Blog Feed
Twitter
LAW PUNDIT Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11/29/2005 11:10:00 AM [Home]
[Print]
Germany under "Angie" Merkel - What to Expect
Germany suffered tremendously under past German Chancellor Schröder's inept administration. Schröder's anti-capitalist and anti-Anglo-Saxon foreign policy led not only to a greatly diminished significance of Germany on the international scene but also severely damaged the German economy. Schröder's relationship to the European Commission was also icy.
Schroeder made many enemies, and few allies. German-American relations are at an all time low and German unemployment is at an all time high. Schröder's flawed policies are contributorily responsible for these - closely related - developments. We can think of nothing that is better in Germany due to the Red/Green Schroeder era - quite the contrary, everything is worse. "Goodbye Schröder" is great news.
His replacement is new German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the first female Chancellor in German history, who takes office supported by an emergency "grand coalition" of Germany's two largest political parties, the conservative CDU/CSU and the socialist SPD.
Whereas Schroeder was a man who possessed many of the talents necessary to be elected Chancellor and almost none of the talents required to actually be Chancellor effectively, Merkel is nearly the exact opposite. Schröder was what the Germans call a "Blender" (all show but no go, i.e. someone who "blinds" to the realities), whereas Merkel is definitely more understatement. However, she probably possesses the leadership qualities necessary to exercise her office with great competence, which Schröder did not. That at least is our assessment of her qualifications. But she is not and can not be a German Maggie Thatcher (read Clay Risen at Slate for a superb background article). Her impact will be strong, but different.
Wolfgang Munchau of the Free Republic, November 21, 2005, has perspicaciously analyzed recent developments under the title "Schröder's legacy will haunt Merkel".
We are not as pessimistic as Munchau, who writes that Merkel may not make a big difference. Rather, we see signs of dynamic change in the offing for Germany.
As reported by Dan Bilefsky and Judy Dempsey in the November 24, 2005, International Herald Tribune, Merkel made two initial visits in her first 24 hours as Chancellor, to Paris and to Brussels. Her visit to Paris was made to emphasize the necessity of pragmatic German-French relations in Europe. On her visit to Brussels, her first stop was NATO headquarters, where Merkel assured NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer that German foreign policy would again be based on a firm transatlantic relationship, a transatlantic relationship nearly destroyed by Schröder.
Merkel then visited the European Parliament to be greeted by hundreds shouting "Angie". Thereafter she went to the offices of Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium and afterwards talked with José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, surely attempting to mend fences. As Munchau writes:
"Domestic [German] politicians such as Mr Schröder have often portrayed the European Commission as an institution infested with Anglo-Saxon libertarian zealots who are out to destroy German industry."
Under Merkel, it is quite clear that German relations to the powerful European Commission will be normalized. The IHT quotes Merkel as reaffirming her position that Europe must focus on economic reform:
"so that in a globalized world we can keep up and be competitive."
Merkel also called on the EU to revive the EU Constitution.
As for French-German relations, Chirac is quoted as saying that "Europe is a bit like a car with a broken part".
The IHT writes on the Franco-German relationship:
"Merkel's advisers said the relationship between Berlin and Paris was no longer serving the interests of European integration and instead was becoming a relic of historical reminiscences and symbols."
In this regard, Karl-Heinz Kamp of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation is quoted as saying that:
"Merkel is not into symbols for the sake of symbols that characterized the Franco-German relationship. She wants it to be based on the issues."
A Chancellor who bases her policy on the issues is going to be successful. That is what successful leadership is all about - because leaders set the direction of movement. If the direction is correct, success will inevitably follow.
Clay Risen at Slate quotes Götz Aly at the online Opinion Journal of the Wall Street Journal:
"If Angela Merkel succeeds … the Federal Republic should see changes more radical than any since 1949."
Germany must change significantly to meet the demands of the modern age and that change can only be initiated at the top.
As Aly writes:
"A state that spends 48% of its budget on social-welfare entitlements and 14% on interest payments on a growing mountain of debt, and can only invest 11% in modernizing infrastructure, has long since lost its ability to act. It is bankrupt. Any company that behaved this way would rightly be liable for fraudulent avoidance of bankruptcy under German law. An economy that requires at least half the hourly wage to be paid over to the government in the form of taxes and entitlements, and on top of that significant consumer and corporate taxes, is no longer competitive."
Now we can put the previous quoted sentence into perspective as Aly writes further:
"If Angela Merkel succeeds in winning office at the September elections and, against great resistance in her own party, in remaining true to herself, the Federal Republic should see changes more radical than any since 1949. As a physicist, she knows that the relationship between cause and effect cannot be simply wished away. Her most formative experiences came during communist East Germany's collapse. She has seen what happens when a country uses up its material basis, when it sinks into social and national stagnation while a regime of lies plays on, like the band on the Titanic. Most influential German politicians spent their youth, student years and early careers in the fat boom years of the old republic on the Rhine. Ms. Merkel likes to tell them, even those in her own [very conservative] party, "You have no idea how socialist you are.""
In the end, the most socialistic position is still "survival for everyone". To achieve that end, Germany will have to change and we think it will change significantly, even though Merkel must function in a coalition government with the normally opposition socialists. The fact that the socialists have entered into this coalition at all clearly evidences their "will for survival". If that same will for survival is applied to the Germany which they lead, then their policies must also change.
That is why we think that significant reforms will now be made under the Merkel administration, coalition government notwithstanding.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/29/2005 11:10:00 AM
Germany under "Angie" Merkel - What to Expect
Germany suffered tremendously under past German Chancellor Schröder's inept administration. Schröder's anti-capitalist and anti-Anglo-Saxon foreign policy led not only to a greatly diminished significance of Germany on the international scene but also severely damaged the German economy. Schröder's relationship to the European Commission was also icy.
Schroeder made many enemies, and few allies. German-American relations are at an all time low and German unemployment is at an all time high. Schröder's flawed policies are contributorily responsible for these - closely related - developments. We can think of nothing that is better in Germany due to the Red/Green Schroeder era - quite the contrary, everything is worse. "Goodbye Schröder" is great news.
His replacement is new German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the first female Chancellor in German history, who takes office supported by an emergency "grand coalition" of Germany's two largest political parties, the conservative CDU/CSU and the socialist SPD.
Whereas Schroeder was a man who possessed many of the talents necessary to be elected Chancellor and almost none of the talents required to actually be Chancellor effectively, Merkel is nearly the exact opposite. Schröder was what the Germans call a "Blender" (all show but no go, i.e. someone who "blinds" to the realities), whereas Merkel is definitely more understatement. However, she probably possesses the leadership qualities necessary to exercise her office with great competence, which Schröder did not. That at least is our assessment of her qualifications. But she is not and can not be a German Maggie Thatcher (read Clay Risen at Slate for a superb background article). Her impact will be strong, but different.
Wolfgang Munchau of the Free Republic, November 21, 2005, has perspicaciously analyzed recent developments under the title "Schröder's legacy will haunt Merkel".
We are not as pessimistic as Munchau, who writes that Merkel may not make a big difference. Rather, we see signs of dynamic change in the offing for Germany.
As reported by Dan Bilefsky and Judy Dempsey in the November 24, 2005, International Herald Tribune, Merkel made two initial visits in her first 24 hours as Chancellor, to Paris and to Brussels. Her visit to Paris was made to emphasize the necessity of pragmatic German-French relations in Europe. On her visit to Brussels, her first stop was NATO headquarters, where Merkel assured NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer that German foreign policy would again be based on a firm transatlantic relationship, a transatlantic relationship nearly destroyed by Schröder.
Merkel then visited the European Parliament to be greeted by hundreds shouting "Angie". Thereafter she went to the offices of Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium and afterwards talked with José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, surely attempting to mend fences. As Munchau writes:
"Domestic [German] politicians such as Mr Schröder have often portrayed the European Commission as an institution infested with Anglo-Saxon libertarian zealots who are out to destroy German industry."
Under Merkel, it is quite clear that German relations to the powerful European Commission will be normalized. The IHT quotes Merkel as reaffirming her position that Europe must focus on economic reform:
"so that in a globalized world we can keep up and be competitive."
Merkel also called on the EU to revive the EU Constitution.
As for French-German relations, Chirac is quoted as saying that "Europe is a bit like a car with a broken part".
The IHT writes on the Franco-German relationship:
"Merkel's advisers said the relationship between Berlin and Paris was no longer serving the interests of European integration and instead was becoming a relic of historical reminiscences and symbols."
In this regard, Karl-Heinz Kamp of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation is quoted as saying that:
"Merkel is not into symbols for the sake of symbols that characterized the Franco-German relationship. She wants it to be based on the issues."
A Chancellor who bases her policy on the issues is going to be successful. That is what successful leadership is all about - because leaders set the direction of movement. If the direction is correct, success will inevitably follow.
Clay Risen at Slate quotes Götz Aly at the online Opinion Journal of the Wall Street Journal:
"If Angela Merkel succeeds … the Federal Republic should see changes more radical than any since 1949."
Germany must change significantly to meet the demands of the modern age and that change can only be initiated at the top.
As Aly writes:
"A state that spends 48% of its budget on social-welfare entitlements and 14% on interest payments on a growing mountain of debt, and can only invest 11% in modernizing infrastructure, has long since lost its ability to act. It is bankrupt. Any company that behaved this way would rightly be liable for fraudulent avoidance of bankruptcy under German law. An economy that requires at least half the hourly wage to be paid over to the government in the form of taxes and entitlements, and on top of that significant consumer and corporate taxes, is no longer competitive."
Now we can put the previous quoted sentence into perspective as Aly writes further:
"If Angela Merkel succeeds in winning office at the September elections and, against great resistance in her own party, in remaining true to herself, the Federal Republic should see changes more radical than any since 1949. As a physicist, she knows that the relationship between cause and effect cannot be simply wished away. Her most formative experiences came during communist East Germany's collapse. She has seen what happens when a country uses up its material basis, when it sinks into social and national stagnation while a regime of lies plays on, like the band on the Titanic. Most influential German politicians spent their youth, student years and early careers in the fat boom years of the old republic on the Rhine. Ms. Merkel likes to tell them, even those in her own [very conservative] party, "You have no idea how socialist you are.""
In the end, the most socialistic position is still "survival for everyone". To achieve that end, Germany will have to change and we think it will change significantly, even though Merkel must function in a coalition government with the normally opposition socialists. The fact that the socialists have entered into this coalition at all clearly evidences their "will for survival". If that same will for survival is applied to the Germany which they lead, then their policies must also change.
That is why we think that significant reforms will now be made under the Merkel administration, coalition government notwithstanding.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/29/2005 11:10:00 AM
LAW PUNDIT Sunday, November 27, 2005 11/27/2005 02:40:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
Businesses Doing Business in the EU Should Get .EU Domains
We posted previously on the fact that launch dates for .eu domains have been announced and that EURid will be the domain registry (see the EURid site here). As a technical matter for IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority of ICANN), the .eu domain is listed there as the equivalent of a country-code TLD (ccTLD).
As written by the EU Commission:
"Why have a .eu Top Level Domain?
The .eu TLD will be a new Top level Domain, introduced for use by individuals, organisations and companies in the European Union. It will not replace the existing national ccTLDs in the EU, but will complement them and give users the additional option of having a pan-European Internet identity for their web sites and e-mail addresses.
"The EU is one of the biggest users of the Internet in the world and the introduction of a .eu TLD will create even more opportunities to exploit this exciting technology."
