But there should be no blogger euphoria over Batzel v. Smith, nor does the case grant bloggers immunity,
according to the postings of Balkinization ("Can Bloggers be Sued for libel? - Of course they can"), Inter Alia and Unintended Consequences.
Read particularly what Balkin writes. I often do not agree with him on his political postings, but in his legal analysis he is simply superb.
Andis Kaulins [11/19/2003 07:16:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
22 Points on Blawgs
Law Weblogs - Elefant and Lawson
Via George M. Wallace and Declarations and Exclusions we were directed to Carolyn Elefant with Jerry Lawson and their MSBA Solo Conference blog (presentation for the Maryland State Bar Association Solo Day Conference) entitled "What Blogs Can Do for Solo & Small Firm Lawyers".(11/15/03)
To Blawg or Not to Blawg? - 22 postings by Carolyn Elefant & Jerry Lawson
There are 22 separate postings - all of value for anyone thinking of starting a blawg - or even for someone who already has a blawg. I cite them in full here because blawging is a wave of the future and this presentation is simply too good to pass up without referring to it in detail - indeed, the fact that a special blawg was created for this presentation shows still another aspect of what blogs can do by specializing on a subject. Here are the links to the 22 postings:
1. So, What Can Blogs Do for You?
2. Overview
3. What's a Blog and What Makes It Different?
4. Why Do Blogs Have Marketing Potential?
5. A Baker's Dozen Great Things You Can Do With A Blog
6. Blogs As Knowledge Management Tools
7. Blogs As the New CLE
8. Blogs As A Source for Research and Expertise
9. Blogs As A Way to Improve Legal Writing and Analytical Skills
10. Blogs As A Tool to Combat Isolation of Solo/Small Firm Practice
11. Will Blogs Replace Power Point?
12. Blogs for Marketing - New Tool, but Old Rules
13. Blogs As Websites
14. Blogs for FAQs and Advice
15. Blogs as a Newsletter Alternative
16. Blogs As A Public Service
17. Blogs For Establishing Expertise and Credibility
18. Search Engine Visibility
19. Blogs Can Make You A Star
20. So Should I Start A Blog - What to Consider
21. Getting Started
22. Final Comments
What Elefant and Lawson need to add to this presentation are the technical but necessary aspects of blogging such as Permalinks, RSS, etc.
Then it will be perfect.
22 Points on Blawgs
Law Weblogs - Elefant and Lawson
Via George M. Wallace and Declarations and Exclusions we were directed to Carolyn Elefant with Jerry Lawson and their MSBA Solo Conference blog (presentation for the Maryland State Bar Association Solo Day Conference) entitled "What Blogs Can Do for Solo & Small Firm Lawyers".(11/15/03)
To Blawg or Not to Blawg? - 22 postings by Carolyn Elefant & Jerry Lawson
There are 22 separate postings - all of value for anyone thinking of starting a blawg - or even for someone who already has a blawg. I cite them in full here because blawging is a wave of the future and this presentation is simply too good to pass up without referring to it in detail - indeed, the fact that a special blawg was created for this presentation shows still another aspect of what blogs can do by specializing on a subject. Here are the links to the 22 postings:
1. So, What Can Blogs Do for You?
2. Overview
3. What's a Blog and What Makes It Different?
4. Why Do Blogs Have Marketing Potential?
5. A Baker's Dozen Great Things You Can Do With A Blog
6. Blogs As Knowledge Management Tools
7. Blogs As the New CLE
8. Blogs As A Source for Research and Expertise
9. Blogs As A Way to Improve Legal Writing and Analytical Skills
10. Blogs As A Tool to Combat Isolation of Solo/Small Firm Practice
11. Will Blogs Replace Power Point?
12. Blogs for Marketing - New Tool, but Old Rules
13. Blogs As Websites
14. Blogs for FAQs and Advice
15. Blogs as a Newsletter Alternative
16. Blogs As A Public Service
17. Blogs For Establishing Expertise and Credibility
18. Search Engine Visibility
19. Blogs Can Make You A Star
20. So Should I Start A Blog - What to Consider
21. Getting Started
22. Final Comments
What Elefant and Lawson need to add to this presentation are the technical but necessary aspects of blogging such as Permalinks, RSS, etc.
Then it will be perfect.
Andis Kaulins [11/19/2003 06:11:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
Legal Realism and Judicial Decisionmaking
LEGAL REALISM AND JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING
DO JUDGES DO THE BEST THEY CAN?
