|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:~*~course chat~*~ Isn't History of CrimLaw just the crimlaw you took in 1L? How much more antiquated can that poo poo get?
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
BigHead posted:Isn't History of CrimLaw just the crimlaw you took in 1L? How much more antiquated can that poo poo get? You'd be surprised! Course Syllabus posted:The two dominant legal traditions in much of the world, common law and civil law, emerged in medieval times, and to the present often differ greatly in their modes of prosecution, standards of evidence and nature of proof, form of trial and roles of fact finders. Borrowings between the traditions, in the past and now more frequently, are creating some convergence, but the inner logic of each system remains quite different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 04:56
|
|
|
Lucificate posted:I wanna reiterate to not go to law school. I'm considering UF law. can you tell me about your experience and where (other than going at all) you felt you went wrong? What would you do differently? I'd appreciate any kind of info, the more the better
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
bropocalypse now posted:I'm considering UF law. can you tell me about your experience and where (other than going at all) you felt you went wrong? What would you do differently? I'd appreciate any kind of info, the more the better If you are considering going to a low-ranked law school, "what went wrong" is not the right question: you need things to go very right, not merely not wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 06:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If you are considering going to a low-ranked law school, "what went wrong" is not the right question: you need things to go very right, not merely not wrong. To be fair, UF is a T1 and can help you out if you want to be a trial lawyer in Florida (a lot of the AFTL/FJA are UF alums and retain strong ties/adjunct positions with the school.) -e- there's still no jobs, die alone, etc., but UF is not Cooley, and if you're going to practice in Florida, it's where you want to go outside of a T14.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 06:55
|
|
|
Chiken n' Waffles posted:Where are you located? AZ? Yeah I'm in the Phoenix Metro area, so the volunteer thing will be with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, which is a pretty big office. I really hope I can get some good experience out of it, because a lot of the places I've applied said "We really like you, but you have no experience, and there's way too many experienced paralegals and lawyers looking for positions right now". I'm supposedly going to be working in their pre-trial division doing stuff related to prelim hearings and such, so I think it'll be interesting. While I'm doing that, I'm going to be a part-time project clerk for a large firm in downtown phoenix (assuming my final interview goes well tomorrow) and hope to generate contacts/experience and land a full-time paralegal job with one of those. I appreciate the tips, we had a litigation technology class which went over a bunch of stuff, but barely touched on any of it. Did you have a preference for when you worked with a firm vs with a solo attorney? Any other paralegal lurkers in the thread?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 09:04
|
|
|
gently caress gently caress gently caress, Bilski's out; time to see if I still have a job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 13:06
|
|
|
Lucificate posted:I wanna reiterate to not go to law school.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 15:18
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:gently caress gently caress gently caress, Bilski's out; time to see if I still have a job. spoiler: yes. now let's see if it makes any sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 15:46
|
|
|
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except for Parts II– B–2 and II–C–2. ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined the opinion in full, and SCALIA, J., joined except for Parts II–B–2 and II–C– 2. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SCALIA, J., joined as to Part II. have fun
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 15:48
|
|
|
bropocalypse now posted:I'm considering UF law. can you tell me about your experience and where (other than going at all) you felt you went wrong? What would you do differently? I'd appreciate any kind of info, the more the better The law school "experience" was fine. I wouldn't have anything really negative to say specifically about UF law. At this point in my life I would agree with the majority of posters in this thread (and other law related boards out there) that you shouldn't go to law school unless you get into a top end school or have a firm to step right into out of law school by virtue of family or friends. If you don't satisfy either of those conditions, but still REALLY REALLY wanna be a lawyer then you need to make top 10% of your class and do a good job at OCI. If you aren't getting into top end school (Top 14 or whatever) then do not go to some lovely rear end private school. They all suck after top 14, so go to lowest cost/best financial aid you can find. For me, as bad as my debt is, it could be a hell of a lot worse. Florida public schools are pretty affordable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 15:50
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:spoiler: yes. now let's see if it makes any sense. When I saw it was a Kennedy opinion I figured no and it appears I was correct. "that patent fails our unannounced test, which is not the transformation one. What, you want the actual test? screw you"
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 16:26
|
|
|
MacDonald decision out also. Number of people I know surprised by it: 0 I was wondering if they would go so far as to incorporate the Second Amendment. But I guess I have my answer. As a denizen of Chicago I can honestly say I'm not terribly disturbed by this ruling. Everyone who wanted a gun to do bad things could certainly still get one prior to this ruling. Defleshed fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Jun 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 16:52
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:spoiler: yes. now let's see if it makes any sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
loving MOTHERFUCK PIECE OF poo poo SUPREME COURT gently caress YOU EIGHT loving MONTHS OF WAITING FOR A PIECE OF poo poo THAT DOES ABSOLUTELY gently caress NOTHING HELLO WHAT THE gently caress IS AN ABSTRACT IDEA ANYWAY AND HOW WILL I RECOGNIZE ONE IF IT IS CLAIMED BECAUSE THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING THAT KEEPS ON GETTING loving LITIGATED BECAUSE WE CAN'T READ THE loving MINDS OF A BUNCH OF FUCKBRAINS THAT CAN'T AHHhhafhashashfhasf fufafhadiajkl;sd
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 18:53