Struan Robertson, Editor of OUT-LAW.COM, has an insightful article on "Why you should register a .eu domain name" even if your organization already has the domain it wants as a generic TLD (.com, .net, .org) or as a country-coded top level domain in Europe. The country codes for the current 25 EU Member States are:
.at - Austria
.be - Belgium
.cy - Cyprus
.cz - Czech Republic
.de - Germany (.de is for Deutschland)
.dk - Denmark
.ee - Estonia (.ee because .es was already assigned to Spain)
.es - Spain ( .es because of Spanish España = Spain)
.fi - Finland
.fr - France
.gr - Greece
.hu - Hungary
.ie - Ireland
.it - Italy
.lt - Lithuania
.lu - Luxembourg
.lv - Latvia
.mt - Malta
.nl - The Netherlands
.pl - Poland
.pt - Portugal
.se - Sweden
.si - Slovenia (this is .SI and not .SL, because .sl was assigned to Sierra Leone)
.sk - Slovak Republic
.uk - United Kingdom (.gb is also reserved by IANA but not used)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 provides:
"Candidate countries that are not due to join the European Union in May 2004 and member countries of the European Economic Area that are not Member States may request that their official name and the name under which they are commonly known in their own language and in any of the official languages as from May 2004 shall not be registered directly under the .eu TLD. To that end, those countries may send the Commission, within two months following entry into force of this Regulation, a list of those names which are not to be registered."
The EEA countries and their country codes are:
.is - Iceland
.no - Norway
.li - Liechtenstein
The EU Candidate Countries are:
Acceding Countries
.bg - Bulgaria
.ro - Romania
Candidate Countries
.tr - Turkey
.hr - Croatia (Hrvatska)
Potential Candidate Countries
.al - Albania
.ba - Bosnia and Herzegovina
.mk - The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
.cs - Serbia and Montenegro
?? - Kosovo under UN Security Council Resolution 1244
Applicable to all registrations by all countries is the following provision regarding the country codes:
"Alpha-2 codes representing countries shall not be used to register domain names directly under the .eu TLD."
There is no question that the introduction of the .eu top level domain will diminish the importance of the European country codes in the long term, although the short-term impact may be less pronounced, because many of the country coded websites are tied to language differences. However, multilingual sites now resident at the country-coded pages will most certainly ultimately migrate to the .eu domain, leaving the country-code pages in only the language of origin of the website. A good example here would be the many travel sites. Someone looking for city information in English concerning a European city will almost certainly gravitate toward .eu domains rather than to the country-code websites. One country that is bound to suffer under this system in the long term is Switzerland, which is neither an EU Member State nor a member of EEA, nor is it an EU candidate. (Switzerland [Confoederatio Helvetica, whence the "ch"] has .ch as its ccTLD).
Robertson states clearly that the main reason to register .eu domains now is to save money and avoid trouble down the road.
Organizations which do not get .eu domains now may find that someone else will take the respective .eu domain names. Later, this may involve legal squabbles and arbitration, events which are guaranteed to be extremely expensive.
It would thus seem to be much simpler and cheaper to just register the appropriate .eu domains.
As written by the EU Commission:
"How much will it cost?
The basic fee for the registration of a domain name during the first year will be of €10. However, applications have to be filed through registrars that will add their own costs to that fee. Different registrars may offer different services. Prices thus vary."
This assumes of course that one is entitled to register an .eu domain in the first place, which is explained here. Essentially, if your organization does not have a business in the European Union, then you are not entitled to register an .eu domain unless you are an EU resident.
Some useful Links are:
The EU Regulations for the .eu top level domain
and also Public Policy Rules (PPR) for .eu
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/27/2005 02:40:00 PM
Businesses Doing Business in the EU Should Get .EU Domains
We posted previously on the fact that launch dates for .eu domains have been announced and that EURid will be the domain registry (see the EURid site here). As a technical matter for IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority of ICANN), the .eu domain is listed there as the equivalent of a country-code TLD (ccTLD).
As written by the EU Commission:
"Why have a .eu Top Level Domain?
The .eu TLD will be a new Top level Domain, introduced for use by individuals, organisations and companies in the European Union. It will not replace the existing national ccTLDs in the EU, but will complement them and give users the additional option of having a pan-European Internet identity for their web sites and e-mail addresses.
"The EU is one of the biggest users of the Internet in the world and the introduction of a .eu TLD will create even more opportunities to exploit this exciting technology."
Struan Robertson, Editor of OUT-LAW.COM, has an insightful article on "Why you should register a .eu domain name" even if your organization already has the domain it wants as a generic TLD (.com, .net, .org) or as a country-coded top level domain in Europe. The country codes for the current 25 EU Member States are:
.at - Austria
.be - Belgium
.cy - Cyprus
.cz - Czech Republic
.de - Germany (.de is for Deutschland)
.dk - Denmark
.ee - Estonia (.ee because .es was already assigned to Spain)
.es - Spain ( .es because of Spanish España = Spain)
.fi - Finland
.fr - France
.gr - Greece
.hu - Hungary
.ie - Ireland
.it - Italy
.lt - Lithuania
.lu - Luxembourg
.lv - Latvia
.mt - Malta
.nl - The Netherlands
.pl - Poland
.pt - Portugal
.se - Sweden
.si - Slovenia (this is .SI and not .SL, because .sl was assigned to Sierra Leone)
.sk - Slovak Republic
.uk - United Kingdom (.gb is also reserved by IANA but not used)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 provides:
"Candidate countries that are not due to join the European Union in May 2004 and member countries of the European Economic Area that are not Member States may request that their official name and the name under which they are commonly known in their own language and in any of the official languages as from May 2004 shall not be registered directly under the .eu TLD. To that end, those countries may send the Commission, within two months following entry into force of this Regulation, a list of those names which are not to be registered."
The EEA countries and their country codes are:
.is - Iceland
.no - Norway
.li - Liechtenstein
The EU Candidate Countries are:
Acceding Countries
.bg - Bulgaria
.ro - Romania
Candidate Countries
.tr - Turkey
.hr - Croatia (Hrvatska)
Potential Candidate Countries
.al - Albania
.ba - Bosnia and Herzegovina
.mk - The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
.cs - Serbia and Montenegro
?? - Kosovo under UN Security Council Resolution 1244
Applicable to all registrations by all countries is the following provision regarding the country codes:
"Alpha-2 codes representing countries shall not be used to register domain names directly under the .eu TLD."
There is no question that the introduction of the .eu top level domain will diminish the importance of the European country codes in the long term, although the short-term impact may be less pronounced, because many of the country coded websites are tied to language differences. However, multilingual sites now resident at the country-coded pages will most certainly ultimately migrate to the .eu domain, leaving the country-code pages in only the language of origin of the website. A good example here would be the many travel sites. Someone looking for city information in English concerning a European city will almost certainly gravitate toward .eu domains rather than to the country-code websites. One country that is bound to suffer under this system in the long term is Switzerland, which is neither an EU Member State nor a member of EEA, nor is it an EU candidate. (Switzerland [Confoederatio Helvetica, whence the "ch"] has .ch as its ccTLD).
Robertson states clearly that the main reason to register .eu domains now is to save money and avoid trouble down the road.
Organizations which do not get .eu domains now may find that someone else will take the respective .eu domain names. Later, this may involve legal squabbles and arbitration, events which are guaranteed to be extremely expensive.
It would thus seem to be much simpler and cheaper to just register the appropriate .eu domains.
As written by the EU Commission:
"How much will it cost?
The basic fee for the registration of a domain name during the first year will be of €10. However, applications have to be filed through registrars that will add their own costs to that fee. Different registrars may offer different services. Prices thus vary."
This assumes of course that one is entitled to register an .eu domain in the first place, which is explained here. Essentially, if your organization does not have a business in the European Union, then you are not entitled to register an .eu domain unless you are an EU resident.
Some useful Links are:
The EU Regulations for the .eu top level domain
and also Public Policy Rules (PPR) for .eu
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/27/2005 02:40:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT Thursday, November 24, 2005 11/24/2005 12:46:00 AM [Home]
[Print]
Google Book Search replaces Google Print
Google has changed the name of Google Print to Google Book Search and in this connection TVC Alert (hat tip) has a link to Charles W. Bailey Jr. and his Digital Works, which include his blog Digital Koans at which he has a useful posting entitled "The Google Print Controversy: A Bibliography".
We see that Google Book Search has us listed here.
That listing is a good example of what Google Book Search is all about, providing essential information about a book which I have co-authored, the German Dictionary of Business, Commerce and Finance / Worterbuch fur Wirtschaft, Handel und Finanzen and opening that book's content to a wider audience without in any way harming the copyright holders.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/24/2005 12:46:00 AM
Google Book Search replaces Google Print
Google has changed the name of Google Print to Google Book Search and in this connection TVC Alert (hat tip) has a link to Charles W. Bailey Jr. and his Digital Works, which include his blog Digital Koans at which he has a useful posting entitled "The Google Print Controversy: A Bibliography".
We see that Google Book Search has us listed here.
That listing is a good example of what Google Book Search is all about, providing essential information about a book which I have co-authored, the German Dictionary of Business, Commerce and Finance / Worterbuch fur Wirtschaft, Handel und Finanzen and opening that book's content to a wider audience without in any way harming the copyright holders.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/24/2005 12:46:00 AM
LAW PUNDIT Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11/23/2005 10:46:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
Launch Dates for .EU Domains Announced - First Phase Starts December 7, 2005
If your company or organization does business in Europe, this may be important.
The launch dates for the newly established European .eu top level domain pursuant to European Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 have been announced by EURid, the European Registry of Internet Domain Names. FAQs are available in English (en), German (de), Spanish (es), French (fr) and Italian (it).
Who is eligible for an .eu domain?
Eligible for an .eu domain according to Article 4(2)(b) EC Regulation 733/2002 is any:
"(i) undertaking having its registered office, central administration
or principal place of business within the
[European] Community, or
(ii) organisation established within the [European] Community
without prejudice to the application of national law, or
(iii) natural person resident within the [European] Community...."
This announcement is especially important for established persons, companies or organizations who already have "prior rights" to certain names and want to take advantage of early .eu domain registration in the Phase I and II Sunrise periods, as explained below.
Prior rights entitle early .eu domain registration.
THE PRIOR "SUNRISE-ENTITLED" RIGHTS ARE:
1. trade marks registered in the EU (e.g. Coca-Cola, Sony, Windows, ThinkPad, iPod, Pentium, Ferrari, etc.) Here is an IBM "Legal Information for the ThinkPad" to show some trademark coverage, just in connection with the ThinkPad:
"IBM, the IBM logo, EasyServ, HelpCenter, OS/2, ServicePac, ThinkLight, ThinkPad, ThinkPad Proven, the ThinkPad Proven logo, TrackPoint, Ultrabay, UM Services, Update Connector, WorkPad and the WorkPad Proven logo are trademarks of IBM Corporation in the US and other countries. Bluetooth is a trademark owned by Bluetooth SIG, Inc. and licensed to IBM. Intel and Pentium are registered trademarks and SpeedStep is a trademark of Intel Corporation. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. Lotus and SmartSuite are registered trademarks of Lotus Development Corporation. Microsoft, Windows, Windows NT and the Microsoft logo are trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. Other company, product and service names may be trademarks or service marks of others."
2. geographical indications or designations of origin in the EU (e.g. Champagne, Roquefort cheese)
3. unregistered trademarks used in the EU (e.g. LawPundit, EUPundit)
4. trade names in the EU (e.g. "John Doe's Printing Company" [non-existent at Google 23/11/2005], "your company name")
5. business identifiers in the EU (e.g. Ronald McDonald (McDonald's), Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck (Walt Disney Company); WIPO writes on business identifiers:
"Business identifiers” are signs which identify businesses as such, and not the products or services offered by the business, the latter feature constituting a pure trademark function. Signs that may constitute business identifiers are, for example, trade names, business symbols, emblems or logos. Some confusion as regards the functions of marks and business identifiers stems from the fact that, sometimes, the name of a company, i.e., its business identifier, is identical with one of the company’s trademarks."
6. company names in the EU (General Motors, General Electric, Microsoft Corporation, Intel, IBM, Google, Yahoo, etc.)