Stuart Buck at The Buck Stops Here in his posting on the "Legal Realism" of Brian Leiter writes:
"Judges are doing what they perceive themselves to be doing most of the time, viz., applying the law as best as they can."
DO JUDGES DECIDE CASES ON THE BASIS OF NON-LEGAL NORMS?
Actually, I find myself in accord on that point, although my agreement on a judge perceiving himself or herself as doing "as best as they can" does not totally exclude the relevance of Brian Leiter's opinion that "what really explains [a judicial decision] is the judge's commitment to non-legal norms (moral, political, economic)." (emphasis added)
Buck admits that the concept of "legal realism" applies to some degree in appellate decision-making since "cases selected for appellate review are disproportionately the ones where the legal reasons are indeterminate, and so the necessity for political and moral judgment is inescapable."
I would not necessarily agree with that entirely, since it supports Leiter too strongly on an issue where he should not necessarily be supported in full.
Indeed, where I disagree with Leiter is on his judgment that "non-legal" norms DO decide judicial opinions, rather than "legal norms", as should be the case under the rule of law.
PERSONALITY, CHARACTER, BACKGROUND, INTELLIGENCE
Surely no one would disagree with the statement that our views of legal norms are guided by the variables of our personality, character, background, and intelligence, and that our views on morality, politics and economics are additional variables for decisionmaking which - to my way of thinking, however - are merely products of the former, more important "personal" variables.
Put differently, we are what we are. A Supreme Court Justice is thus not necessarily applying non-legal political, moral or economic norms to hard cases but, as I see it, is quite clearly applying his personality to the seamless web of the law - but that is a different issue.
THE PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER OF JUDGES IS THE MAIN VARIABLE
Some time after graduating from Stanford Law School and inbetween stints in the corporate department of Paul, Weiss et al., I and several others worked together with the late Professor James Lake (the linked .pdf has a picture of Lake, a Harvard Law grad) of the University of Nebraska Law School on a project to alleviate appellate delay.
The project worked together with the Justices of the Nebraska Supreme Court (I note in passing that the current - not then - Chief Justice John V. Hendry was a former Kaulins family lawyer as a practitioner - a very good man, if I may offer this biased comment). The aim of our project then was to reduce the caseload of the Justices by having qualified personnel write drafts of opinions for them in "easy" cases, i.e. this was work similar to clerks. However, the main difference was that we worked for no particular Justice and were assigned cases at random. We also had no direct contact with the Justices on cases - for ethical reasons. There was to be no influence exerted in either direction. The legal norms were to decide.
The whole idea of the project was of course based on the idea that "legal norms" DO decide cases and my experience in fact indicated that this was generally so. In many of the appealed cases, the law was so clear that there was really no real question about the judicial outcome so that judicial decisionmaking proceeded along the legal norms found in our draft opinions, although each Justice always wrote their OWN opinion, even if it relied on our drafts. In cases which were not clear, however, the Justices were far more likely to take the complete writing of an opinion into their own hands, and it seemed to me that it was the personality and character of the judges which then surfaced predominantly in their decisionmaking and opinions, not necessarily their moral, political or economic views, which seemed quite similar. During this time I saw very little evidence that "non-legal" norms decided cases.
WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF LEGAL NORMS?
Legal norms are derived from lessons learned and experience gained from events which occur in day-to-day society over the timeframe of millennia so that events and legal norms form a symbiotic partnership. But this does not mean that the non-legal norms are DETERMINATIVE of judicial decisionmaking. Rather, legal norms are INFLUENCED by the prevailing morality, politics and economics of the times, and the prevailing legal norms are thus similarly subject to change to accord with those changing times. Still, it would seem to me that judges nevertheless apply the law as they see it and that most of them surely would describe their work as serving "the rule of law".
THE CONTINUITY OF LAW OVER TIME SPEAKS FOR THE JUDGES
Indeed, if judges ONLY applied non-legal norms, then law would be valid only for the short-term, guided by the serendipity of the present. The fact that law sustains itself over the long term and the fact that legal norms have developed and grown over thousands of years suggests that in fact, judges do prevailingly decide by applying "legal norms" and NOT by falling back on non-legal popular norms of the moment, at least in our Western society, where the "rule of law" is seen as the governing force.
The situation may be different in societies where the rule of law is not the basis of government and where men rule by fiat, religious conviction and the whim of the moment. Indeed, it would seem that THESE societies are the ones that are currently the enemies of the Western world.
Legal Realism and Judicial Decisionmaking
LEGAL REALISM AND JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING
DO JUDGES DO THE BEST THEY CAN?