|
|
|
oh just gently caress it, every specific-purpose software is just an algorithm, which is per se abstract, which also clearly only suited for the use for which it is claimed, thereby preempting every other use because there are no other uses gonna just write a five page 101 rejection and staple that to every office action
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 18:59
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:oh just gently caress it, every specific-purpose software is just an algorithm, which is per se abstract, which also clearly only suited for the use for which it is claimed, thereby preempting every other use because there are no other uses Abstract idea patents: the new obscenity. Edit: GOD DAMMIT... just got shot down by the best prospect to come along in my now 8 months of job-hunting. I'm completely loving doomed. OptimistPrime fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jun 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 19:20
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:loving MOTHERFUCK PIECE OF poo poo SUPREME COURT gently caress YOU They must've thrown this together over the weekend. At least software patents aren't all dead. Now, um, someone please hire me before the Third Depression eats us all. P.S. sucks to be a hedging algorithm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 20:02
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:EIGHT loving MONTHS OF WAITING FOR A PIECE OF poo poo THAT DOES ABSOLUTELY gently caress NOTHING yes it does, it says "sue over every single process rejection because there is no accepted standard for those" have fun!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 20:09
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:oh just gently caress it, every specific-purpose software is just an algorithm, which is per se abstract, which also clearly only suited for the use for which it is claimed, thereby preempting every other use because there are no other uses
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yes it does, it says "sue over every single process rejection because there is no accepted standard for those" I don't know what Baruch is bitching about... sounds like job security for his entire field.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 20:47
|
|
|
gvibes posted:It basically just goes back to pre-Bilski, as far as I can tell. I.e., software and business method patents are alive and well. entris posted:I don't know what Baruch is bitching about... sounds like job security for his entire field.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 20:55
|
|
|
Nice that Bilski didn't really change anything for software patents so a lot of us can still have jobs...but, man, most of these software patents are pure crap anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
I actually like my job and I like disposing of cases and I hate seeing the same case on my docket over and over. At least before today, I just made sure they recited a computer in the spec and they were pretty much kosher. Now? I have to figure out whether it's claiming abstract ideas, and I don't even know how the gently caress to test for that. At least the Federal Circuit stated the correct test: passing the machine-or-transformation test is an exception to the abstract idea exception to everything under the sun is patentable. But how the gently caress do you know when it's an abstract idea? Every algorithm is per se abstract, and I can cite caselaw for miles and miles! The problem is that Benson and Flook say that implementing a known algorithm isn't statutory subject matter (although whoopty-poo poo, it's 103'd anyway on the "every algorithm is computer-implementable" standard), and Diehr says that implementing a known algorithm is statutory subject matter if it passes the machine-or-transformation test, but there's absolutely nothing about novel and non-obvious algorithms that don't pass the machine-or-transformation test, which is pretty much every business method and software patent. edit: I am also going to start applying the Supreme Court's standard of proof that claims are directed to abstract ideas: just loving say so and cite a book, and don't bother to even loving discuss the claim language. My job just got easier. WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Jun 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
The Federal Circuit did, however, gently caress up. Their ruling was that something is abstract if it fails the machine-or-transformation test, whereas Diehr says that you apply the machine-or-transformation test after finding that something is abstract. How you can tell if something is abstract, I don't know. I would like to see an issued patent with a method claim that fails the machine-or-translation test though. I'm going through google patents quickly to see if I can find anything. Here's the foundation of my 101 rejection starting tomorrow: It does appear, however, that under Bilski and its predecessors, all algorithms are abstract as a matter of law, as they are, standing alone, a series of mathematical operations. Software patents are themselves per se not tied to a machine (or else they'd be hardware patents). So the only question when faced with a software patent is whether it effects a transformation. edit: And use Benson to say that even if they recite a computer in the method claim, the claim has no utility other than operating on the computer, so abstract idea preemption still applies. WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jun 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 23:48
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/nyregion/23critic.html Writing responses to these people (basically con artists) is like arguing with "I know you are but what am I?" Their statements of claims are barely in English with vague references to fiduciary duties and the "laws of Respondent[sic] Superior". While its good experience for me nonetheless, I have this strange dread that this is what legal practice is like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
fougera posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/nyregion/23critic.html Certain areas of legal practice involve representing companies against pro se adversaries who get all manner of indulgence from the courts without actually stating anything in a remotely correct way. It's quite aggravating and not a good way to achieve a "models and bottles" lifestyle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 02:05
|
|
|
My 1L summer was spent in DC small claims court helping the judge figure out what pro se plaintiffs wanted. Half of them had clear mental diseases, but fortunately they all sued for over whatever the jurisdiction limit was so I referred them to civil court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 02:34
|
|
|