7. distinctive titles of protected literary or artistic works in the EU (e.g. the Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling, Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, Star Wars, Indiana Jones)
It is absolutely NOT POSSIBLE to get pre-validation advice about a domain name from the registration validation company (PWC, see below) so do not waste your or anyone else's time trying to get such advice from them. Rather, for Phases I and II below, one must FIRST submit a domain registration claiming the "prior right" to a name together with the documentation required and then let the validation process take its course. See in this regard the EURid pages linked below as well as the Public Policy Rules in EC Regulation 874/2004.
The .EU domain registrations will proceed in three phases:
SUNRISE PERIOD - PHASE I - starts December 7, 2005
SUNRISE PERIOD - PHASE II - starts February 7, 2006
LAND RUSH PERIOD - starts April 7, 2006 - .EU domain registration is open to everyone
Registrations in Phases I and II are for persons or organizations which claim a prior right to a name (e.g. trademarks (trade marks), company names, etc.). Registration during Phases I and II will require documentation of any claim made and that documentation validation will be carried out by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC).
When can one register an .eu domain? (see detailed instruction here on Launch):
Phase of Registration is Dependent on the Type of Prior Right Which Can be Documented
Phase 1 & 2 - Registered National and Community Trade Marks
Phase 1& 2 - Geographical Indications or Designations of Origin
Phase 2 - Unregistered Trade Marks
Phase 2 - Trade Names
Phase 2 - Business identifiers
Phase 2 - Company Names
Phase 2 - Distinctive Titles of Protected Literary and Artistic Works
Land Rush - Everybody else can register a domain
In the event of conflict between two or more registrants who have legitimate "prior right" claims to a name (Omega Watches and Omega Engineering, Inc. e. g. could in our view both claim the omega.eu domain), the domains will be registered on a first-come, first-served basis.
Please note that EURid is the REGISTRY for .eu domain names but they do NOT do the registering of domains. This is done only by ACCREDITED REGISTRARS, a list of which is HERE.
Technorati Tags:
EURID, EURid, eurid,EU domain, EU domains, EU, Europe, European Union, eu, .eu, .EU, eu domain, eu domains, sunrise period, trade marks, prior rights, trade names, company names, business identifiers, PWC, European Commission.
Crossposted to EU Pundit.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/23/2005 10:46:00 PM
Launch Dates for .EU Domains Announced - First Phase Starts December 7, 2005
If your company or organization does business in Europe, this may be important.
The launch dates for the newly established European .eu top level domain pursuant to European Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 have been announced by EURid, the European Registry of Internet Domain Names. FAQs are available in English (en), German (de), Spanish (es), French (fr) and Italian (it).
Who is eligible for an .eu domain?
Eligible for an .eu domain according to Article 4(2)(b) EC Regulation 733/2002 is any:
"(i) undertaking having its registered office, central administration
or principal place of business within the
[European] Community, or
(ii) organisation established within the [European] Community
without prejudice to the application of national law, or
(iii) natural person resident within the [European] Community...."
This announcement is especially important for established persons, companies or organizations who already have "prior rights" to certain names and want to take advantage of early .eu domain registration in the Phase I and II Sunrise periods, as explained below.
Prior rights entitle early .eu domain registration.
THE PRIOR "SUNRISE-ENTITLED" RIGHTS ARE:
1. trade marks registered in the EU (e.g. Coca-Cola, Sony, Windows, ThinkPad, iPod, Pentium, Ferrari, etc.) Here is an IBM "Legal Information for the ThinkPad" to show some trademark coverage, just in connection with the ThinkPad:
"IBM, the IBM logo, EasyServ, HelpCenter, OS/2, ServicePac, ThinkLight, ThinkPad, ThinkPad Proven, the ThinkPad Proven logo, TrackPoint, Ultrabay, UM Services, Update Connector, WorkPad and the WorkPad Proven logo are trademarks of IBM Corporation in the US and other countries. Bluetooth is a trademark owned by Bluetooth SIG, Inc. and licensed to IBM. Intel and Pentium are registered trademarks and SpeedStep is a trademark of Intel Corporation. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. Lotus and SmartSuite are registered trademarks of Lotus Development Corporation. Microsoft, Windows, Windows NT and the Microsoft logo are trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. Other company, product and service names may be trademarks or service marks of others."
2. geographical indications or designations of origin in the EU (e.g. Champagne, Roquefort cheese)
3. unregistered trademarks used in the EU (e.g. LawPundit, EUPundit)
4. trade names in the EU (e.g. "John Doe's Printing Company" [non-existent at Google 23/11/2005], "your company name")
5. business identifiers in the EU (e.g. Ronald McDonald (McDonald's), Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck (Walt Disney Company); WIPO writes on business identifiers:
"Business identifiers” are signs which identify businesses as such, and not the products or services offered by the business, the latter feature constituting a pure trademark function. Signs that may constitute business identifiers are, for example, trade names, business symbols, emblems or logos. Some confusion as regards the functions of marks and business identifiers stems from the fact that, sometimes, the name of a company, i.e., its business identifier, is identical with one of the company’s trademarks."
6. company names in the EU (General Motors, General Electric, Microsoft Corporation, Intel, IBM, Google, Yahoo, etc.)
7. distinctive titles of protected literary or artistic works in the EU (e.g. the Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling, Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, Star Wars, Indiana Jones)
It is absolutely NOT POSSIBLE to get pre-validation advice about a domain name from the registration validation company (PWC, see below) so do not waste your or anyone else's time trying to get such advice from them. Rather, for Phases I and II below, one must FIRST submit a domain registration claiming the "prior right" to a name together with the documentation required and then let the validation process take its course. See in this regard the EURid pages linked below as well as the Public Policy Rules in EC Regulation 874/2004.
The .EU domain registrations will proceed in three phases:
SUNRISE PERIOD - PHASE I - starts December 7, 2005
SUNRISE PERIOD - PHASE II - starts February 7, 2006
LAND RUSH PERIOD - starts April 7, 2006 - .EU domain registration is open to everyone
Registrations in Phases I and II are for persons or organizations which claim a prior right to a name (e.g. trademarks (trade marks), company names, etc.). Registration during Phases I and II will require documentation of any claim made and that documentation validation will be carried out by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC).
When can one register an .eu domain? (see detailed instruction here on Launch):
Phase of Registration is Dependent on the Type of Prior Right Which Can be Documented
Phase 1 & 2 - Registered National and Community Trade Marks
Phase 1& 2 - Geographical Indications or Designations of Origin
Phase 2 - Unregistered Trade Marks
Phase 2 - Trade Names
Phase 2 - Business identifiers
Phase 2 - Company Names
Phase 2 - Distinctive Titles of Protected Literary and Artistic Works
Land Rush - Everybody else can register a domain
In the event of conflict between two or more registrants who have legitimate "prior right" claims to a name (Omega Watches and Omega Engineering, Inc. e. g. could in our view both claim the omega.eu domain), the domains will be registered on a first-come, first-served basis.
Please note that EURid is the REGISTRY for .eu domain names but they do NOT do the registering of domains. This is done only by ACCREDITED REGISTRARS, a list of which is HERE.
Technorati Tags:
EURID, EURid, eurid,EU domain, EU domains, EU, Europe, European Union, eu, .eu, .EU, eu domain, eu domains, sunrise period, trade marks, prior rights, trade names, company names, business identifiers, PWC, European Commission.
Crossposted to EU Pundit.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/23/2005 10:46:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT Thursday, November 17, 2005 11/17/2005 04:05:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
US Stays in Charge of the Internet Root System
Who says there is no good news?
As reported by the BBC in US retains hold of the internet:
"In an eleventh-hour agreement ahead of a UN internet summit in Tunis, Tunisia, negotiators agreed to leave the US in charge of the net's addressing system....
Disagreements over control of the internet had threatened to overshadow the [WSIS - World Summit on the Information Society] , with countries such as China and Iran pushing for an international body under UN auspices to oversee the net.
The US had stood firm against this, arguing that it would stifle technological advance and increase censorship of the internet by undemocratic regimes."
Right on all counts. In spite of criticism of the USA from many quarters on many issues, the fact is that no other country in the world today could be as well trusted as the USA for technical internet governance. Just imagine some of the other countries in the world being in charge - that would be the end of the World Wide Web.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/17/2005 04:05:00 PM
US Stays in Charge of the Internet Root System
Who says there is no good news?
As reported by the BBC in US retains hold of the internet:
"In an eleventh-hour agreement ahead of a UN internet summit in Tunis, Tunisia, negotiators agreed to leave the US in charge of the net's addressing system....
Disagreements over control of the internet had threatened to overshadow the [WSIS - World Summit on the Information Society] , with countries such as China and Iran pushing for an international body under UN auspices to oversee the net.
The US had stood firm against this, arguing that it would stifle technological advance and increase censorship of the internet by undemocratic regimes."
Right on all counts. In spite of criticism of the USA from many quarters on many issues, the fact is that no other country in the world today could be as well trusted as the USA for technical internet governance. Just imagine some of the other countries in the world being in charge - that would be the end of the World Wide Web.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/17/2005 04:05:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT 11/17/2005 03:20:00 AM [Home]
[Print]
Whats Running - The Better Task Manager
We do not want to give away all of our technological secrets, but another small, free and simple software program that we have installed is called Whats Running, and it is the better Task Manager, not only giving a more comprehensive view of what is running on a user's computer, but also permitting the user to shut down memory-hogging running processes which are not required. Caveat emptor: you have to know what you are doing to use this program.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/17/2005 03:20:00 AM
Whats Running - The Better Task Manager
We do not want to give away all of our technological secrets, but another small, free and simple software program that we have installed is called Whats Running, and it is the better Task Manager, not only giving a more comprehensive view of what is running on a user's computer, but also permitting the user to shut down memory-hogging running processes which are not required. Caveat emptor: you have to know what you are doing to use this program.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/17/2005 03:20:00 AM
LAW PUNDIT 11/17/2005 02:26:00 AM [Home]
[Print]
Google Analytics Bursts onto the Web Scene
No one can do good commentary or blogging today without having some familiarity with emerging technologies, which explains why we periodically throw in these technological postings.
We have a "Google Account" and are thus trying out Google Analytics (the previous urchin.com now redirects to Google Analytics).
Google Analytics is a program which gives a website owner useful statistical information about its visitors.
The name "Analytics" comes from the description of web statistics or web traffic trackers as "web analytics". These are experiencing an expectable and yet surprising renaissance.
Contrary to fears uttered here and there, Google Analytics is not yet going to throw total fear into the competition. We will continue to use Site Meter on this page because it is free, fast and good for our visitor counting purposes, although it too charges for more sophisticated tracking information. FeedBurner is another such essential program, which will remain extremely useful for providing us with our RSS feed and giving us an RSS count.
When we installed Google Analytics on this website, it took many hours before the program could verify our pages as "activated" (we had no way to know whether this delay was a mistake made by us or simply part of the normal process of activation of the Google Analytics script) and we were also informed subsequent to "activation" that the first traffic reports would only be available "within twelve hours".
When we are confronted with that snail's pace, we can say that for us, Site Meter is still here to stay. But of course, Google Analytics offers features that are unique, especially for larger sites, and for paying sites. We use Google Analytics here because it is free and because we will learn something additional about our visitors, e.g. their geographic distribution.
But do we need it? Not really.
Eric Peterson has a good posting about Google Analytics, including screen shots.
See also Photo Matt.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/17/2005 02:26:00 AM
Google Analytics Bursts onto the Web Scene
No one can do good commentary or blogging today without having some familiarity with emerging technologies, which explains why we periodically throw in these technological postings.
We have a "Google Account" and are thus trying out Google Analytics (the previous urchin.com now redirects to Google Analytics).
Google Analytics is a program which gives a website owner useful statistical information about its visitors.
The name "Analytics" comes from the description of web statistics or web traffic trackers as "web analytics". These are experiencing an expectable and yet surprising renaissance.