Stuart Buck at The Buck Stops Here in his posting on the "Legal Realism" of Brian Leiter writes:
"Judges are doing what they perceive themselves to be doing most of the time, viz., applying the law as best as they can."
DO JUDGES DECIDE CASES ON THE BASIS OF NON-LEGAL NORMS?
Actually, I find myself in accord on that point, although my agreement on a judge perceiving himself or herself as doing "as best as they can" does not totally exclude the relevance of Brian Leiter's opinion that "what really explains [a judicial decision] is the judge's commitment to non-legal norms (moral, political, economic)." (emphasis added)
Buck admits that the concept of "legal realism" applies to some degree in appellate decision-making since "cases selected for appellate review are disproportionately the ones where the legal reasons are indeterminate, and so the necessity for political and moral judgment is inescapable."
I would not necessarily agree with that entirely, since it supports Leiter too strongly on an issue where he should not necessarily be supported in full.
Indeed, where I disagree with Leiter is on his judgment that "non-legal" norms DO decide judicial opinions, rather than "legal norms", as should be the case under the rule of law.
PERSONALITY, CHARACTER, BACKGROUND, INTELLIGENCE
Surely no one would disagree with the statement that our views of legal norms are guided by the variables of our personality, character, background, and intelligence, and that our views on morality, politics and economics are additional variables for decisionmaking which - to my way of thinking, however - are merely products of the former, more important "personal" variables.
Put differently, we are what we are. A Supreme Court Justice is thus not necessarily applying non-legal political, moral or economic norms to hard cases but, as I see it, is quite clearly applying his personality to the seamless web of the law - but that is a different issue.
THE PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER OF JUDGES IS THE MAIN VARIABLE
Some time after graduating from Stanford Law School and inbetween stints in the corporate department of Paul, Weiss et al., I and several others worked together with the late Professor James Lake (the linked .pdf has a picture of Lake, a Harvard Law grad) of the University of Nebraska Law School on a project to alleviate appellate delay.
The project worked together with the Justices of the Nebraska Supreme Court (I note in passing that the current - not then - Chief Justice John V. Hendry was a former Kaulins family lawyer as a practitioner - a very good man, if I may offer this biased comment). The aim of our project then was to reduce the caseload of the Justices by having qualified personnel write drafts of opinions for them in "easy" cases, i.e. this was work similar to clerks. However, the main difference was that we worked for no particular Justice and were assigned cases at random. We also had no direct contact with the Justices on cases - for ethical reasons. There was to be no influence exerted in either direction. The legal norms were to decide.
The whole idea of the project was of course based on the idea that "legal norms" DO decide cases and my experience in fact indicated that this was generally so. In many of the appealed cases, the law was so clear that there was really no real question about the judicial outcome so that judicial decisionmaking proceeded along the legal norms found in our draft opinions, although each Justice always wrote their OWN opinion, even if it relied on our drafts. In cases which were not clear, however, the Justices were far more likely to take the complete writing of an opinion into their own hands, and it seemed to me that it was the personality and character of the judges which then surfaced predominantly in their decisionmaking and opinions, not necessarily their moral, political or economic views, which seemed quite similar. During this time I saw very little evidence that "non-legal" norms decided cases.
WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF LEGAL NORMS?
Legal norms are derived from lessons learned and experience gained from events which occur in day-to-day society over the timeframe of millennia so that events and legal norms form a symbiotic partnership. But this does not mean that the non-legal norms are DETERMINATIVE of judicial decisionmaking. Rather, legal norms are INFLUENCED by the prevailing morality, politics and economics of the times, and the prevailing legal norms are thus similarly subject to change to accord with those changing times. Still, it would seem to me that judges nevertheless apply the law as they see it and that most of them surely would describe their work as serving "the rule of law".
THE CONTINUITY OF LAW OVER TIME SPEAKS FOR THE JUDGES
Indeed, if judges ONLY applied non-legal norms, then law would be valid only for the short-term, guided by the serendipity of the present. The fact that law sustains itself over the long term and the fact that legal norms have developed and grown over thousands of years suggests that in fact, judges do prevailingly decide by applying "legal norms" and NOT by falling back on non-legal popular norms of the moment, at least in our Western society, where the "rule of law" is seen as the governing force.
The situation may be different in societies where the rule of law is not the basis of government and where men rule by fiat, religious conviction and the whim of the moment. Indeed, it would seem that THESE societies are the ones that are currently the enemies of the Western world.