I've only ever dealt with a couple pro se cases but a surprising number of them involved multiple 70+ page motions by the litigant. Pro se plaintiffs have all the time in the world it seems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
Draile posted:I've only ever dealt with a couple pro se cases but a surprising number of them involved multiple 70+ page motions by the litigant. Pro se plaintiffs have all the time in the world it seems. Baruch Obamawitz posted:Half of them had clear mental diseases
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 04:10
|
|
|
So how long are y'all planning on being unemployed after graduation before you go get a different degree? I just met a guy who was a lawyer for 20 years. He said it nearly killed him- his wife was his office manager and she was down to 100lbs, and he finally quit after he had a heart attack. He repairs sewing machines now. I'm giving it a year and then getting an MBA/joining the coast guard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
Vim Fuego posted:I'm giving it a year and then getting an MBA/joining the coast guard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
quote:So how long are y'all planning on being unemployed after graduation before you go get a different degree? A military friend stationed in Afghanistan is already checking out civilian opportunities for someone with my background. Dying to an IED would be a lot better than dying to cirrhosis (alone).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 05:22
|
|
|
Draile posted:I've only ever dealt with a couple pro se cases but a surprising number of them involved multiple 70+ page motions by the litigant. Pro se plaintiffs have all the time in the world it seems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
deathdrive83 posted:Angry pro se prisoners write the best briefs, especially when they are long and hand-written.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 05:38
|
|
|
deathdrive83 posted:Angry pro se prisoners write the best briefs, especially when they are long and hand-written. I don't necessarily need them to be in one form or the other, but I agree that insane, angry prisoners make for the best pro pers. Regular pro pers are just sort of disheartening -- we received a motion the other day from a (presumably) sane woman that had no proof of service, no notice of hearing, no hearing date scheduled, and no motion fee paid.* And for her "legal argument" section, she'd just photocopied a page of statute and stuck it in there. But insane prisoners? Endlessly entertaining. When I was doing Innocence Project, I had a guy who had sent us some crazy letter, so I wrote him back and sent him a questionnaire -- all very standard. He decided that we were his attorneys (we weren't) and immediately began sending us... "motions" for immediate filing. One of his motions was for 8th Amendment relief -- he claimed to have a stomach condition that wouldn't let him eat citrus and, GET THIS, one of his meals came with a SLICE OF ORANGE on the side! Now you or I might think, "Hey, I just won't eat the orange," but to the insane inmate, this is basically a war crime. He also mailed me a wadded-up piece of Saran Wrap with crumbs inside that was further "proof" of the dietary discrimination to which he was subjected. ("Enclosed, please find the package you sent us, returned to you in its original condition. In the future, do not send us any items unless we request them.") He sent me probably ten or twelve different motions before I convinced my supervisors to drop him. We couldn't ever figure out the nature of the charges (beyond the limited info offered by the Corrections website) against him or if there was even any DNA involved. This guy's brain was fried, so he wasn't quite as vexatious as the "Motion to Kiss My rear end" guy, but he was close. *Our clerk's office basically refuses to check ANYTHING for compliance with the court rules -- their policy seems to be "if you submit it, we file it." Even so, you'd think they could manage to notice lack of filing fee. Alaemon fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Jun 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 05:58
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:I don't necessarily need them to be in one form or the other, but I agree that insane, angry prisoners make for the best pro pers. I defend against these. I just got put on notice that we are going to be sued for not providing a serial rapist with special shoes. He's already filed 3 motions for summary judgment. I love my job?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 06:50
|
|
|
Draile posted:Pro se plaintiffs have all the time in the world it seems. That is just because they charge themselves $0 per hour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 11:11
|
|
|
Draile posted:I've only ever dealt with a couple pro se cases but a surprising number of them involved multiple 70+ page motions by the litigant. Pro se plaintiffs have all the time in the world it seems. The worst pro se person I had to deal with went to law school, but didn't practice because I suspect he didn't pass the bar. He actually works for an attorney who is currently suspended so I'm not sure exactly what he does. He kept telling me he was a trained litigator and I should be worried about going against him. He filed all kinds of goofy stuff, such as a commentary on my answer to his counterclaim. Everything he said indicated he had no clue what the law was. He almost refused to do mandatory mediation because he insisted it was arbitration (which is wasn't). Oh, and there was another pro se guy who opposed my motion to consolidate two cases against him by a mother and a daughter whose property he wouldn't return to them after he and the daughter broke up. The judge asked him why he opposed the motion, and his answer was "because it would be righteous." Best response ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
There are days in this business when I just want to slam my head against my desk over and over and over and over and over and over and over. I was told to do a summary judgment, it's gone through 30 iterations through five people, two of which are loving Yale grads and grammar fuhrers. It's 6 pages. I've corrected it every time, going through a shitload of different legal theories. This thing has a 90% chance of being granted because their counter-claim for fraud is absolutely loving bogus, requiring the client to actually foresee $20,000 worth of legal fees turning into half a million dollars because of his attorney's loving negligence. And now the client's too much of a chicken to file it because "we'd lose leverage at mediation if we lost." A) We've already been to mediation; B) We won't call up opposing counsel to say "Hey, let's go to loving mediation again now that you lost your summary judgment" for fear of losing leverage; C) God drat it, I don't get a loving bonus until one of these big cases settle. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Jun 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 17:34
|
|
