Despite the generic nature of the term, “Cloud Computing,” Dell filed an intent-to-use application for a trademark registration for it. Nobody seemed to notice until a flurry of internet chatter roundly criticized Dell and the USPTO (example).

Despite the fact that the USPTO initially issued a notice of allowance, the egg seems to have hit the right face and the notice of allowance has been withdrawn.

Nobody seems to have heeded the call to stop a Finnish company from registering PWNAGE.

The Auto Admit plaintiffs have finally named a defendant. Other than that, not much of note in this latest installment in the AutoAdmit saga. The plaintiffs claim complete diversity of citizenship with respect to the new named defendant (formerly identified only as “:D”). However, they don’t make any such statement with respect to all the other defendants. Given the flimsy copyright claim in this complaint, I presume that the plaintiffs are trying to manufacture diversity jurisdiction. However, given the statements in the complaint, it seems like there couldn’t possibly be complete diversity with respect to all plaintiffs and defendants.

At paragraph 7, the plaintiffs seem to be invoking the Calder v. Jones standard for personal jurisdiction. Some courts still follow Calder in the internet context. I look forward to seeing how the D.Conn handles it.

At paragraphs 44 and 59, the plaintiffs include some nasty, offensive, and mean language posted by the newly-named defendant. However, I fail to see what is legally actionable in those statements.

What I find shocking is that this complaint still names some defendants who could clearly prevail in a motion for judgment on the pleadings. “A horse walks into a bar” - to name one. I’ll wear a New York Yankees T-Shirt for 24 hours if anyone can put forth a non-frivolous argument to support keeping him in this action.

In other words, the long-awaited amended complaint is a big yawn. The only really interesting thing about it is how sloppy it is. Of course, the sloppiness pales in comparison to this.

IDENTITY UPDATE

For anyone who is curious, I have personally spoken to the University of Texas adjunct who happens to bear the name of the newly-outed defendant (Matthew C. Ryan). He IS NOT the person in question (”:D”). I would appreciate it if any readers would keep that in mind, and educate anyone who might hold this mistaken belief. I can confirm with 100% certainty that the guy in the complaint is neither an attorney nor a law professor.

I find the press coverage on this case to be terribly irresponsible. Listing a name like this without doing some basic fact-checking to figure out if they have the right man seems to be foolish (from a legal standpoint) and shameful (from an ethical standpoint).

So far, it seems that the only people who have been made to suffer from the inception of this complaint are “collateral damage” parties.

Where is Richmond, again? D’OH!

Check TEH MAP before filing!

This matter is before the court on the motions to quash third party subpoena to AOL, LLC of non-party movants Anthony Ciolli, Jane Roe and John Roe. After reviewing the record in this case, the court is now concerned regarding the validity of the subpoena at issue and its jurisdiction to enforce said subpoena. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(2)(C) requires that a subpoena for production or inspection must issue from the court for the district where the production or inspection is to be made. In this case, the subpoena in the underlying case of Doe I and Doe II v. Individuals whose true names are unknown, et al., Civil Action No. 07:CV00909, filed in the District of Connecticut, was issued from the Western District of Virginia but was directed to AOL, LLC at its office in Richmond, Virginia and requires production at the Ikon location which is also in Richmond, Virginia. Richmond is in the Eastern District of Virginia, however, not the Western District. Therefore, it appears that the subpoena at issue in this matter may be invalid on its face as it was issued from the wrong court.

Before issuing a ruling on the motions to quash, however, the court invites the plaintiffs to submit a supplemental memorandum of law addressing the validity of the subpoena directed to AOL, LLC. Any such supplemental memorandum must be submitted to the court within ten (l0) days from the date of this Order. The non-party movants will then have seven (7) days from the date any such supplemental memorandum is filed in which to file a response.

I look forward to seeing that memo. How many times can one firm fumble the ball in a single case?

Ok, I will never make fun of Paris Hilton again… not that I do anyhow. But I’m doing backflips watching McCain’s smug-assed campaign’s self esteem getting buggered. Watch this.

