Truth Wins Out in Defamation Suit

A New Jersey plaintiff sued the local democratic party for circulating flyers that mentioned the opposing candidate’s criminal record. The plaintiff was under the impression that the flyers were defamatory, because his record had been expunged.

Firstamendmentpwned.

“These flyers are, as a matter of law, not defamatory because the information contained in them is true. It is undisputed that plaintiff was, in fact, arrested and convicted of possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute it.

H/T: Courthouse News Service

Even I wouldn’t take these “First Amendment” cases

It certainly annoys me when I see others’ First Amendment rights being abused. However, it is almost as annoying when I hear people wank about how their First Amendment rights are being trampled upon, and there is just no such thing going on.

Take this asshat, for example. According to reports, he was screaming out in the street, hitting parked cars, and the cops came by to ask him to stop. They didn’t beat him down, they didn’t throw him in handcuffs, they didn’t taze him. After all, this was Cambridge, not Miami. Instead of just quieting down:

He reportedly said he didn’t care, that it was his right to say what he wanted. When told that if he did not quiet down, he was going to be arrested, he reportedly shouted “Go ahead, arrest me! It’s my First Amendment right to say what I want.” Carbone was then placed under arrest for disorderly conduct, according to the report.

Brilliant.

I don't like the marketplace of ideas!

Equally stupid? The ever-amusing John Dozier. Dozier is the frequent target of mockery for his silly positions on various aspects of internet law. Most notably, he has been lambasted for his belief that his cease and desist letters are copyright protected, therefore when he sends them, you can’t re-post them online.

Well, here he comes again with this Jack Thompson-esque rant about how the “left wingers” are trying to oppress him — calling the blog coverage of his antics a “virtual police state online.”

I have often said that the left wingers are all for the right to free speech, until they don’t agree with it. Time and again you’ll see discussions and postings about using the Streisand Effect to retaliate against someone for offering an opposing voice. It is a policy aimed at destroying dissension, particularly in Internet legal and policy areas. “First things we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Consider the context of the statement if you don’t already know and it quickly becomes apparent that this effort to bully, undermine, attack and destroy lawyers is the rallying cry for the police state…a world in which dissidents are held out to public scorn and ridicule by a vicious mob (Streisand Effect) or relentlessy attacked by masked intruders (anonymous speakers). This is the world in which we live today. Honest, honorable, intelligent, well mannered, battle worn veterans of the world rarely participate in online dialogue because of the attacks their participation invites. And so you get a very one sided, jaded, biased perspective on Internet law and policy issues. The far left liberals not only control the message, but police the web for anyone not drinking their kool-aid. (source)

For all the similarly-minded imbeciles out there, repeat after me: The First Amendment does not guarantee you a right to be free from being mocked when you act like a toolbag. That’s what wide-open and robust debate is all about. You put your ideas out there, I put mine out there, Dozier puts his out there, Billy-Bob puts his out there, and then the court of public opinion judges the contest. It is called the “Marketplace of Ideas,” and it is hardly a left-wing philosophy. In fact, it is decidedly NOT embraced by the left (example).

To round out his rant, Dozier proposes five New Years’ resolutions that he wants us all to follow. They are funny.

So, to round up. Yes, you have a right to say what you like. That does not mean that you have a right to shout it at the top of your lungs, while banging on cars, while other people are trying to sleep. Similarly, it does not mean that you have a right to be insulated from being mocked, criticized, or called an asshat for expressing your opinions. I’m glad we covered that.

Paris Hilton continues her IP education… from the defendant’s chair

by Jason Fischer

After getting the go-ahead from the Ninth Circuit earlier this year on her “That’s Hot!” trademark infringement case against Hallmark, hotel heiress Paris Hilton has apparently signed up (although unwillingly) for another intellectual property lesson.  This time, she’s going to be studying design patents.  Her professor, a footwear designer called Gwyneth Shoes, claims that its design patent has been infringed by Ms. Hilton’s kicks.  (Source.)

If you look closely, you can see the heart.

Design patent protection is similar to copyright protection, in that the alleged infringer is in trouble if they’ve produced something that is substantially similar to the protected design.  However, while the government simply gives out copyright registrations, upon request, design patents are only awarded after an examination is done and it has been determined that the proposed design is novel (i.e., no one else has previously designed a product like this).