Andis Kaulins [11/19/2003 05:24:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
Corporate Governance - New SRO Standards
Corporate Governance - New SRO Standards
TheCorporateCounsel.net Blog aka known as Broc Romanek's Blog has been posting on corporate governance and has a November 19, 2003 posting entitled: "What to Disclose under the New SRO Standards".
For an informative October 27, 2003 discussion of SRO's (self-regulatory organizations) by Rachel McTague and the Securities Regulation & Law Report at BNA's Corporate Law & Business Professional Information Center see her article here.
The background for the new standards can be read at the March 26, 2003 statement by SEC Chairman William H. Donaldson entitled "Letter to Exchange Officers Regarding SRO Corporate Governance", where Donaldson writes:
Self-regulatory organizations play a critical role as standard setters for issuing companies, operators of trading markets, and front-line regulators of securities firms. At the urging of the SEC, two of the self-regulatory organizations, the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ have both proposed new corporate governance listing standards for publicly traded companies, and the SEC continues to help them harmonize their proposals to the extent possible.
As Broc notes, Donaldson then also has delivered a later speech concerning corporate governance.
Particularly of interest to corporate lawyers are the future corporate governance webcasts which are discussed at Broc Romanek's Blog. The links to GreatGovernance.com are also useful.
Corporate Governance - New SRO Standards
Corporate Governance - New SRO Standards
TheCorporateCounsel.net Blog aka known as Broc Romanek's Blog has been posting on corporate governance and has a November 19, 2003 posting entitled: "What to Disclose under the New SRO Standards".
For an informative October 27, 2003 discussion of SRO's (self-regulatory organizations) by Rachel McTague and the Securities Regulation & Law Report at BNA's Corporate Law & Business Professional Information Center see her article here.
The background for the new standards can be read at the March 26, 2003 statement by SEC Chairman William H. Donaldson entitled "Letter to Exchange Officers Regarding SRO Corporate Governance", where Donaldson writes:
Self-regulatory organizations play a critical role as standard setters for issuing companies, operators of trading markets, and front-line regulators of securities firms. At the urging of the SEC, two of the self-regulatory organizations, the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ have both proposed new corporate governance listing standards for publicly traded companies, and the SEC continues to help them harmonize their proposals to the extent possible.
As Broc notes, Donaldson then also has delivered a later speech concerning corporate governance.
Particularly of interest to corporate lawyers are the future corporate governance webcasts which are discussed at Broc Romanek's Blog. The links to GreatGovernance.com are also useful.
Monday, November 17, 2003--Andis Kaulins [11/17/2003 06:32:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
Law Blogs and the Scotsman
Law Blogs and the Scotsman
Being a great fan of Scotland I was sorry to find myself directed via Bag & Baggage and the Curmudgeonly Clerk to an article in The Scotsman entitled "Lazy guide to the internet" and the opinion of Stewart Kirkpatrick
there that:
"Lord help us, there are even blawgs, lawyers blogs, or - to use a more appropriate term - achingly dull wastes of cyberspace."
Actually, there are a good number of blawgs which are quite valuable. Some of these complement the news reporting performed by traditional journalism, which by its nature, is not always comprehensive or detailed enough for professionals. Plus, many blawgs serve communicative functions and are not intended as entertainment for the masses.
To the degree that blawgs are low in hype and high in relevant content, perhaps they may be a bit dull and boring to laymen who are forever looking for the thrill of bad news, catastrophes and that kind of thing, but it is consummately wrong to call blawgs "wastes of cyberspace". In fact, it is the law bloggers who - for better or worse - are leading the blog revolution, as e.g. InstaPundit and the Volokh Conspiracy demonstrate. Indeed, there are even blawgs, such as LawPundit, which link to blogs by Scots...
Hoping that I will still be welcome in Ayrshire ...
Law Blogs and the Scotsman
Law Blogs and the Scotsman
Being a great fan of Scotland I was sorry to find myself directed via Bag & Baggage and the Curmudgeonly Clerk to an article in The Scotsman entitled "Lazy guide to the internet" and the opinion of Stewart Kirkpatrick
there that:
"Lord help us, there are even blawgs, lawyers blogs, or - to use a more appropriate term - achingly dull wastes of cyberspace."
Actually, there are a good number of blawgs which are quite valuable. Some of these complement the news reporting performed by traditional journalism, which by its nature, is not always comprehensive or detailed enough for professionals. Plus, many blawgs serve communicative functions and are not intended as entertainment for the masses.