For months, Barney Frank (D-MA) has been trying to unravel the UGIEA — the law that Bill Frist tacked on to a Port Security bill, which may not have made online gambling illegal, but it sure scared all of the online gambling webmasters offshore.

Now, Pete Sessions (R-TX) has proposed a bill to “clarify” the UGIEA. Source - Pokerlistings.com.

The bill seeks to limit the definition of illegal online gambling to sports betting, which is illegal in 49 out of 50 U.S. states. Language in the bill also points out that the ambiguity in the definition of illegal online gambling has caused legitimate companies to leave the U.S. online gambling market and made it impossible to implement the UIGEA.

Because there just ‘aint enough soul-music-hitler-humor these days…

HT: Andrew Sullivan

I read on a blog somewhere, that there was an MBE question that went something like this:

A woman wanted to get pregnant. A man, who had previously had a vasectomy, offered to have sex with her. He did not tell her that he was sterile. They had sex, and then the woman found out that the man was sterile. She wanted to bring rape charges against the man. (source - an anonymous reader)

One of the answers was “fraud in the inducement did not constitute rape.”

This fact pattern might sound awfully familiar to anyone who read Pickup Line Quagmire in Massachusetts. However, no, I do not draft MBE questions. Nevertheless, at least I know this much — loyal Legal Satyricon readers got at least one question right on the MBE.

Who needs BarBri?

Steve H., over at Hog on Ice… tell us how you really feel about law professors:

Ivy League attorneys don’t teach law for a relatively paltry hundred grand a year because they want to. A lot of them have no choice. Law schools are asylums for the idiot-savants of the profession. The people who graduate summa cum laude and then have to bail after six months at the public defender’s office, because they can’t hack it.

Sure, there are exceptions. But they are unusual… Some successful attorneys teach part-time because they enjoy it, or because they feel they have to “give something back,” or because it feeds their egos. But if you go to law school, you will find that most of your teachers are socialist nutwads who couldn’t find their way to the courthouse if you slapped a label on them and turned them over to Federal Express. Many of the profs at my law school had never even passed a bar exam!

They were pathetic, or at least the ones with big egos were. Far-left kooks who went straight from law school to…law school. Goofs who loved pretending to be brave and rebellious, while working tenured jobs with outstanding benefits, and while toeing the administration line with a scrupulousness worthy of OCD. College is the only place where you can rebel by doing exactly what people in authority tell you to do.

They worked fifteen hours a week and pocketed two or three grand for it, while mewling and puking about the evils of capitalism. I know you think I’m kidding when I say fifteen hours a week, but honest academics admit that it’s true. (source)

Whether you agree or disagree… you gotta give it to Steve. The man uses language beautifully. Sniff.

HT: Althouse

Delta is rolling out wifi on planes… a novel concept since European carriers have offered this for years.

And, it seems like the only way to get members of congress to pass an intelligent law is to annoy them! Congress is moving to make the ban on in-flight calls permanent. (HT on this to Quizlaw)

Richard Dawkins rocks.

And the follow up

ALL YOUR SUPERSTITION ARE BELONG TO US!

I mean that literally. In Do they really think the earth is flat?, a few nutbags who believe the Earth is a disc discuss their ideas.

“People are definitely prejudiced against flat-earthers,” says John Davis, a flat earth theorist based in Tennessee. (source)

I presume (but I haven’t researched it) that Mr. Davis is also a fan of “intelligent design.”

The article contains an interview with scientific author Christine Garwood. She says that it is a “historical fallacy” that mankind once believed the earth to be flat, and only Christopher Columbus’ voyage changed that.

In fact, people have known since at least the 4th century BC that the earth is round, and the pseudo-scientific conviction that we actually live on a disc didn’t emerge until Victorian times.

Theories about the earth being flat really came to the fore in 19th Century England. With the rise and rise of scientific rationalism, which seemed to undermine Biblical authority, some Christian thinkers decided to launch an attack on established science.

And Rhonda Storms continues that attack.