Gwyneth’s design

The prize for successfully prosecuting a design patent application?  Complete national monopoly for 14 years.  Since copyright protection lasts for a minimum of 70 years, some people would argue that a design patent is hardly worth the effort and cost.  The problem with that logic is that copyrights come with a whole boatload of limitations, leaving room for potential defendants to get away free.  As a key example, fair use and independent creation are no defense to a charge of design patent infringement.  Just ask Paris Hilton, who undoubtedly has just learned about this little wrinkle from her attorney.

---

This article was originally posted on The Tactical IP Blog

The correct answer is “sterlize me”

LawGuru Answers presents this question:

After a fight with my boyfriend, he said he was coming to my house to take back all the things he has given me during our relationship. After he knocked for awhile at my door, I heard him yell at my cat because it supposedly scratched him. I finally let him in and he went to my room, and he took the things he has given me and left. I wanted to have a civilized conversation with him and I wanted my things back, or at least the things I have given him over the years. I am an emotional person, and because he blew me off and said he wouldn’t talk to me, in the heat of the moment I called the police. I told the dispatcher he threatened my cat ( he didnt) in order to get my things. All I wanted was for them to call him and help us negotiate our dispute, however he ended up getting arrested for assault (for threatening my cat) I cried and told the officer that I didn’t mean it, but he said it was out of my hands. He did not threaten me or my cat – I was not and never have been in fear of him. I am going to support him in court and I want everything to be dropped, he does not deserve to have this on his record because it was a petty fight that I took too far- what should i say? (source)

I am not in favor of the death penalty, generally. However, I would very much favor throwing this dumbass and her cat into a wood chipper. Or, more realistically, I think that a little Buck v. Bell is in order — both for the girlfriend and for the cops who arrested the guy for his “pussy assault.”

H/T: securityeven

“His penis was left bruised and swollen but otherwise unharmed.”

ouch.

Apparently, the guy stuck his dick in a metal pipe and then became “aroused,” thus making it impossible to remove his penis from the metal orifice.

The firefighters used the four-and-a-half-inch grinder to cut the pipe from around the man’s penis and it took about 30 minutes.

The patient was given an anaesthetic and his penis was left bruised and swollen but otherwise unharmed.

1) How the hell did he get so turned on by sticking his dick in a metal pipe? I mean, was the pipe that hot?

2) Saying that a penis is “bruised and swollen, but otherwise unharmed” is like saying “aside from the brouhaha in the balcony, the troupe’s rendition of Our American Cousin was hilarious.” I bet the author was a women’s studies major who hates her father. No other possible explanation.

She obviously doesn’t know Dick about intellectual property law

The awesome-as-fuck movie, Blade Runner is based upon the novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”, by Philip K. Dick. In the novel, the “artificial humans” that the protagonist is tasked with “retiring” are the “Nexus-6″ models.

The Google phone launched this week is the “Nexus One.”

And Isa Dick Hackett, Philip K. Dick’s daughter thinks that this is an infringement upon her late father’s intellectual property rights. (source) Obviously, she needs to fire her lawyer, because whoever told her that doesn’t know Dick about intellectual property law.

Hackett believes that Google was referencing “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” when naming the phone. And they probably were. So what? First off, Dick didn’t even coin the word “Nexus.” It happens to be a common English word. (definition) Even if it was not, even if Ol’ Phil did “invent” the word, which intellectual property rights would Google have infringed upon? Patent? Not even arguably relevant. Copyright? What? In a single word? Nice try. Trademark? What products did the Dicks sell under the “Nexus” mark? None.

Of course, if some court is dumb enough to even hear her claim, I’m going to start requiring that anyone who uses the term “asshat” or “douchetastic” pay me $50.

Lesbian stabbed in eye for being a lesbian

By J. DeVoy

I wanna belong, I wanna be proud;
But your gay-bashing voices are so fuckin’ loud
-Bill Moseley*, “Feelin’ Chicken“

A Buffalo woman was stabbed in the eye by two other women as she exited a popular lesbian bar on New Year’s Eve.  As if this wasn’t horrific enough, two women were arrested in an unrelated incident for attacking a man in the parking lot of a shopping center because they suspected he was gay.  The details:

Lindsay C. Harmon said she and two friends were minding their own business as they walked out of Roxy’s, a lesbian nightclub, at about 2 a.m. Friday to head home when two women, in the company of four men, shouted gay slurs at them and then attacked them.

Harmon, a 29-year-old West Side resident, does not have vision in her eye, and it is not known whether she will regain it. She has seven stitches in her right eyelid and eye, along with several stitches in her right cheek and her left arm.

[...]