Contrary to fears uttered here and there, Google Analytics is not yet going to throw total fear into the competition. We will continue to use Site Meter on this page because it is free, fast and good for our visitor counting purposes, although it too charges for more sophisticated tracking information. FeedBurner is another such essential program, which will remain extremely useful for providing us with our RSS feed and giving us an RSS count.
When we installed Google Analytics on this website, it took many hours before the program could verify our pages as "activated" (we had no way to know whether this delay was a mistake made by us or simply part of the normal process of activation of the Google Analytics script) and we were also informed subsequent to "activation" that the first traffic reports would only be available "within twelve hours".
When we are confronted with that snail's pace, we can say that for us, Site Meter is still here to stay. But of course, Google Analytics offers features that are unique, especially for larger sites, and for paying sites. We use Google Analytics here because it is free and because we will learn something additional about our visitors, e.g. their geographic distribution.
But do we need it? Not really.
Eric Peterson has a good posting about Google Analytics, including screen shots.
See also Photo Matt.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/17/2005 02:26:00 AM
LAW PUNDIT 11/17/2005 12:10:00 AM [Home]
[Print]
Yale and the Ivy League Supreme Court Justices
And yes, of course, to add to our recent posting on the Ivy League US Supreme Court in which we prominently mention Stanford (out) and Harvard (in), there is, of course, also Yale, ranked by some as the top law school in the country [but not by us. Judged by Stanford's impact on the technology sector, which pervades the world, Stanford is in our opinion ahead of the competiton, but then we of course are biased].
Adam Liptak writes on
"Yale Law Frets Over Court Choices It Knows Best".
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/17/2005 12:10:00 AM
Yale and the Ivy League Supreme Court Justices
And yes, of course, to add to our recent posting on the Ivy League US Supreme Court in which we prominently mention Stanford (out) and Harvard (in), there is, of course, also Yale, ranked by some as the top law school in the country [but not by us. Judged by Stanford's impact on the technology sector, which pervades the world, Stanford is in our opinion ahead of the competiton, but then we of course are biased].
Adam Liptak writes on
"Yale Law Frets Over Court Choices It Knows Best".
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/17/2005 12:10:00 AM
LAW PUNDIT Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11/16/2005 05:51:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
BHODemon Highly Recommended Against Toolbar Spyware
We have a very small nifty program called BHODemon installed on our computer system which has already proven quite useful several times while surfing the web as a means of blocking surreptitious unwanted spyware toolbar installations. PC World describes the program as follows:
"Internet Explorer has a nasty habit of allowing so-called Browser Helper Objects (or BHOs) to install themselves into IE. Some BHOs are helpful, like the Google Toolbar, but others (especially those planted by viruses or spyware) can be malicious and harmful. BHODemon gives you a quick look at the BHOs installed on your PC, tells you whether a specific BHO is known to be safe or harmful, and gives you the ability to enable or disable individual BHOs with a single mouse click."
Download BHODemon at PCWorld.com.
Siena College has a nice short presentation on how to use the program.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/16/2005 05:51:00 PM
BHODemon Highly Recommended Against Toolbar Spyware
We have a very small nifty program called BHODemon installed on our computer system which has already proven quite useful several times while surfing the web as a means of blocking surreptitious unwanted spyware toolbar installations. PC World describes the program as follows:
"Internet Explorer has a nasty habit of allowing so-called Browser Helper Objects (or BHOs) to install themselves into IE. Some BHOs are helpful, like the Google Toolbar, but others (especially those planted by viruses or spyware) can be malicious and harmful. BHODemon gives you a quick look at the BHOs installed on your PC, tells you whether a specific BHO is known to be safe or harmful, and gives you the ability to enable or disable individual BHOs with a single mouse click."
Download BHODemon at PCWorld.com.
Siena College has a nice short presentation on how to use the program.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/16/2005 05:51:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT Tuesday, November 15, 2005 11/15/2005 09:40:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
The Emerging Conservative Ivy League Supreme Court
What was it that US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote? Go East, Young Man (see also here).
Richard Cohen at the Washington Post has a thought-provoking November 15, 2005 view of the current US Supreme Court from the law school perspective.
Stanford, which had previously held the US Supreme Court plurality with 4 Stanford graduates, including the Chief Justice Rehnquist (see here and here), is now out, replaced by Harvard and the Ivy League.
Surprisingly, this predominance of Harvard graduates on the US Supreme Court is an unusual and modern phenomenon. Mind you, this is not sour grapes, as the Law Pundit, a Stanford Law School alumnus, was also accepted to Harvard Law School in his younger days. Rather, the point here is that the emerging composition of the US Supreme Court is a sign of the times which must be understood as part of the "big picture" and not just as a matter of the political vagaries of individual judicial nominations. Even Presidents of the USA - as also their decisions and judicial nominations - are products of the prevailing attitudes of their age.
The emerging Ivy League dominance, especially that of Harvard, the nation's oldest (or second oldest) law school, depending on the source source used, is a significant barometer for the impending state of the world of the future.
When the Law Pundit chose Stanford over more established, traditional schools such as Harvard, it was the year 1968, when the prevailing political, academic and technological action of the country was in California and when the world was rocked.
Silicon Valley ruled. The route West then was clear. In those days, the technology philosophy of Bacon and Locke (beneficial) prevailed over Rousseau and Heidegger (harmful), at least in my mind, and they still do. Yet, to swing the pendulum back a bit, perhaps the route East is now required for a time.
Now, nearly 40 years later, some of the air is out of the Silicon Valley dot.com bubble ... though Google and Yahoo (also here) are still Stanford products, so some of the dot.com flair definitely remains where it began.
Nevertheless, we must today confront the following and sobering 21st century political realities:
1) that technology is not immunizing us from the threat of primitive, dark age cultures captured by the perfidious religious dogmas of bygone ages, or;
worse
2) that technology is not keeping such primitive cultures from using or hoping to use our modern inventions for evil purposes, inventions which these backward cultures could never have developed on their own and which they are by their historical development not properly equipped to possess or use. Technology in the hands of barbarians leads to barbarianism.
And what will happen when the barbarians run out of water?
Hence, it is not surprising to find the focus of the body politic and the judiciary in the USA to inescapably revert back to the fundamental American promise and to core American values. How, given the political situation of the current troubled world, threatened by barbarians in many quarters, could it be otherwise? Even technology has to be driven by a philosophy which leads to a beneficial effect in society.
The trend toward a restoration of the importance of values in the United States is just one part of the absolutely necessary solution for reaching a new balance between human rights and human obligations. Everyone talks about human rights but no one talks about human obligations, yet the latter is as essential as the former, nor can one exist without the other.
Freedom and liberty with responsibility, yes. Freedom and liberty without responsibility, no.
Western Civilization has a natural right to defend itself against the forces of darkness, and part of the job of protecting that civilization - that way of life - is assigned to the courts.
We think that the marginal shift to the right on the US Supreme Court is a necessary shift in today's world. After decades of emphasis on human rights, we need a few decades with emphasis on human obligations.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/15/2005 09:40:00 PM
The Emerging Conservative Ivy League Supreme Court
What was it that US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote? Go East, Young Man (see also here).
Richard Cohen at the Washington Post has a thought-provoking November 15, 2005 view of the current US Supreme Court from the law school perspective.
Stanford, which had previously held the US Supreme Court plurality with 4 Stanford graduates, including the Chief Justice Rehnquist (see here and here), is now out, replaced by Harvard and the Ivy League.
Surprisingly, this predominance of Harvard graduates on the US Supreme Court is an unusual and modern phenomenon. Mind you, this is not sour grapes, as the Law Pundit, a Stanford Law School alumnus, was also accepted to Harvard Law School in his younger days. Rather, the point here is that the emerging composition of the US Supreme Court is a sign of the times which must be understood as part of the "big picture" and not just as a matter of the political vagaries of individual judicial nominations. Even Presidents of the USA - as also their decisions and judicial nominations - are products of the prevailing attitudes of their age.
The emerging Ivy League dominance, especially that of Harvard, the nation's oldest (or second oldest) law school, depending on the source source used, is a significant barometer for the impending state of the world of the future.
When the Law Pundit chose Stanford over more established, traditional schools such as Harvard, it was the year 1968, when the prevailing political, academic and technological action of the country was in California and when the world was rocked.
Silicon Valley ruled. The route West then was clear. In those days, the technology philosophy of Bacon and Locke (beneficial) prevailed over Rousseau and Heidegger (harmful), at least in my mind, and they still do. Yet, to swing the pendulum back a bit, perhaps the route East is now required for a time.
Now, nearly 40 years later, some of the air is out of the Silicon Valley dot.com bubble ... though Google and Yahoo (also here) are still Stanford products, so some of the dot.com flair definitely remains where it began.
Nevertheless, we must today confront the following and sobering 21st century political realities:
1) that technology is not immunizing us from the threat of primitive, dark age cultures captured by the perfidious religious dogmas of bygone ages, or;
worse
2) that technology is not keeping such primitive cultures from using or hoping to use our modern inventions for evil purposes, inventions which these backward cultures could never have developed on their own and which they are by their historical development not properly equipped to possess or use. Technology in the hands of barbarians leads to barbarianism.
And what will happen when the barbarians run out of water?
Hence, it is not surprising to find the focus of the body politic and the judiciary in the USA to inescapably revert back to the fundamental American promise and to core American values. How, given the political situation of the current troubled world, threatened by barbarians in many quarters, could it be otherwise? Even technology has to be driven by a philosophy which leads to a beneficial effect in society.
The trend toward a restoration of the importance of values in the United States is just one part of the absolutely necessary solution for reaching a new balance between human rights and human obligations. Everyone talks about human rights but no one talks about human obligations, yet the latter is as essential as the former, nor can one exist without the other.
Freedom and liberty with responsibility, yes. Freedom and liberty without responsibility, no.
Western Civilization has a natural right to defend itself against the forces of darkness, and part of the job of protecting that civilization - that way of life - is assigned to the courts.
We think that the marginal shift to the right on the US Supreme Court is a necessary shift in today's world. After decades of emphasis on human rights, we need a few decades with emphasis on human obligations.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/15/2005 09:40:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT Thursday, November 10, 2005 11/10/2005 09:53:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
EU - European Union - European Parliament - The Political Parties
The lack of knowledge in Europe and elsewhere about the European Union is immense. Let's take a sample question. Can you name offhand the political groupings in the EU Parliament? Hardly anyone can. There are seven (eight if you count the independents):
Political groups in the list below are based on the European Parliament list of MEPs [Members of the European Parliament] by Member State and political group in the sixth parliamentary term:
1. EPP-ED - Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
(266 members)
These are the conservatives. This is the center-right (centre-right) party. We might compare this group to the Republicans in the USA or the Conservatives in the UK (the Tories) or the CDU/CSU in Germany.
2. PES - Socialist Group in the European Parliament
(201 members)
These are the social democrats. This is the center-left (centre-left) party. This group includes representatives from the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Labour Party in the UK, who define themselves as "democratic socialists". We might compare them to the Democratic Party in the USA.
3. ALDE - Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
(89 members)
In Germany, the liberals (FDP) are the group between the right and the left. This group corresponds to the Liberal Democratic Party in the UK.
4. Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
(42 members)
These are the environmentalists.
5. Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left
(41 members)
This group includes the Communists and the German "Linkspartei" PDS (successor to the former East German political party SED), recently renamed "die Linkspartei" (Left Party).
6. Independence/Democracy Group
(36 members)
This group consists of members who are eurosceptics. They hope to reject the EU Constitution and they oppose all forms of centralization, some even supporting their country's withdrawal from the EU.
7. UEN - Union for Europe of the Nations Group
(27 members)
This is a group which opposes strong federalism in the EU.
8. Non-Attached Members (29 members)
Technorati Tags:
EU Parliament, MEPs, Members of the European Parliament, European Parliament, EU, Europe, European Union, politics, political parties, EPP-ED, PES, ALDE, Labour Party, Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Republican Party, Democratic Party, political groups, Green Party, UEN.