To the degree that blawgs are low in hype and high in relevant content, perhaps they may be a bit dull and boring to laymen who are forever looking for the thrill of bad news, catastrophes and that kind of thing, but it is consummately wrong to call blawgs "wastes of cyberspace". In fact, it is the law bloggers who - for better or worse - are leading the blog revolution, as e.g. InstaPundit and the Volokh Conspiracy demonstrate. Indeed, there are even blawgs, such as LawPundit, which link to blogs by Scots...
Hoping that I will still be welcome in Ayrshire ...
Friday, November 14, 2003--Andis Kaulins [11/14/2003 11:51:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
Eolas Patent to be Reviewed
Eolas Patent to be Reviewed
The Eolas Patent is to be reviewed by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
See the CNET article of November 11, 2003 by Paul Festa, Staff Writer, CNET News.com.
Eolas Patent 5,838,906 at the USPTO
One can access the record of this patent at the USPTO website by entering the Patent Nr. 5,838,906 in the appropriate search box which gives, inter alia, the following results:
Application Number - 08/324,443 Customer Number: -
Filing or 371(c) Date: 10-17-1994 Status: Patented Case
Application Type: Utility Status Date: 10-13-1998
Examiner Name: DINH, DUNG C Location: -
Group Art Unit: 2756 Location Date: 11-10-2003
Confirmation Number: 5163 Earliest Publication No: -
Attorney Docket Number: 02307553 Earliest Publication Date: -
Class/ Sub-Class: 395/200.32 Patent Number: 5,838,906
First Named Inventor: MICHAEL D. DOYLE, ALAMEDA, CA (US) Issue Date of Patent: 11-17-1998
Eolas Patent 5,838,906 at the USPTO - File History
File Contents History
Number Date Contents Description
57 11-05-2003 Application scanned in CRU and can be accessed by the REPS system in the Public Search Room
56 10-30-2003 Record a Petition Decision of Granted for Commissioner-Initiated Reexam Rroceeding [Note of LawPundit: This in part mistyped garbled text in a case of this importance does not inspire confidence in the USPTO]
55 10-30-2003 Petition Entered
54 02-23-2001 Termination of Official Search
53 02-23-2001 Case Found
52 02-23-2001 Official Search Conducted
51 02-23-2001 Case Reported Lost
50 11-17-1998 Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed
49 10-13-1998 Weekly Patent Issue Receipt
48 07-13-1998 Weekly Patent Issue Receipt
47 04-07-1998 Mailroom Date of Issue Fee Payment
46 06-11-1998 Drawing(s) Processing Completed
45 06-02-1998 Drawing(s) Matched to Application
44 05-06-1998 Application Received to Match Drawing(s)
43 04-15-1998 Power to Make Copies and/or Inspect
42 04-09-1998 Application Ordered to Match Drawing(s)
41 04-09-1998 Drawing(s) Received at Publications
40 04-07-1998 Mailroom Date of Drawing(s)
39 10-31-1997 Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
38 11-07-1994 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
37 03-30-1998 Mail Notice of Allowance
36 03-30-1998 Notice of Allowance Data Verification Completed
35 01-27-1998 Examiner Interview Summary Record (PTOL - 413)
34 03-30-1998 Notice of Allowability
33 03-02-1998 Notice of Appeal Filed
32 03-02-1998 Request for Extension of Time - Granted
31 01-22-1998 Date Forwarded to Examiner
30 12-29-1997 Amendment after Final Rejection
29 12-29-1997 Supplemental Papers - Oath or Declaration
28 12-29-1997 Request for Extension of Time - Granted
27 11-06-1997 Examiner Interview Summary Record (PTOL - 413)
26 11-06-1997 Examiner Interview Summary Record (PTOL - 413)
25 08-25-1997 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
24 08-22-1997 Final Rejection
23 06-19-1997 Date Forwarded to Examiner
22 06-05-1997 Response after Non-Final Action
21 03-26-1997 Mail Non-Final Rejection
20 03-21-1997 Non-Final Rejection
19 02-24-1997 Examiner Interview Summary Record (PTOL - 413)
18 02-20-1997 Date Forwarded to Examiner
17 02-19-1997 Amendment after Final Rejection
16 01-24-1997 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
15 01-23-1997 Final Rejection
14 01-08-1997 Date Forwarded to Examiner
13 01-08-1997 Amendment after Final Rejection
12 01-08-1997 Affidavit(s) (Rule 131 or 132) or Exhibit(s) Received
11 12-13-1996 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
10 12-12-1996 Final Rejection
9 10-09-1996 Date Forwarded to Examiner
8 08-09-1996 Response after Non-Final Action
7 05-06-1996 Mail Non-Final Rejection
6 05-03-1996 Non-Final Rejection
5 04-08-1996 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
4 03-24-1995 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
3 03-14-1995 Application Captured on Microfilm
2 12-30-1994 Application Is Now Complete
1 11-18-1994 Incomplete Application under Rule 53(b) - Filing Date Assigned
Eolas Patent 5,838,906 at the USPTO - Abstract
Clicking the button "Published Documents" at that same page gives, inter alia, the following text:
"United States Patent 5,838,906
Doyle , et al. November 17, 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document
Abstract [of the Patent]