The stabber was described as a 19- to 23-year-old, pale white-skinned female, about 5 feet, 6 inches tall, 120 to 130 pounds, with wavy, dirty blond hair and wearing a tiara that was left at the scene. She also was wearing a white-colored bubble coat, brown boots and blue jeans. Her companion, also white, was estimated to be 22 to 24 years of age, about 140 pounds with dark hair.

Without making light of the situation, the investigation of the assailant’s identity could be aided by one particular website; seriously, wavy blond hair, a tiara and a bubble coat?  Not quite the “are country” uniform of denim and faded t-shirts splashed with maudlin patriotic imagery of cliffs and eagles, but intolerance doesn’t have a dress code, either.

The most surprising aspect of this event is that the women allegedly committed the violent act themselves.  With four men present, one would almost expect the women to defer to their larger counterparts to administer an ass-beating.  This kind of white-knighting has led to 11-on-1 beatdowns over trivial misunderstandings, so the in-gender character of this event is somewhat surprising.  Then again, seeing that Elin Nordegren initiated her attack on Tiger Woods by throwing the first punch nine iron, maybe it shouldn’t be surprising.

Finally, and most obviously, this is the absolute wrong way to make a political point about homosexuality.  Those opposed to gay rights obviously have better channels than physical violence to disseminate their point, as every state to put gay marriage to a public vote has rejected it.  These incidences tend to support the LGBTQ community’s view that people opposing gay marriage aren’t doing it for family values or some other reason, but are actually just bigots.  A quick thought experiment: are cynical urbane types who would prefer to govern special interest groups through a policy of benign neglect more likely to oppose homosexuals, or are self-described libertarians who talk about Ayn Rand (often without reading her naive work) yet miss the irony of expressing their political beliefs through jingoistic bullshit like “keep your government hands off my medicare“?

I recently lambasted Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels for attempting to delegitimize the speech of athiests, effectively undermining their right to be heard in public fora and diminishing the ethical directive for private entities to allow as much free speech as possible.  The same principle applies here.  Regardless of what people think of homosexuality, it’s always wrong to use fear and intimidation to stifle debate.  Policy, opinions and decisions should be founded on objectivity rather than pity, prejudice, or the desire to conform to a crowd motivated by narcissism and stupidity. (Hint: I’m referring to popular culture.)

The perpetrators’ actions, as claimed, are criminal.  I hope they’re found and face swift justice for causing such harm to another human being.  On a deeper level, this violence strains the threads of democracy.  The public debate needed for good decisions and building consensus is made impossible when a few lunatics ruin it for everyone.  That crime deserves a punishment far more severe than what a court will mete out for the physical harm the accused attackers caused.

*Moseley, best known for his roles as Chop Top in Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, Otis Driftwood in House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil’s Rejects, and Luigi Largo in Repo! The Genetic Opera, is a graduate of Yale University.  Crazy, no?

Streisand 101

by Jason Fischer

In an effort (I’m assuming) to be hip and relevant, my alma mater (and Randazza’s previous teaching gig) has begun adding courses to their curriculum that have little to do with the law or lawyering.  One example is a course called “Popular Culture and the Law,” to which the registrar has assigned the following course description:

This 2 hour seminar will examine social attitudes toward law, lawyers, and legal institutions through the viewing and examination of Hollywood films.  Film depictions of law students, juries, and judges will also be considered.  Each seminar session will focus in as much depth as possible on a particular film or films and a particular problem or aspect of law, law practice, ethics, or the image and status of the lawyer in American culture raised by the film(s).  The majority of the films will be viewed outside the classroom and will be considered as texts providing contemporary depictions of the subject matter to be examined in class.  In addition, readings will be assigned for each film and will form the basis for class discussion.  The films will be reserved in the library.  This will be a paper course which may be used to satisfy the Upper Level Writing Requirement.

My understanding is that this course is just another excuse for chicks in law school to watch Legally Blonde (2001) for the 4,821st time.  What a great way to spend your tuition dollars at a professional school!

Normally, I’m not the one in this forum to bitch about the state of legal education.  Marco & Co. do it regularly enough that I don’t have to.  (See here, here, and here.)  On the whole, my law school experience was a good one.  I took as much advantage of our externship program as I could, and I went out of my way to take classes from adjunct professors who I knew actually practiced what they were preaching.  What I object to is courses that have students watch reruns of “L.A. Law” (1986), or other fictional portrayals, as a means for teaching about the practice of law.  Aren’t there other subjects that could be presented that have more merit?