Crossposted to EU Pundit.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/10/2005 09:53:00 PM
EU - European Union - European Parliament - The Political Parties
The lack of knowledge in Europe and elsewhere about the European Union is immense. Let's take a sample question. Can you name offhand the political groupings in the EU Parliament? Hardly anyone can. There are seven (eight if you count the independents):
Political groups in the list below are based on the European Parliament list of MEPs [Members of the European Parliament] by Member State and political group in the sixth parliamentary term:
1. EPP-ED - Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
(266 members)
These are the conservatives. This is the center-right (centre-right) party. We might compare this group to the Republicans in the USA or the Conservatives in the UK (the Tories) or the CDU/CSU in Germany.
2. PES - Socialist Group in the European Parliament
(201 members)
These are the social democrats. This is the center-left (centre-left) party. This group includes representatives from the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Labour Party in the UK, who define themselves as "democratic socialists". We might compare them to the Democratic Party in the USA.
3. ALDE - Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
(89 members)
In Germany, the liberals (FDP) are the group between the right and the left. This group corresponds to the Liberal Democratic Party in the UK.
4. Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
(42 members)
These are the environmentalists.
5. Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left
(41 members)
This group includes the Communists and the German "Linkspartei" PDS (successor to the former East German political party SED), recently renamed "die Linkspartei" (Left Party).
6. Independence/Democracy Group
(36 members)
This group consists of members who are eurosceptics. They hope to reject the EU Constitution and they oppose all forms of centralization, some even supporting their country's withdrawal from the EU.
7. UEN - Union for Europe of the Nations Group
(27 members)
This is a group which opposes strong federalism in the EU.
8. Non-Attached Members (29 members)
Technorati Tags:
EU Parliament, MEPs, Members of the European Parliament, European Parliament, EU, Europe, European Union, politics, political parties, EPP-ED, PES, ALDE, Labour Party, Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Republican Party, Democratic Party, political groups, Green Party, UEN.
Crossposted to EU Pundit.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/10/2005 09:53:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT Wednesday, November 09, 2005 11/09/2005 08:55:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
ICANN and VeriSign Strike Deal
As reported at Out-Law.com, ICANN and VeriSign have agreed to a settlement ending the litigation between them and retaining VeriSign's control of the .com top-level internet domain name.
Read the somewhat controversial settlement agreement here.
See in this regard
CircleID
NIPCLAW
ICANNWatch also here
Bret Fausett
CaveBear Blog
Code
Technorati Tags:
ICANN, icann, verisign, Verisign, VeriSign, Internet, internet, internet domains, .com domains, top level domains, registrars, registries, root server, internet governance, law, litigation.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/09/2005 08:55:00 PM
ICANN and VeriSign Strike Deal
As reported at Out-Law.com, ICANN and VeriSign have agreed to a settlement ending the litigation between them and retaining VeriSign's control of the .com top-level internet domain name.
Read the somewhat controversial settlement agreement here.
See in this regard
CircleID
NIPCLAW
ICANNWatch also here
Bret Fausett
CaveBear Blog
Code
Technorati Tags:
ICANN, icann, verisign, Verisign, VeriSign, Internet, internet, internet domains, .com domains, top level domains, registrars, registries, root server, internet governance, law, litigation.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/09/2005 08:55:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT Monday, November 07, 2005 11/07/2005 11:04:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
New Deferred Compensation Rules (Section 409A) - CLE Program
I just received an invitation today (Nov. 7) by both mail and e-mail to a November 10, 2005 (this coming Thursday) Paul, Weiss "CLE program discussing the new tax rules governing deferred compensation arrangements" which will be presented by Robert C. Fleder and Michael J. Segal. The new rules, issued September 29, 2005, are of interest to ALL employers, public and private. These proposed regulations, which may be relied upon immediately, can be viewed in their 238 pages here.
The Paul, Weiss program is also accessible via teleconference for those who can not attend personally. A description of the program and registration information is available directly at the Paul, Weiss website (Resources/Events).
The CLE Program is titled "The New Deferred Compensation Rules (Section 409A" and takes place on November 10, 2005 from 9:00 AM - 10:30 AM [an e-mail update received today indicated that breakfast will be served at 8:30] . The location is the Millennium Conference Center, Gallery 8 (8th floor), 145 West 44th Street, New York, NY.
For those who can not participate in that program, the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, has a September 30, 2005 .pdf by Stuart N. Alperin, Michael A. Lawson, Neil M. Leff, and Regina Olshan in its online Events & Publications titled "Proposed Regulations Issued Under New Deferred Compensation Rules" or see the September 30, 2005 McDermott Will & Emery Newsletter on "U.S. Treasury and IRS issue Proposed Regulations Under Section 409A".
Topics covered are e.g. Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) and Stock Options, Severance Pay, Split Dollar Life Insurance, 457(f) Arrangements of Nonprofit Employers, Non-Employees (.e.g. Directors), Short-Term Deferrals, Foreign Arrangements (e.g. Expatriates), "Evergreen" Elections, Performance-Based Compensation, Ad Hoc Awards, Financial Emergency Distribution, Earn-Outs, Wrap Plans, etc.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/07/2005 11:04:00 PM
New Deferred Compensation Rules (Section 409A) - CLE Program
I just received an invitation today (Nov. 7) by both mail and e-mail to a November 10, 2005 (this coming Thursday) Paul, Weiss "CLE program discussing the new tax rules governing deferred compensation arrangements" which will be presented by Robert C. Fleder and Michael J. Segal. The new rules, issued September 29, 2005, are of interest to ALL employers, public and private. These proposed regulations, which may be relied upon immediately, can be viewed in their 238 pages here.
The Paul, Weiss program is also accessible via teleconference for those who can not attend personally. A description of the program and registration information is available directly at the Paul, Weiss website (Resources/Events).
The CLE Program is titled "The New Deferred Compensation Rules (Section 409A" and takes place on November 10, 2005 from 9:00 AM - 10:30 AM [an e-mail update received today indicated that breakfast will be served at 8:30] . The location is the Millennium Conference Center, Gallery 8 (8th floor), 145 West 44th Street, New York, NY.
For those who can not participate in that program, the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, has a September 30, 2005 .pdf by Stuart N. Alperin, Michael A. Lawson, Neil M. Leff, and Regina Olshan in its online Events & Publications titled "Proposed Regulations Issued Under New Deferred Compensation Rules" or see the September 30, 2005 McDermott Will & Emery Newsletter on "U.S. Treasury and IRS issue Proposed Regulations Under Section 409A".
Topics covered are e.g. Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) and Stock Options, Severance Pay, Split Dollar Life Insurance, 457(f) Arrangements of Nonprofit Employers, Non-Employees (.e.g. Directors), Short-Term Deferrals, Foreign Arrangements (e.g. Expatriates), "Evergreen" Elections, Performance-Based Compensation, Ad Hoc Awards, Financial Emergency Distribution, Earn-Outs, Wrap Plans, etc.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/07/2005 11:04:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT 11/07/2005 04:32:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
WTO - Doha - Where do European Union Agricultural Subsidies [CAP] Go?
In view of the WTO Doha round of global trade talks and the significant role of European Union (EU) agricultural subsidies [CAP] in those talks, especially the large and controversial subsidies to France, the question must be asked:
Who actually gets the greatly disputed EU farm subsidies which make up ca. 40% of the EU budget?
A November 7, 2005 press release from the NGO Oxfam reports that agricultural subsidies in the European Union show tremendous inequalities of distribution (as already shown for the UK previously, see here and here) . The more land that is owned, the more subsidies the owner is entitled to obtain. The result is that the rich, the biggest farms and large multinational corporations who own large tracts of farmland are the biggest recipients of EU agricultural subsidies. We excerpt the 7 November 2005 Oxfam press release below which was titled "Lid comes off French farm subsidies":
"Europe must face up to the need to reform its Common Agricultural Policy [CAP] following new revelations of inequality from another of its member states this week, said international agency Oxfam today.
French newspaper La Tribune has published figures that show the biggest French farming businesses swallow up the vast majority of its EU agricultural subsidies....
The revelations come as EU Foreign Ministers meet today (Nov 7) in Brussels to discuss the EU budget and trade negotiators from the EU, US, India and Brazil meet in London to try to unblock WTO negotiations.
“CAP reform will be on top of the agenda in Brussels....,” said Celine Charveriat, head of Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair campaign.
France is leading an aggressive defense of the CAP at the WTO. France gets around 9.4 billion Euros from the 44 billion Euro CAP budget....
“The CAP is a gravy train for Europe’s biggest, richest farmers,” she said....“
Oxfam has been instrumental in helping to expose the huge inequalities in farm spending that exist in the UK, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Slovakia and now France....
Crossposted to EUPundit.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/07/2005 04:32:00 PM
WTO - Doha - Where do European Union Agricultural Subsidies [CAP] Go?
In view of the WTO Doha round of global trade talks and the significant role of European Union (EU) agricultural subsidies [CAP] in those talks, especially the large and controversial subsidies to France, the question must be asked:
Who actually gets the greatly disputed EU farm subsidies which make up ca. 40% of the EU budget?
A November 7, 2005 press release from the NGO Oxfam reports that agricultural subsidies in the European Union show tremendous inequalities of distribution (as already shown for the UK previously, see here and here) . The more land that is owned, the more subsidies the owner is entitled to obtain. The result is that the rich, the biggest farms and large multinational corporations who own large tracts of farmland are the biggest recipients of EU agricultural subsidies. We excerpt the 7 November 2005 Oxfam press release below which was titled "Lid comes off French farm subsidies":
"Europe must face up to the need to reform its Common Agricultural Policy [CAP] following new revelations of inequality from another of its member states this week, said international agency Oxfam today.
French newspaper La Tribune has published figures that show the biggest French farming businesses swallow up the vast majority of its EU agricultural subsidies....
The revelations come as EU Foreign Ministers meet today (Nov 7) in Brussels to discuss the EU budget and trade negotiators from the EU, US, India and Brazil meet in London to try to unblock WTO negotiations.
“CAP reform will be on top of the agenda in Brussels....,” said Celine Charveriat, head of Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair campaign.
France is leading an aggressive defense of the CAP at the WTO. France gets around 9.4 billion Euros from the 44 billion Euro CAP budget....
“The CAP is a gravy train for Europe’s biggest, richest farmers,” she said....“
Oxfam has been instrumental in helping to expose the huge inequalities in farm spending that exist in the UK, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Slovakia and now France....
Crossposted to EUPundit.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/07/2005 04:32:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT Sunday, November 06, 2005 11/06/2005 02:44:00 AM [Home]
[Print]
Money, Ideology, Grants, Awards and Politics
Ted Frank at Point of Law recently refers to an older LawPundit posting and imputes that I "was especially impressed" in that posting by a speech David C. Johnson gave to the ATLA (Association of Trial Lawyers of America) on July 7, 2004 in Boston.
Frank's statement could be a bit misleading to some and might give the false impression that I side with Johnson's political views, which is simply not the case.
The LawPundit is a political centrist and on many issues is quite a bit to the political right of Johnson. I certainly do not see anything wrong with the type of funding engaged in by the Bradley Foundation and I am in fact currently more in their philosophical camp than in that of ostensibly competing left-wing organizations such as MoveOn.org. Political issues are subject to a political pendulum - sometimes that pendulum has to swing to the left to correct abuses on the right, and sometimes it has to swing to the right to correct abuses on the left. At the moment, that pendulum is definitely, and justifiably swinging to the right on many issues, in part fostered by the world political situation. Freedom without security is impossible.
In any case, what I did do in the LawPundit posting cited by Frank was to point out that Johnson's speech "gives an interesting analysis of modern politics at work in America, suggesting that political "ideology" is the motive force behind current legal and societal change, for example, in the alleged need for "tort reform". I personally do not have much doubt that this is true. That is the way the world works everywhere. Money and ideology on all sides of the political fence drive events. I regard these kinds of insights to be neither "smears" nor "conspiracy theories" but accurate views of the "real world", views which are essential to a better understanding of that world.