A system allowing a user of a browser program on a computer connected to an open distributed hypermedia system to access and execute an embedded program object. The program object is embedded into a hypermedia document much like data objects. The user may select the program object from the screen. Once selected the program object executes on the user's (client) computer or may execute on a remote server or additional remote computers in a distributed processing arrangement. After launching the program object, the user is able to interact with the object as the invention provides for ongoing interprocess communication between the application object (program) and the browser program. One application of the embedded program object allows a user to view large and complex multi-dimensional objects from within the browser's window. The user can manipulate a control panel to change the viewpoint used to view the image. The invention allows a program to execute on a remote server or other computers to calculate the viewing transformations and send frame data to the client computer thus providing the user of the client computer with interactive features and allowing the user to have access to greater computing power than may be available at the user's client computer."
...
[Eolas Patent 5,838,906 at the USPTO - Summary of the Invention]
"SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention provides a method for running embedded program objects in a computer network environment. The method includes the steps of providing at least one client workstation and one network server coupled to the network environment where the network environment is a distributed hypermedia environment; displaying, on the client workstation, a portion of a hypermedia document received over the network from the server, where the hypermedia document includes an embedded controllable application; and interactively controlling the embedded controllable application from the client workstation via communication sent over the distributed hypermedia environment.
The present invention allows a user at a client computer connected to a network to locate, retrieve and manipulate objects in an interactive way. The invention not only allows the user to use a hypermedia format to locate and retrieve program objects, but also allows the user to interact with an application program located at a remote computer. Interprocess communication between the hypermedia browser and the embedded application program is ongoing after the program object has been launched. The user is able to use a vast amount of computing power beyond that which is contained in the user's client computer.
In one application, high resolution three dimensional images are processed in a distributed manner by several computers located remotely from the user's client computer. This amounts to providing parallel distributed processing for tasks such as volume rendering or three dimensional image transformation and display. Also, the user is able to rotate, scale and otherwise reposition the viewpoint with respect to these images without exiting the hypermedia browser software. The control and interaction of viewing the image may be provided within the same window that the browser is using assuming the environment is a "windowing" environment. The viewing transformation and volume rendering calculations may be performed by remote distributed computer systems.
Once an image representing a new viewpoint is computed the frame image is transmitted over the network to the user's client computer where it is displayed at a designated position within a hypermedia document. By transmitting only enough information to update the image, the need for a high bandwidth data connection is reduced. Compression can be used to further reduce the bandwidth requirements for data transmission.
Other applications of the invention are possible. For example, the user can operate a spreadsheet program that is being executed by one or more other computer systems connected via the network to the user's client computer. Once the spreadsheet program has calculated results, the results may be sent over the network to the user's client computer for display to the user. In this way, computer systems located remotely on the network can be used to provide the computing power that may be required for certain tasks and to reduce the data bandwidth by only transmitting results of the computations.
...
Table II, below, shows an example of an HTML tag format used by the present invention to embed a link to an application program within a hypermedia document.
TABLE II
______________________________________
"<"EMBED
TYPE = "type"
HREF = "href"
WIDTH = width
HEIGHT = height
">" [parentheses around the arrows added by LawPundit to disable this command in this posting]
______________________________________"
In any case, that gives an overview of the "invention". Were the patent laws intended to apply to these kinds of patent claims? Has anything really been "invented"? Or is this patent an anomalistic anachronism of outdated patent laws?
Further Citations to the Eolas Patent
Further citations to the Eolas patent are:
via moreover.com at InternetLawWeb, the USPTO decision to review the patent was reported by BeSpacific
E-Week "Eolas Remains Confident in Face of Patent Re-examination" by Matt Hicks, November 12, 2003
Electric News Net, "US Patent Office will review Eolas claim", by The Register, November 13, 2003
Seattle Times, " 'Outcry' from Internet community triggers rare patent review", by Jonathan Krim, The Washington Post
BizReport, "Patent Office Reviews Disputed Web Patent", November 13, 2003
SunSpot.net, "U.S. reconsiders 1998 patent critics say could hamper Web", November 14, 2003
CBSNews, "Internet Patent In Dispute", November 12, 2003
Eolas Patent to be Reviewed
Eolas Patent to be Reviewed
The Eolas Patent is to be reviewed by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
See the CNET article of November 11, 2003 by Paul Festa, Staff Writer, CNET News.com.