One subject jumps quickly to my mind, and regular readers of this blog will recognize it immediately.  I would call it “Streisand 101,” taking its name from actress and singer, Barbara Streisand, who effectively demonstrated that simply filing a lawsuit can bring about the exact opposite result from what you hoped to achieve.  It would be a skills course, aimed at training young lawyers to talk their clients down from filing certain kinds of lawsuits — the kind that end up splashed all over blogs like this one, fueling negative publicity for the client.  The intent would be to teach how to 1) determine the unintended consequences of a particular cause of action; and 2) effectively communicate those consequences to the client, giving them the opportunity to back away before doing any real damage.  The primary pedagogical tools would be roll playing and reviewing news stories about past P.R. blunders.

Finding great teaching examples would be about as challenging as falling off of a log.  Just this week, outdoor clothing maker, The North Face (TNF), is in the news again, moving forward with their lawsuit against The South Butt (TSB).  (You can find my previous coverage of the case here.)  Before TNF filed their lawsuit, TSB had a whopping $5,000 in gross sales — after months of being in business.  Now, TSB’s selling that much every hour.  Their attorney claims that, with 14 new employees, TSB has created more jobs in its home state than the Obama’s $800 billion stimulus plan.  (Source.)

The only downside that I see to so educating the next crop of attorneys is that a huge source of entertainment will be snuffed out.  What will we read about for fun when Micheal Jordan’s attorney convinces him not to sue the people who congratulate him?

Smart Lawyer Gets No Sympathy from the Court

by Richard J. Mockler

A story published by Law.com on Christmas Eve really got my attention.

So, when is it fair to revisit the terms of your divorce?  That may depend on who you are.

Yes, a final judgment or decree is supposed to be “final.”  But, in family law cases, there are occasions where it is completely appropriate and sometimes even necessary to change the terms of the final judgment or decree.

What justifies modifying a final judgment?  You obviously don’t want people going back to court every time they realize they left something out of their agreement or want something new.  At the same time, courts have to respect that circumstances do change.  This is especially true with continuing obligations such as child support, alimony, and visitation.

The law is pretty clear that you can revisit alimony, custody, time-sharing, and parental responsibility when there is a substantial change in circumstances.  Most states also require that the change is involuntary and unanticipated.

But, when is it appropriate to reconsider the equitable distribution of assets?  A high-ranking New York real estate attorney at the prestigious Paul Weiss law firm recently learned that he would receive no sympathy from the court when his circumstances changed for the worse.

Steven Simkin had been married to his wife, Laura Blank, for more than 30 years.  They spent the better part of two years fighting over the value of certain real estate investments and Mr. Simkin’s law practice.  One item that was not subject to dispute was their account at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, which reflected a value of $5.4 million.  In the divorce, Laura Blank took $2.7 million in cash for her share of the Madoff investments.  Presumably for tax and other reasons, Mr. Simkin left most of the money in the Madoff investment fund.

As virtually everyone now knows, Bernie Madoff’s investment fund was one of the largest ponzi schemes in the history of the world.  And, it turns out that Steve Simkin’s Madoff investments were completely worthless.  After learning that he paid his wife $2.7 million for her half of a worthless investment, Mr. Simkin asked a New York court to set aside the agreement.

On December 24, 2009, the New York Law Journal reported that the court denied any relief to Mr. Simkin. According to the report, Acting Supreme Court Justice Saralee Evans held that the Court simply would not revisit the parties’ settlement.  The Court reasoned that the account could have been converted to cash, so neither party was mistaken in their marital settlement agreement.

But, what the Court apparently failed to consider was that, even if the money had been withdrawn, it still would have been subject to a “clawback suit” by the Trustee for the Madoff Estate.  The Trustee can recover withdrawals going back six years.  Nevertheless, Mr. Simkin is simply out of luck.  First, he lost $5.4 million in the Bernie Madoff fraud. Then, to add insult to injury, he unwittingly gave his wife $2.7 million for her share of the worthless Madoff investments.  Of course, there are many stories about people who were screwed by Bernie Madoff.  But, in this case, the family law judge decided that Mr. Simkin should bear 100% of the loss and his wife should keep the $2.7 million she took for her share of the sham investment.

The Court simply had no sympathy for a man who had represented many of the world’s most sophisticated investors in their most important real estate deals.  I question whether the Court would have reached the same conclusion had the wife been left with the worthless investments.