I would also like to suggest that Frank might be overemphasizing an error in Johnson's 2003 Report, The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law, which erroneously states that Lynde Bradley was a member of the John Birch Society, which of course can not be true, since, as Frank correctly points out, that Society was formed after Lynde Bradley's passing.
However, examination of the source for that footnote 7 in that 2003 report by Johnson indicates that this was a simple confusion of names. It was Harry Bradley to whom the reference had been made in "Buying a Movement," the cited article by PFAW (People for the American Way), and not Lynde Bradley. The PFAW wrote as follows: "Harry Bradley was an active member of the John Birch Society and a contributor to the National Review." Johnson or his secretary simply had typed or confusedly used the wrong first name, but the basic link to one of the Bradleys was correct, presuming that this statement in PFAW is true, which we have no way to check for accuracy. In any case, Harry Bradley passed away in 1965, which was after the date of the founding of the John Birch society.
As for the Bradley Foundation, a list of their 2004 grants is quite impressive and one of their grants in 2003 was to one of my favorite journalists, Charles Krauthammer, whose opinions I often share. Indeed, I think it is a great thing that there is a countervailing balance to such grants as those to the MacArthur Foundation Fellows or even the Nobel Prize for Literature, awards which invariably go to members of the opposite political persuasion. Indeed, I would say that I am strongly opposed to most of the Nobel Prizes for Literature which have been awarded in recent decades because of their blatant political partisanship, and, yes, they should instead award the Nobel Prize to people such as J.K. Rowling, whose writing impact on our culture is enormous, rather than giving it to obscure writers whose actual impact is negligible and who simply mirror the political views of those who grant that Nobel Prize. It is a scandal - also this year's award, which at least did not go to a no-name.
But let me turn again to the money issue, which drives not only art and politics, but also determines the world of science and theology. As Lakatos writes, the "basic unit" of science is not scientific theory but the "research program", which propagates itself through increased funding over competition.
To put things into human terms, wherever the money goes, men are bound to follow.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/06/2005 02:44:00 AM
Money, Ideology, Grants, Awards and Politics
Ted Frank at Point of Law recently refers to an older LawPundit posting and imputes that I "was especially impressed" in that posting by a speech David C. Johnson gave to the ATLA (Association of Trial Lawyers of America) on July 7, 2004 in Boston.
Frank's statement could be a bit misleading to some and might give the false impression that I side with Johnson's political views, which is simply not the case.
The LawPundit is a political centrist and on many issues is quite a bit to the political right of Johnson. I certainly do not see anything wrong with the type of funding engaged in by the Bradley Foundation and I am in fact currently more in their philosophical camp than in that of ostensibly competing left-wing organizations such as MoveOn.org. Political issues are subject to a political pendulum - sometimes that pendulum has to swing to the left to correct abuses on the right, and sometimes it has to swing to the right to correct abuses on the left. At the moment, that pendulum is definitely, and justifiably swinging to the right on many issues, in part fostered by the world political situation. Freedom without security is impossible.
In any case, what I did do in the LawPundit posting cited by Frank was to point out that Johnson's speech "gives an interesting analysis of modern politics at work in America, suggesting that political "ideology" is the motive force behind current legal and societal change, for example, in the alleged need for "tort reform". I personally do not have much doubt that this is true. That is the way the world works everywhere. Money and ideology on all sides of the political fence drive events. I regard these kinds of insights to be neither "smears" nor "conspiracy theories" but accurate views of the "real world", views which are essential to a better understanding of that world.
I would also like to suggest that Frank might be overemphasizing an error in Johnson's 2003 Report, The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law, which erroneously states that Lynde Bradley was a member of the John Birch Society, which of course can not be true, since, as Frank correctly points out, that Society was formed after Lynde Bradley's passing.
However, examination of the source for that footnote 7 in that 2003 report by Johnson indicates that this was a simple confusion of names. It was Harry Bradley to whom the reference had been made in "Buying a Movement," the cited article by PFAW (People for the American Way), and not Lynde Bradley. The PFAW wrote as follows: "Harry Bradley was an active member of the John Birch Society and a contributor to the National Review." Johnson or his secretary simply had typed or confusedly used the wrong first name, but the basic link to one of the Bradleys was correct, presuming that this statement in PFAW is true, which we have no way to check for accuracy. In any case, Harry Bradley passed away in 1965, which was after the date of the founding of the John Birch society.
As for the Bradley Foundation, a list of their 2004 grants is quite impressive and one of their grants in 2003 was to one of my favorite journalists, Charles Krauthammer, whose opinions I often share. Indeed, I think it is a great thing that there is a countervailing balance to such grants as those to the MacArthur Foundation Fellows or even the Nobel Prize for Literature, awards which invariably go to members of the opposite political persuasion. Indeed, I would say that I am strongly opposed to most of the Nobel Prizes for Literature which have been awarded in recent decades because of their blatant political partisanship, and, yes, they should instead award the Nobel Prize to people such as J.K. Rowling, whose writing impact on our culture is enormous, rather than giving it to obscure writers whose actual impact is negligible and who simply mirror the political views of those who grant that Nobel Prize. It is a scandal - also this year's award, which at least did not go to a no-name.
But let me turn again to the money issue, which drives not only art and politics, but also determines the world of science and theology. As Lakatos writes, the "basic unit" of science is not scientific theory but the "research program", which propagates itself through increased funding over competition.
To put things into human terms, wherever the money goes, men are bound to follow.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/06/2005 02:44:00 AM
LAW PUNDIT Friday, November 04, 2005 11/04/2005 10:06:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
Alito is No Originalist
The Pocket Part, the companion to the Yale Law Journal, links to Alito's 1974 note in the Yale Law Journal, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Note, The Released Time Cases Revisited: A Study of Group Decisionmaking by the Supreme Court, 83 Yale L.J. 1202 (1974), which can be downloaded here.
Based on that note, all fears that Alito will become an originalist in the mold of Justice Scalia can safely be laid to rest.
Based on Alito's own analysis of the "released time" cases in that note, Alito writes that "the reader should be very hesitant about attempting to discern the Justices' motivations from the written opinions. A long list of outwardly plausible but badly mistaken interpretations resulted from attempts to discern the motivations and intentions of the Justices in the released time cases and illustrates this point. Second, the reader should learn to detect certain unmistakeable signs in the written opinions that the Justices bargained or negotiated extensively."
Obviously, a judge who already understood this essential and decisive human component of judging in his formative early years of legal development is surely never going to become a judge who attempts to "divine" the "original actual intent" of the country's founders for the mandates of a Constitution whose provisions were also the product of intensive bargaining and negotiation more than 200 years ago. The actual motivations and intentions of the founders are as difficult to discern - even moreso because of the greater time difference to the present - as the motivations and intentions of Supreme Court Justices in the 20th century.
A judge at this level of jurisprudential understanding will not attempt to crystal-ball the singular motivations and intentions of the diverse men who created America, surely a hopeless task for any court, or any judge. Rather, Alito will more likely apply the letter of the rule of law to accord with the spirit of the original general intent pursuant to which the country was founded, and that is a completely different ball of wax.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/04/2005 10:06:00 PM
Alito is No Originalist
The Pocket Part, the companion to the Yale Law Journal, links to Alito's 1974 note in the Yale Law Journal, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Note, The Released Time Cases Revisited: A Study of Group Decisionmaking by the Supreme Court, 83 Yale L.J. 1202 (1974), which can be downloaded here.
Based on that note, all fears that Alito will become an originalist in the mold of Justice Scalia can safely be laid to rest.
Based on Alito's own analysis of the "released time" cases in that note, Alito writes that "the reader should be very hesitant about attempting to discern the Justices' motivations from the written opinions. A long list of outwardly plausible but badly mistaken interpretations resulted from attempts to discern the motivations and intentions of the Justices in the released time cases and illustrates this point. Second, the reader should learn to detect certain unmistakeable signs in the written opinions that the Justices bargained or negotiated extensively."
Obviously, a judge who already understood this essential and decisive human component of judging in his formative early years of legal development is surely never going to become a judge who attempts to "divine" the "original actual intent" of the country's founders for the mandates of a Constitution whose provisions were also the product of intensive bargaining and negotiation more than 200 years ago. The actual motivations and intentions of the founders are as difficult to discern - even moreso because of the greater time difference to the present - as the motivations and intentions of Supreme Court Justices in the 20th century.
A judge at this level of jurisprudential understanding will not attempt to crystal-ball the singular motivations and intentions of the diverse men who created America, surely a hopeless task for any court, or any judge. Rather, Alito will more likely apply the letter of the rule of law to accord with the spirit of the original general intent pursuant to which the country was founded, and that is a completely different ball of wax.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/04/2005 10:06:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT 11/04/2005 01:53:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
EFF Law Guide for Blogs and Bloggers
The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) has a useful online
Legal Guide for Bloggers
which contains extensive FAQs (frequently asked questions [and answers]) covering blog and blogger liability and the legal rights and obligations of bloggers relating to:
IP (Copyrights, DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act], Trademarks)
Right of Publicity
Defamation [and Libel]
Section 230 [see below]
Privacy
Reporter's Privilege
Election Law
Labor Law
Adult Materials [Pornography]
With respect to the above, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), [which is part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, see p. 78 in that linked pdf, Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230)], contains a very important provision. We cite the EFF comment thereto:
Section 230 says that " "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This federal law preempts any state laws to the contrary: "[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section." The courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to limit the reach of Section 230 to "traditional" Internet service providers, instead treating many diverse entities as "interactive computer service providers."
As the EFF writes further:
"Bloggers can be both a provider and a user of interactive computer services. Bloggers are users when they create and edit blogs through a service provider, and they are providers to the extent that they allow third parties to add comments or other material to their blogs. "
"Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it. However, if you selected the third-party information yourself, no court has ruled whether this information would be considered "provided" to you. One court has limited Section 230 immunity to situations in which the originator "furnished it to the provider or user under circumstances in which a reasonable person...would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet...."
[See the Wikipedia for a good short discussion of the CDA as well as Section 230, and note that some but not all of the CDA has been found to be unconstitutional. Some online sources give a false impression in this regard. For CDA cases involving libel and defamation see Internet Law.]
Keep in mind that the EFF expressly states that these FAQs apply only to bloggers in the USA:
"I'm not in the United States - do these FAQs apply to me?
No. This legal guide is based on the laws in the United States, where there is a strong constitutional protection for speech. Many other countries do not have strong protections, making it easier to sue for speech. (See, for example, the BBC's guide, How to Avoid Libel and Defamation.) However, US courts are reluctant to enforce foreign judgments that would restrict your freedom of speech. So if you are sued in the United Kingdom for defamation, you might lose your UK case, but the winner would have a hard time collecting in the United States. If you know of a similar guide for your own jurisdiction or feel inspired to research and write one, please let us know. We can link to it here. We don't have the expertise or resources to speak to other countries' legal traditions, but we'd like to work with those who do. "
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/04/2005 01:53:00 PM
EFF Law Guide for Blogs and Bloggers
The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) has a useful online
Legal Guide for Bloggers
which contains extensive FAQs (frequently asked questions [and answers]) covering blog and blogger liability and the legal rights and obligations of bloggers relating to:
IP (Copyrights, DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act], Trademarks)
Right of Publicity
Defamation [and Libel]
Section 230 [see below]
Privacy
Reporter's Privilege
Election Law
Labor Law
Adult Materials [Pornography]
With respect to the above, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), [which is part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, see p. 78 in that linked pdf, Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230)], contains a very important provision. We cite the EFF comment thereto:
Section 230 says that " "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This federal law preempts any state laws to the contrary: "[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section." The courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to limit the reach of Section 230 to "traditional" Internet service providers, instead treating many diverse entities as "interactive computer service providers."