Eolas Patent 5,838,906 at the USPTO
One can access the record of this patent at the USPTO website by entering the Patent Nr. 5,838,906 in the appropriate search box which gives, inter alia, the following results:
Application Number - 08/324,443 Customer Number: -
Filing or 371(c) Date: 10-17-1994 Status: Patented Case
Application Type: Utility Status Date: 10-13-1998
Examiner Name: DINH, DUNG C Location: -
Group Art Unit: 2756 Location Date: 11-10-2003
Confirmation Number: 5163 Earliest Publication No: -
Attorney Docket Number: 02307553 Earliest Publication Date: -
Class/ Sub-Class: 395/200.32 Patent Number: 5,838,906
First Named Inventor: MICHAEL D. DOYLE, ALAMEDA, CA (US) Issue Date of Patent: 11-17-1998
Eolas Patent 5,838,906 at the USPTO - File History
File Contents History
Number Date Contents Description
57 11-05-2003 Application scanned in CRU and can be accessed by the REPS system in the Public Search Room
56 10-30-2003 Record a Petition Decision of Granted for Commissioner-Initiated Reexam Rroceeding [Note of LawPundit: This in part mistyped garbled text in a case of this importance does not inspire confidence in the USPTO]
55 10-30-2003 Petition Entered
54 02-23-2001 Termination of Official Search
53 02-23-2001 Case Found
52 02-23-2001 Official Search Conducted
51 02-23-2001 Case Reported Lost
50 11-17-1998 Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed
49 10-13-1998 Weekly Patent Issue Receipt
48 07-13-1998 Weekly Patent Issue Receipt
47 04-07-1998 Mailroom Date of Issue Fee Payment
46 06-11-1998 Drawing(s) Processing Completed
45 06-02-1998 Drawing(s) Matched to Application
44 05-06-1998 Application Received to Match Drawing(s)
43 04-15-1998 Power to Make Copies and/or Inspect
42 04-09-1998 Application Ordered to Match Drawing(s)
41 04-09-1998 Drawing(s) Received at Publications
40 04-07-1998 Mailroom Date of Drawing(s)
39 10-31-1997 Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
38 11-07-1994 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
37 03-30-1998 Mail Notice of Allowance
36 03-30-1998 Notice of Allowance Data Verification Completed
35 01-27-1998 Examiner Interview Summary Record (PTOL - 413)
34 03-30-1998 Notice of Allowability
33 03-02-1998 Notice of Appeal Filed
32 03-02-1998 Request for Extension of Time - Granted
31 01-22-1998 Date Forwarded to Examiner
30 12-29-1997 Amendment after Final Rejection
29 12-29-1997 Supplemental Papers - Oath or Declaration
28 12-29-1997 Request for Extension of Time - Granted
27 11-06-1997 Examiner Interview Summary Record (PTOL - 413)
26 11-06-1997 Examiner Interview Summary Record (PTOL - 413)
25 08-25-1997 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
24 08-22-1997 Final Rejection
23 06-19-1997 Date Forwarded to Examiner
22 06-05-1997 Response after Non-Final Action
21 03-26-1997 Mail Non-Final Rejection
20 03-21-1997 Non-Final Rejection
19 02-24-1997 Examiner Interview Summary Record (PTOL - 413)
18 02-20-1997 Date Forwarded to Examiner
17 02-19-1997 Amendment after Final Rejection
16 01-24-1997 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
15 01-23-1997 Final Rejection
14 01-08-1997 Date Forwarded to Examiner
13 01-08-1997 Amendment after Final Rejection
12 01-08-1997 Affidavit(s) (Rule 131 or 132) or Exhibit(s) Received
11 12-13-1996 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
10 12-12-1996 Final Rejection
9 10-09-1996 Date Forwarded to Examiner
8 08-09-1996 Response after Non-Final Action
7 05-06-1996 Mail Non-Final Rejection
6 05-03-1996 Non-Final Rejection
5 04-08-1996 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
4 03-24-1995 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
3 03-14-1995 Application Captured on Microfilm
2 12-30-1994 Application Is Now Complete
1 11-18-1994 Incomplete Application under Rule 53(b) - Filing Date Assigned
Eolas Patent 5,838,906 at the USPTO - Abstract
Clicking the button "Published Documents" at that same page gives, inter alia, the following text:
"United States Patent 5,838,906
Doyle , et al. November 17, 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document
Abstract [of the Patent]
A system allowing a user of a browser program on a computer connected to an open distributed hypermedia system to access and execute an embedded program object. The program object is embedded into a hypermedia document much like data objects. The user may select the program object from the screen. Once selected the program object executes on the user's (client) computer or may execute on a remote server or additional remote computers in a distributed processing arrangement. After launching the program object, the user is able to interact with the object as the invention provides for ongoing interprocess communication between the application object (program) and the browser program. One application of the embedded program object allows a user to view large and complex multi-dimensional objects from within the browser's window. The user can manipulate a control panel to change the viewpoint used to view the image. The invention allows a program to execute on a remote server or other computers to calculate the viewing transformations and send frame data to the client computer thus providing the user of the client computer with interactive features and allowing the user to have access to greater computing power than may be available at the user's client computer."