The only good news is that Bernie Madoff will be spending the rest of his life in prison as part of a 150-year sentence.  Unfortunately for Mr. Madoff, there are several inmates who apparently have a sense of rough justice that is even stronger than the Judge that slammed Steve Simkin.

Criminalizing chicken nuggets would reduce crime

Mmm...criminal-ly.

By J. DeVoy

Most readers are familiar with this Florida woman, who called 911 three times to protest her local McDonald’s running out of chicken nuggets.  (Can I say McNuggets and claim fair use?  I think nuggets is the proper term, since other fast food eateries call their deep-friend chicken blobs things like tenders, strips, and, blandly, nuggets.)

Ohio, the wonderful state where 10% of the population was on food stamps even before the current recession, is not to be outdone by perennial loser-state Florida.  From the Toledo Blade:

A Toledo woman, who allegedly put her fist through a fast-food drive-through window after being told her order couldn’t be filled, appeared in court Saturday on a felony vandalism charge [...] Melodi Dushane, 24, of 1332 Felt St. became “upset that chicken nuggets weren’t available” and “punched out the drive-through window,” according to Toledo police.

[Ed.'s note: what a badass name for a publication, the Blade.]  It’s hard to find fault, ideologically at least, with what this woman did.  In this era of shrinking local budgets and declining services, one cannot afford to sit around waiting for law enforcement to commandeer McDonald’s and make more nuggets.  Unlike those fat cats in Florida who can call their local police officers three times to correct such a grave injustice, Ms. Dushane realized she had to emulate Michael Douglas in Falling Down and get those nuggets the only way she knew how – brute force.

This obsession with chicken nuggets is baffling.  In this writer’s experience, they’re too gross and rubbery to be worth much effort to obtain, let alone a criminal record.  But, different strokes for different folks.

Striking fear into the hearts of McDonald’s employees everywhere, the alleged assailant was released on a supervised recognizance bond.  Though ordered to stay away from the restaurant at issue, she won’t have to travel far to find another.

Brit Hume is fortunate that he doesn’t know a damn thing about Buddhism

Brit Hume chimed in on Tiger Woods’ recent marital issues by giving us this bit of ignorance that only Fox News could provide:

…Whether he can recover as a person depends on “his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redeption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, “Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

I love this Hume twat… like Tiger Woods needs to “recover.” Recover from what? Having a cock n’ balls? And what the hell does believing in a fairy tale about a magic space zombie jew have to do with any of this? Its fuckheads like Brit Hume that drove me away from the MSZJ eating in the first place. Hearing crap like that is why I say that I really don’t care what my kids do with their lives, as long as they never become christians.

Not that there aren’t some marvelous, and beloved christians in my circle of friends. In fact, I know many christians who practice their religion with a true degree of purity and compassion — which essentially makes them Buddhists. They pray for me, and I appreciate it when they do. But, christianity seems to have this inherent flaw in it that it produces a surplus of assholes like Hume.

Attention J.D. holders and soon-to-be grads: Expatriation information here!

By J. DeVoy

One of the things holding recent and soon-to-be law grads back from expatriation — other than the global dearth of jobs — is the constant fear that they’ll be pulled back to the United States and have their lives ruined.  This concern is reasonable, as the U.S. has a very broad global reach.  The IRS can tax your income as a U.S. citizen anywhere in the world.  The U.S. also bombs the shit out of people on the flimsiest of pretexts, so its power is not trifling.  It is not, however, unlimited.

Go for the grey!

This map, pictured above, shows all of the nations the U.S. (purple) has extradition treaties with in blue.  The grey nations have no formal extradition treaties with the U.S.  The full list of nations that have extradition treaties with the U.S. can be found at 18 U.S.C. § 3181.  For simplicity’s sake, Wikipedia has this awesome chart that appears accurate and up to date.

This map isn’t very inspiring.  Is it worth leaving America to live in a failing kleptocracy like Russia?  I’m relieved that our government had the foresight to sign such treaties with the fine, upstanding people of Nigeria, where everyone seems to have some claim to royalty.  Even Lesotho, the ridiculous land-locked country embraced entirely by South Africa (which Invictus shows to be a highly functional nation) is in on the action.

Extradition treaties don’t mean everything, though.  Where they do apply, the language of § 3181 is broad and sweeping, addressing mainly capital crimes, drugs, and parental kidnapping.  Even where they don’t exist, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, allowing for international service of process, may ensnare a debtor on the run in its tendrils.  Whether this can result in garnishment of wages, attachment of property, or other action may depend on other treaties between a target state and the U.S., and will require particularized research too consuming for a blog post.