As the EFF writes further:
"Bloggers can be both a provider and a user of interactive computer services. Bloggers are users when they create and edit blogs through a service provider, and they are providers to the extent that they allow third parties to add comments or other material to their blogs. "
"Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it. However, if you selected the third-party information yourself, no court has ruled whether this information would be considered "provided" to you. One court has limited Section 230 immunity to situations in which the originator "furnished it to the provider or user under circumstances in which a reasonable person...would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet...."
[See the Wikipedia for a good short discussion of the CDA as well as Section 230, and note that some but not all of the CDA has been found to be unconstitutional. Some online sources give a false impression in this regard. For CDA cases involving libel and defamation see Internet Law.]
Keep in mind that the EFF expressly states that these FAQs apply only to bloggers in the USA:
"I'm not in the United States - do these FAQs apply to me?
No. This legal guide is based on the laws in the United States, where there is a strong constitutional protection for speech. Many other countries do not have strong protections, making it easier to sue for speech. (See, for example, the BBC's guide, How to Avoid Libel and Defamation.) However, US courts are reluctant to enforce foreign judgments that would restrict your freedom of speech. So if you are sued in the United Kingdom for defamation, you might lose your UK case, but the winner would have a hard time collecting in the United States. If you know of a similar guide for your own jurisdiction or feel inspired to research and write one, please let us know. We can link to it here. We don't have the expertise or resources to speak to other countries' legal traditions, but we'd like to work with those who do. "
Technorati Tags:
blogs, bloggers, blogger liability, blog liability, defamation, libel, EFF, legal guide, law guide, law, legal, Telecommunications Act, CDA, Communications Decency Act, indecent, obscene, obscenity, labor law, election law, reporter's privilege, LawPundit, Section 230, right of publicity, trademarks, copyrights, adult materials, pornography.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/04/2005 01:53:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT 11/04/2005 03:31:00 AM [Home]
[Print]
Biometric Electronic Passports - USA European Union EU
Biometric Passports in the EU
As reported at the EU Observer, Germany has become the first of the EU Member States to comply with US requirements which mandate biometric passports (or plans for such) from visa waiver program (VWP) countries as of the end of October, 2005. The rules are:
"According to recent U.S. Department of Homeland Security press briefings and documents, the requirements for travelers wanting to enter the United States without a visa under the VWP are as follows:
- June 26 [2005]: Travelers from VWP countries must present passports that are machine-readable for visa-free entry into the United States.
- October 26 [2005]: Travelers from VWP countries with passports issued on or after this date must present passports with a digital photograph; VWP countries are required to produce passports with digital photographs and present an “acceptable plan” to issue passports with integrated circuit chips, or e-passports within one year.
- October 26, 2006: Travelers from VWP countries with a passport issued on or after this date must present a passport with an integrated circuit chip, also known as e-passport, capable of storing biographic information from the passport’s data page, a digitized photograph and other biometric information.
The three requirements stem from legislation passed in 2002 by the U.S. Congress. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (a U.S. law also known as the Border Security Act) originally required that the government of each VWP country certify it had a program to produce tamper-resistant, machine-readable passports that incorporate a biometric identifier that complies with International Civil Aviation Organization standards by October 26, 2004. In mid-2004, Congress extended the deadline one year. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in recent months, has clarified requirements for continued participation in the VWP. "
Tech Law Prof Blog on the US Final Rule on Electronic Passports
Freedom to Tinker on RFID
neuer-reisepass.de on the new ePass (in German)
PrawfsBlawg on RFID Tags
eLegal Canton on "Bring on the Biometrics"
Surpriv on RFID
NearWalden on RFID Privacy Cases with a link to the EFF
Bruce Schneier on Security with an article that appeared on the IHT
Ryan Singel at Wired News and "American Passports to Get Chipped" suggesting that privacy concerns are overblown.
Crossposted to EUPundit.
Technorati Tags:
RFID, radio frequency id, passports, USA, United States, EU, European Union, Germany, Member States, electronic passports, biometric passports, biometrics, ePass, VWP, law, visa waiver program, visas, homeland security, ICAO, final rule, LawPundit, privacy, State Department, RFID chip, Kaulins.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/04/2005 03:31:00 AM
Biometric Electronic Passports - USA European Union EU
Biometric Passports in the EU
As reported at the EU Observer, Germany has become the first of the EU Member States to comply with US requirements which mandate biometric passports (or plans for such) from visa waiver program (VWP) countries as of the end of October, 2005. The rules are:
"According to recent U.S. Department of Homeland Security press briefings and documents, the requirements for travelers wanting to enter the United States without a visa under the VWP are as follows:
- June 26 [2005]: Travelers from VWP countries must present passports that are machine-readable for visa-free entry into the United States.
- October 26 [2005]: Travelers from VWP countries with passports issued on or after this date must present passports with a digital photograph; VWP countries are required to produce passports with digital photographs and present an “acceptable plan” to issue passports with integrated circuit chips, or e-passports within one year.
- October 26, 2006: Travelers from VWP countries with a passport issued on or after this date must present a passport with an integrated circuit chip, also known as e-passport, capable of storing biographic information from the passport’s data page, a digitized photograph and other biometric information.
The three requirements stem from legislation passed in 2002 by the U.S. Congress. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (a U.S. law also known as the Border Security Act) originally required that the government of each VWP country certify it had a program to produce tamper-resistant, machine-readable passports that incorporate a biometric identifier that complies with International Civil Aviation Organization standards by October 26, 2004. In mid-2004, Congress extended the deadline one year. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in recent months, has clarified requirements for continued participation in the VWP. "
Citizens of countries which do not implement the new biometric passports by October 26, 2006 will lose their visa waiver privileges and have to apply for a visa.
See the German Federal Ministry of the Interior (Bundesministerium des Innern, BMI) for information in German about the new German electronic biometric passport, the ePass.
The German ePass [electronic Passport] is being issued pursuant to the European Union (EU)
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States
(and see also here) .
Netzpolitik.org refers to a German government hotline for citizens with questions about the new ePass. The information is also found at the BMI:
"Im Oktober werden die Passbehörden mit Plakaten und Flyern zur Information der Bürgerinnen und Bürger ausgestattet. Das BSI bietet bereits seit dem 1. Juni 2005 einen Bürger-Service zu technischen Fragen zum ePass an über die E-Mail-Adresse ePass@bsi.bund.de sowie eine ePass-Hotline. Die Hotline ist von 8 bis 17 Uhr unter der Nummer 01805-274 300 erreichbar (12 ct/min)."
As reported by EU Observer:
"The updated German passport comes with a concealed radio frequency identification (RFID) chip that stores personal information such as name and date of birth, as well as a digital facial image of the holder."
As shown by this biometric passport, modern Germany has many faults and problems, but this land of engineers and scientists is still ahead of most countries in the Western world when it comes to putting certain aspects of modern technology and science into action.
U.S. Electronic Passports
The February 18, 2005 US proposed rule for its own electronic passports had already been issued as a final rule in part, excepting the electronic passport sections, which were just now finalized in the final rule issued by the US State Department on October 25, 2005. See Tech Law Prof Blog and also The U.S. Electronic Passport.
The Final Rule provides:
"The Department intends to begin the electronic passport program in December 2005. The first stage will be a pilot program in which the electronic passports will be issued to U.S. Government employees who use Official or Diplomatic passports for government travel. This pilot program will permit a limited number of passports to be issued and field tested prior to the first issuance to the American traveling public, slated for early 2006. By October 2006, all U.S. passports, with the exception of a small number of emergency passports issued by U.S. embassies or consulates, will be electronic passports."
The RFID chip to be used for passports should not be confused by privacy advocates with RFID chips used to mark products for inventory or sale:
"The ICAO specification for use of contactless chip technology requires a minimum capacity of 32 kilobytes (KB). The U.S. has decided to use a 64KB chip to permit adequate storage room in case additional data, or biometric indicators such as fingerprints or iris scans, are included in the future. Before modifying the definition of "electronic passport" to add a new or additional biometric identifier other than a digitized photograph, we will seek public comment through a new rule making process.
The contactless smart chip that is being used in the electronic passport is a "passive chip" that derives its power from the reader that communicates with it. It cannot broadcast personal information because it does not have its own source of power. Readers that are on the open market, designed to read Type A or Type B contactless chips complying with International Standards Organization (ISO) 14443 and ISO 7816 specifications, will be able to communicate with the chip. This is necessary to permit nations to procure readers from a variety of vendors, facilitate global interoperability and ensure that the electronic passports are readable at all ports of entry.
The proximity chip technology utilized in the electronic passport is designed to be read with chip readers at ports of entry only when the document is placed within inches of such readers. It uses RFID technology. The ISO 14443 RFID specification permits chips to be read when the electronic passport is placed within approximately ten centimeters of the reader. The reader provides the power to the chip and then an electronic communication between the chip and reader occurs via a transmission of radio waves. The technology is not the same as the vicinity chip RFID technology used for inventory tracking of items from distances at retail stores and warehouses. It will not permit "tracking" of individuals. It will only permit governmental authorities to know that an individual has arrived at a port of entry--which governmental authorities already know from presentation of non-electronic passports--with greater assurance that the person who presents the passport is the legitimate holder of the passport.
The personal information that will be contained in the chip is the information on the data page of the passport--the name, nationality, sex, date of birth, place of birth, and digitized photograph of the passport holder. The chip will also contain information about the passport itself--the passport number, issue date, expiration date, and type of passport. Finally, the chip will contain coding to prevent any digital data from being altered or removed as well as the chip's unique ID number. This coding will be in the form of a high strength digital signature. The contents of the data page of the traditional passport have been established by international usage and by ICAO. The chip will not contain home addresses, social security numbers, or other information that might facilitate identity theft."
For blog postings on this and related topics see:Tech Law Prof Blog on the US Final Rule on Electronic Passports
Freedom to Tinker on RFID
neuer-reisepass.de on the new ePass (in German)
PrawfsBlawg on RFID Tags
eLegal Canton on "Bring on the Biometrics"
Surpriv on RFID
NearWalden on RFID Privacy Cases with a link to the EFF
Bruce Schneier on Security with an article that appeared on the IHT
Ryan Singel at Wired News and "American Passports to Get Chipped" suggesting that privacy concerns are overblown.
Crossposted to EUPundit.
Technorati Tags:
RFID, radio frequency id, passports, USA, United States, EU, European Union, Germany, Member States, electronic passports, biometric passports, biometrics, ePass, VWP, law, visa waiver program, visas, homeland security, ICAO, final rule, LawPundit, privacy, State Department, RFID chip, Kaulins.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/04/2005 03:31:00 AM
LAW PUNDIT Tuesday, November 01, 2005 11/01/2005 08:28:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
Give me an Alito ?
Harriet Miers has thrown in the towel and President Bush has now appointed a proven judge, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to the vacant US Supreme Court Justice post. Against Alito we can see almost no legitimate grievances, except for petty political differences, which are not sufficient per se to deny a judge's nomination. We do not think that Alito is an "originalist" in the dogmatic mold of Scalia in spite of his nickname "Scalito" (Little Scalia). Douglas Kmiec, Professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine, is quoted as saying that: "Sam is a standout because he's a judge's judge. He approaches cases with impartiality and open-mindedness."
A better statement about a judge could scarcely be imagined. If we ourselves were to be judged, we would want an open-minded impartial judge.
A USNews.com article about Alito by Bret Schulte cites some of Alito's opinions on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and we agree with all of those opinions in result, also those in dissent. And recall, we are political centrists.
SCOTUSBlog writes for example about an Alito majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001):
"striking down as contrary to the First Amendment a public school district anti-harassment policy that extended to nonvulgar, non-school-sponsored speech that posed no realistic threat of substantial disruption of school work."
Alito wrote in that opinion:
"No court or legislature has ever suggested that unwelcome speech directed at another's 'values' may be prohibited under the rubric of anti-discrimination."