...
[Eolas Patent 5,838,906 at the USPTO - Summary of the Invention]
"SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention provides a method for running embedded program objects in a computer network environment. The method includes the steps of providing at least one client workstation and one network server coupled to the network environment where the network environment is a distributed hypermedia environment; displaying, on the client workstation, a portion of a hypermedia document received over the network from the server, where the hypermedia document includes an embedded controllable application; and interactively controlling the embedded controllable application from the client workstation via communication sent over the distributed hypermedia environment.
The present invention allows a user at a client computer connected to a network to locate, retrieve and manipulate objects in an interactive way. The invention not only allows the user to use a hypermedia format to locate and retrieve program objects, but also allows the user to interact with an application program located at a remote computer. Interprocess communication between the hypermedia browser and the embedded application program is ongoing after the program object has been launched. The user is able to use a vast amount of computing power beyond that which is contained in the user's client computer.
In one application, high resolution three dimensional images are processed in a distributed manner by several computers located remotely from the user's client computer. This amounts to providing parallel distributed processing for tasks such as volume rendering or three dimensional image transformation and display. Also, the user is able to rotate, scale and otherwise reposition the viewpoint with respect to these images without exiting the hypermedia browser software. The control and interaction of viewing the image may be provided within the same window that the browser is using assuming the environment is a "windowing" environment. The viewing transformation and volume rendering calculations may be performed by remote distributed computer systems.
Once an image representing a new viewpoint is computed the frame image is transmitted over the network to the user's client computer where it is displayed at a designated position within a hypermedia document. By transmitting only enough information to update the image, the need for a high bandwidth data connection is reduced. Compression can be used to further reduce the bandwidth requirements for data transmission.
Other applications of the invention are possible. For example, the user can operate a spreadsheet program that is being executed by one or more other computer systems connected via the network to the user's client computer. Once the spreadsheet program has calculated results, the results may be sent over the network to the user's client computer for display to the user. In this way, computer systems located remotely on the network can be used to provide the computing power that may be required for certain tasks and to reduce the data bandwidth by only transmitting results of the computations.
...
Table II, below, shows an example of an HTML tag format used by the present invention to embed a link to an application program within a hypermedia document.
TABLE II
______________________________________
"<"EMBED
TYPE = "type"
HREF = "href"
WIDTH = width
HEIGHT = height
">" [parentheses around the arrows added by LawPundit to disable this command in this posting]
______________________________________"
In any case, that gives an overview of the "invention". Were the patent laws intended to apply to these kinds of patent claims? Has anything really been "invented"? Or is this patent an anomalistic anachronism of outdated patent laws?
Further Citations to the Eolas Patent
Further citations to the Eolas patent are:
via moreover.com at InternetLawWeb, the USPTO decision to review the patent was reported by BeSpacific
E-Week "Eolas Remains Confident in Face of Patent Re-examination" by Matt Hicks, November 12, 2003
Electric News Net, "US Patent Office will review Eolas claim", by The Register, November 13, 2003
Seattle Times, " 'Outcry' from Internet community triggers rare patent review", by Jonathan Krim, The Washington Post
BizReport, "Patent Office Reviews Disputed Web Patent", November 13, 2003
SunSpot.net, "U.S. reconsiders 1998 patent critics say could hamper Web", November 14, 2003
CBSNews, "Internet Patent In Dispute", November 12, 2003