On balance, though, the risk of extradition is low for student loan evaders.  Whether or not one can be sent home for crimes has little bearing on whether Sallie Mae can chase after an errant grad through civil process, wielding her rolling pin of financial ruin.

To avoid civil penalties, there are other steps a potential ex-pat may take.  First, simply disappear without telling anyone.  When you arrive someplace new, claim to have amnesia.  Taken to unlikely but logical extremes, it can be really interesting.  In the alternative, fake your own death.  Leaving the life insurance implications aside, this plan has substantial literary precedent.  Even Krusty the Clown faked his own death — twice!  Truly, there is hope for us all.

Arcade Culture and Law School

by Christopher Harbin

I spent the better part of my youth in arcades.  A latch-key kid with oodles of unsupervised time, I was lucky to find the allure of Galaga more appealing than beating a cat to death with a plastic golf club like my neighbor did.  Arcades kept me out of trouble but better yet taught me everything I needed to know about how to navigate law school.

Privilege and Pride

For those of you too old, too young, or too cool to have spent any serious time in arcades, the first thing you need to know about arcades is that arcade games were tough.  I’m not talking Ice World in Mario 3 hard; I’m talking repeatedly-and-relentlessly-pound-you-in-the-ass hard.

Arcades had two types of patrons:  rich kids and poor kids.  Rich kids plunked quarter after quarter after quarter into these hard-ass games and after forty continues and ten bucks, they’d beat it.  But the poor kids never continued.  First, we never had the money to mindlessly continue – we’d be out of money and beating animals with our neighbors before the sun went down.  But more importantly we didn’t continue on principle.  We lived on the one credit credo.  Only pussies continued.  We started every game from the beginning. Sure, it was a little more cash up front, but in the long run you’d spend a lot less to beat the game.  Arcade owners hated it.  And we loved that they hated it.

In the desperation of finals, you see the same patterns emerge.  I love to watch the lawschool listserv asplode as the kids with money to burn beg and plead for supplements three days before exams.  Sure supplements are useful at times, but when I see someone carry six or seven of them into an open book-exam along with a book of canned briefs and a commercial outline, I just can’t help but think of the kids spending ten dollars to beat Mortal Kombat II.

Competition

In law school, the curve, moot court, OCI, and about a hundred other things set up some forced competition.  Arcades were no different.  Multiplayer fighting games were and still are the arcade staple.  Single player games can be beaten and after the critical mass of ruffians learned to beat it, the machine was basically worthless to the arcade owner because the riff-raff wouldn’t play it anymore or they’d learned how to play damn near continuously on one credit.  But fighting games kept kids coming.

For those that don’t know, all two-player fighting games have a challenge system where the person playing can be challenged by someone else at the machine, and if the challenger wins, they get to keep on playing and the loser goes home.  Winner stays, loser pays.  So, while playing a fighting game, someone better than you can effectively take away your turn to play.

And because of this forced competition and twenty-five cent stakes, fighting games had a culture all their own.  You put your quarters up on the glass to mark your spot, when it was your turn to challenge, you didn’t speak to the competitor.  You just played.

When someone put his two quarters up on the glass of a Street Fighter 2 cabinet, it wasn’t a personal slight.  Arcade regulars took challenges in stride – they liked the challenge, even if they lost.  But the rich kids or non-regulars would be offended.  They’d scoff and curse and call you names.  Sometimes, you saw another tactic – I can’t count the number of times I watched some dickhead beg another kid to not challenge him.  It wasn’t even about the money – it’s just that they didn’t want to audience in the arcade to see them be beaten.

Again, in law school, you see people taking competition far too personally.  A dude in the library late is a gunner.  Someone who wants high grades is a striver.  Nasty glances at OCI.  People purposefully playing mind games with other students.  It’s all so ridiculous.  I’d far rather law students plunk their quarters on the glass and shut the fuck up.

As home consoles grow and arcades fade, I can’t help but wonder if the absence of the neighborhood arcade is the true catalyst behind the participation trophy, helicopter-parent crowd.  An entire generation brought up on free continues and endless lives.  I’m worried.

8====D.com

It’s crap like this that is going to pay for my first house.  Thanks ICANN!

So, when do I get the ability to register my cool penis symbol?  Would 8===D.com be confusingly similar to 8====D.com?

Sounds like a law review article in the making.  I gotta get writing.

To do in 2010

By J. DeVoy

1) Expatriate.  Or at least think about it.

Exhibit A:

(NSFW, obviously.)

/list