As reported in the New York Times on November 1, 2005 by Neil A. Lewis and Scott Shane, Alito Is Seen as a Methodical Jurist With a Clear Record who may become more famous for a coffee mix named after him than for his quiet non-assuming judicial personality:
"Whatever his fate in the nomination process, Judge Alito has already achieved an unusual kind of renown at the T. M. Ward coffee shop near the federal courthouse in Newark, where a popular blend is called "Bold Justice - the Judge Alito blend."
The owner, Jeffrey Sommer, described the blend of Java, New Guinea and other coffees as "strong in the cup with some sweetness and a winey aftertaste." Mr. Sommer said the judge stops by for a cup most days, and sales "really took off" in recent months.
"Customers usually just say, 'Give me an Alito,' " Mr. Sommer said."
We can live with that.
Let's see if Congress can.
Read Balkin's view of what Alito's confirmation might mean for US Supreme Court decisions in the future.
Hat tip to Done with Mirrors.
Bios of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. are found at Wikipedia, Law.com, USNews.com.
Technorati Tags:
Samuel Alito, Alito, US Supreme Court, judges, Justices, LawPundit, Supreme Court nominations, Scalia, Douglas Kmiec, Constitutional Law, Third Ciruit, Saxe, SCOTUS, legal, free speech, anti-discrimination, coffee, Alito blend, T.M.Ward, Bret Schulte, Done with Mirrors, Jeffrey Sommer, Neil A. Lewis, Scott+Shane, Balkinization,Kaulins.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/01/2005 08:28:00 PM
Give me an Alito ?
Harriet Miers has thrown in the towel and President Bush has now appointed a proven judge, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to the vacant US Supreme Court Justice post. Against Alito we can see almost no legitimate grievances, except for petty political differences, which are not sufficient per se to deny a judge's nomination. We do not think that Alito is an "originalist" in the dogmatic mold of Scalia in spite of his nickname "Scalito" (Little Scalia). Douglas Kmiec, Professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine, is quoted as saying that: "Sam is a standout because he's a judge's judge. He approaches cases with impartiality and open-mindedness."
A better statement about a judge could scarcely be imagined. If we ourselves were to be judged, we would want an open-minded impartial judge.
A USNews.com article about Alito by Bret Schulte cites some of Alito's opinions on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and we agree with all of those opinions in result, also those in dissent. And recall, we are political centrists.
SCOTUSBlog writes for example about an Alito majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001):
"striking down as contrary to the First Amendment a public school district anti-harassment policy that extended to nonvulgar, non-school-sponsored speech that posed no realistic threat of substantial disruption of school work."
Alito wrote in that opinion:
"No court or legislature has ever suggested that unwelcome speech directed at another's 'values' may be prohibited under the rubric of anti-discrimination."
As reported in the New York Times on November 1, 2005 by Neil A. Lewis and Scott Shane, Alito Is Seen as a Methodical Jurist With a Clear Record who may become more famous for a coffee mix named after him than for his quiet non-assuming judicial personality:
"Whatever his fate in the nomination process, Judge Alito has already achieved an unusual kind of renown at the T. M. Ward coffee shop near the federal courthouse in Newark, where a popular blend is called "Bold Justice - the Judge Alito blend."
The owner, Jeffrey Sommer, described the blend of Java, New Guinea and other coffees as "strong in the cup with some sweetness and a winey aftertaste." Mr. Sommer said the judge stops by for a cup most days, and sales "really took off" in recent months.
"Customers usually just say, 'Give me an Alito,' " Mr. Sommer said."
We can live with that.
Let's see if Congress can.
Read Balkin's view of what Alito's confirmation might mean for US Supreme Court decisions in the future.
Hat tip to Done with Mirrors.
Bios of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. are found at Wikipedia, Law.com, USNews.com.
Technorati Tags:
Samuel Alito, Alito, US Supreme Court, judges, Justices, LawPundit, Supreme Court nominations, Scalia, Douglas Kmiec, Constitutional Law, Third Ciruit, Saxe, SCOTUS, legal, free speech, anti-discrimination, coffee, Alito blend, T.M.Ward, Bret Schulte, Done with Mirrors, Jeffrey Sommer, Neil A. Lewis, Scott+Shane, Balkinization,Kaulins.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/01/2005 08:28:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT 11/01/2005 03:15:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
Legal Research and Legal Writing for New Associates at Law Firms
As someone who has taught Legal Research and Legal Writing at the law school level for a number of years, I was gratified to read a perspicacious October 24, 2005 article at law.com by Texas lawyer Dionne Carney Rainey on "How New Associates Can Become Effective Researchers".
As Rainey writes:
"New associates who recently finished law school are excited about their first year of practicing law. As they begin their first week at work, they may have dreams of jumping right into the courtroom or successfully closing a large deal. In reality, they will likely spend most of their first few years at the firm researching legal issues."
That is precisely the case, also for those law graduates clerking after law school, many of whom may have excelled, for example, in their substantive intellectually high-level law school courses (such as Constitutional Law), but who otherwise have not spent much time learning to do the bread and butter legal tasks such as legal research and legal writing.
Similar sentiments were expressed in "What Partners Want From New Associates", a New York Law Journal article by Roy D. Simon, published online in August 23, 2004 via law.com:
"Steven Krane, a partner in the new ethics group at Proskauer Rose, listed "thorough legal research" on his short list of desirable qualities for new associates."
An understanding of the important elements of legal writing is also essential, for example, our appreciation of the audience for whom we are writing:
"The managing partner of a Midtown Manhattan firm made this key point: "New associates need to be sensitive in connection with their legal writing, whether their work product is intended for a court, client, adversary, or partner. Young lawyers sometimes lose sight of the fact that the same subject may need to be addressed differently depending upon the intended recipient."
There's a world of difference between writing an objective, candid internal memo to a partner and writing a letter to opposing counsel zealously advocating your client's position.
Before turning in a draft, check your work carefully. "It is important to make an early commitment to excellence in the technical aspects of your work product " says John (Sean) Coffey, a partner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "Partners can understand why a draft letter or brief may be missing the nuance or turn of phrase that comes with experience, but there is no excuse for typos or failing to exhaust the pertinent research before submitting your work for review."
Law firms have always been in need of very good legal research and writing. Indeed, while I was still in my third year of law at Stanford Law School, I was already doing long distance legal research for pay for my future law firm, Paul, Weiss et al. in New York City, which I considered to be the best law firm in the country at that time and where I had been a summer associate in 1970.
The result of this research and writing work was that shortly after starting my full-time work at Paul, Weiss in 1971, a highly complimentary memo from one of the firm's biggest clients was circulated, congratulating the firm for a job well done on a legal brief on which I had done 90% of the research and writing - while I was still in law school at Stanford. This had much more of an immediate impact on my reputation and status within the firm than my law school record, where my A+ in Constitutional Law (from Prof. Vincent A. Blasi) was of lesser practical value to the clients or to the law firm partners.
I mention this to dispel the notion that good grades will guarantee you success in big law firms. You generally need exceptionally good grades to get there, it is true, but other qualities determine whether you will be successful in the long term:
"We would like young associates to know that no matter how sterling their academic or personal backgrounds may be, a successful legal career involves learning and mastering an entirely new set of skills and means of communicating," says Steven Schulman, a named partner at Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman. "That new set of skills can only be acquired by diligent application, over many years, of a willingness to immerse yourself in basic tasks that may seem tedious but are the building blocks of a case or a deal."
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/01/2005 03:15:00 PM
Legal Research and Legal Writing for New Associates at Law Firms
As someone who has taught Legal Research and Legal Writing at the law school level for a number of years, I was gratified to read a perspicacious October 24, 2005 article at law.com by Texas lawyer Dionne Carney Rainey on "How New Associates Can Become Effective Researchers".
As Rainey writes:
"New associates who recently finished law school are excited about their first year of practicing law. As they begin their first week at work, they may have dreams of jumping right into the courtroom or successfully closing a large deal. In reality, they will likely spend most of their first few years at the firm researching legal issues."
That is precisely the case, also for those law graduates clerking after law school, many of whom may have excelled, for example, in their substantive intellectually high-level law school courses (such as Constitutional Law), but who otherwise have not spent much time learning to do the bread and butter legal tasks such as legal research and legal writing.
Similar sentiments were expressed in "What Partners Want From New Associates", a New York Law Journal article by Roy D. Simon, published online in August 23, 2004 via law.com:
"Steven Krane, a partner in the new ethics group at Proskauer Rose, listed "thorough legal research" on his short list of desirable qualities for new associates."
An understanding of the important elements of legal writing is also essential, for example, our appreciation of the audience for whom we are writing:
"The managing partner of a Midtown Manhattan firm made this key point: "New associates need to be sensitive in connection with their legal writing, whether their work product is intended for a court, client, adversary, or partner. Young lawyers sometimes lose sight of the fact that the same subject may need to be addressed differently depending upon the intended recipient."
There's a world of difference between writing an objective, candid internal memo to a partner and writing a letter to opposing counsel zealously advocating your client's position.
Before turning in a draft, check your work carefully. "It is important to make an early commitment to excellence in the technical aspects of your work product " says John (Sean) Coffey, a partner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "Partners can understand why a draft letter or brief may be missing the nuance or turn of phrase that comes with experience, but there is no excuse for typos or failing to exhaust the pertinent research before submitting your work for review."
Law firms have always been in need of very good legal research and writing. Indeed, while I was still in my third year of law at Stanford Law School, I was already doing long distance legal research for pay for my future law firm, Paul, Weiss et al. in New York City, which I considered to be the best law firm in the country at that time and where I had been a summer associate in 1970.
The result of this research and writing work was that shortly after starting my full-time work at Paul, Weiss in 1971, a highly complimentary memo from one of the firm's biggest clients was circulated, congratulating the firm for a job well done on a legal brief on which I had done 90% of the research and writing - while I was still in law school at Stanford. This had much more of an immediate impact on my reputation and status within the firm than my law school record, where my A+ in Constitutional Law (from Prof. Vincent A. Blasi) was of lesser practical value to the clients or to the law firm partners.
I mention this to dispel the notion that good grades will guarantee you success in big law firms. You generally need exceptionally good grades to get there, it is true, but other qualities determine whether you will be successful in the long term:
"We would like young associates to know that no matter how sterling their academic or personal backgrounds may be, a successful legal career involves learning and mastering an entirely new set of skills and means of communicating," says Steven Schulman, a named partner at Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman. "That new set of skills can only be acquired by diligent application, over many years, of a willingness to immerse yourself in basic tasks that may seem tedious but are the building blocks of a case or a deal."
But we might add .... unless, of course, you are a natural "rainmaker" - few and far between - in which case your inability to wade through legal digests or to draft impeccable SEC registrations may not be held against you.
Technorati Tags:
Legal Research, Legal Writing, law, law firms, law firm associates, LawPundit, law schools, Dionne Carney Rainey, Roy D. Simon, Constitutional Law, rainmaker, Steven Krane, Proskauer Rose, legal, Paul Weiss, Steven Schulman, New York Law Journal, Stanford, Stanford Law School, Vincent A. Blasi, legal briefs, John (Sean) Coffey, Kaulins.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/01/2005 03:15:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT 11/01/2005 12:26:00 AM [Home]
[Print]
Happy Halloween !
This is our Halloween "Great Pumpkin" for this year. The carving was done so as to leave a very thin transparent outer skin which gives the pumpkin its intense reddish glow from the red candle inside. The photograph was taken just 30 minutes ago, at midnite in Germany.
Happy Halloween to all.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/01/2005 12:26:00 AM
Happy Halloween !
This is our Halloween "Great Pumpkin" for this year. The carving was done so as to leave a very thin transparent outer skin which gives the pumpkin its intense reddish glow from the red candle inside. The photograph was taken just 30 minutes ago, at midnite in Germany.
Happy Halloween to all.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 11/01/2005 12:26:00 AM
......Creative Commons License