|
I see a lawyer in the Courthouse that I've had one case against. She works for big firms. "Hey Scraps, I'm looking for an associate. Want a job?" "Nah."
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
Also using the delete button:blarzgh posted:Ok guy, tone police this email for me before I send it: I don't know what a "dictesty" is, but is sounds like some that, when burly, Blarzgh wants.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
As someone who sits on both the ethics and grievance committees, I’d say lay off the reference to their alleged professional misconduct. If you really think a violation occurred, you have a duty to report in most states. If a violation didn’t clearly occur it makes you look like a petty douche with empty threats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 12:04
|
|
|
agreed thats one of those emails that will feel good to send in the moment but will not accomplish anything good longterm Discendo Vox posted:Dear OC, Soothing Vapors fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Jul 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 12:15
|
|
|
"tone police" is shorthand at my firm for drafting, but not actually sending a cathartic email. This is one of those lawyers who's response to literally everything is to claim its baseless, frivolous, demand it be dismissed, ask for sanctions, etc. To my demand letter to the other client, her response was, "If you do not issue a letter of withdrawal of your demand and an immediate letter of apology I will be filing a lawsuit against you and your client for sanctions and malicious prosecution!." Shut up, dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
Lol a letter of apology? Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 14:44
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:"tone police" is shorthand at my firm for drafting, but not actually sending a cathartic email. She’s not licensed in CT is she?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
She sounds like a standard big talking dallas lawyer who likes to say dramatic poo poo because it bullies idiot baby lawyers into doing what you want and looks good for clients.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
haha, "expert at interpreting things" is a pretty amazing euphemism for the guy https://twitter.com/TCleveland4Real/status/872955103757701120
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:haha, "expert at interpreting things" is a pretty amazing euphemism for the guy I'm the guy billing 8.5 hours for "continue on the reply motion, reply motion, jury trial, et cetera"
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I'm the guy billing 8.5 hours for "continue on the reply motion, reply motion, jury trial, et cetera"
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
That's why I never feel bad for old lawyers whining about the youths of today poo poo was so easy back in the day and you didn't even have 150k debt
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
I'm going to quit this poo poo, I'm a terrible businessman. How do you say "Jesus loving christ I'm not finalizing your divorce until you pay me you loving deadbeat? NO, two weeks later isn't acceptable because then you'll just avoid me." G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jul 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:I'm going to quit this poo poo, I'm a terrible businessman. CaptainScraps just yesterday posted:I see a lawyer in the Courthouse that I've had one case against. She works for big firms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
I'll think about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:That's why I never feel bad for old lawyers whining about the youths of today It's that last part that I remind myself of when old lawyers complain. Oh you worked your way through law school. Ten hours a week at your father's business huh? Yeah sounds rough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Yeah, no email or cell phones. No cutthroat competition for business. Clients who accepted a lump bill for $x,xxx that just said "for legal services rendered." Judges who closed the courthouse for two months in summer. "I can't believe these kids, complaining about starting salary of $70,000. When I first started in 1983, I only made $60,000!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:I'm going to quit this poo poo, I'm a terrible businessman. Same. So much better working for someone else. It's like I pay them to deal with the business crap and in return they give me work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Law360 with a scoop from 2010: https://www.law360.com/amp/articles/1064564?__twitter_impression=true
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:I'm going to quit this poo poo, I'm a terrible businessman. Hire a bookeeper or something part time. Tell them, "Ok, you tell me that as soon as a client gets behind on a bill that I'm not allowed to keep working until they pay." Then tell the client, "Look, it's not my fault, I WANT to finalize this but my bookkeeper says I'm not allowed to keep working on the file until you pay." This bookkeeper may or may not be imaginary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:She sounds like a standard big talking dallas lawyer who likes to say dramatic poo poo because it bullies idiot baby lawyers into doing what you want and looks good for clients. Even worse: a bottom-feeder solo who works in Carrollton or something who's a terrible lawyer that thinks imitating Dallas lawyers is a productive strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
My niche area has a relatively small bar. My agency is by far the largest condemning authority in the State, so we see a lot of the same people on the other side. In Dallas, it's all pretty chill. No one is going after anyone's license, threatening sanctions, etc. Cases settle or they don't, and a trial doesn't ruin the relationship. In Houston it's the opposite. Everyone (including my office) plays games. Everyone is always worried about what the other side will do. People take their full 6 hours in a depo. Trials are merciless. No one agrees to continuances or extensions. And there are often sanctions and bar complaints bandied about. Why the hell are the two cities so different ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
good news for the patent bar, word through the grapevine is there's a memo coming out in the next two weeks that Iancu's going to basically get rid of 101 rejections
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:My niche area has a relatively small bar. My agency is by far the largest condemning authority in the State, so we see a lot of the same people on the other side. Dallas is like that in Civil Lit, but my experience with Real Estate and particularly Condemnation in North Texas is all pretty chill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:good news for the patent bar, word through the grapevine is there's a memo coming out in the next two weeks that Iancu's going to basically get rid of 101 rejections what the gently caress????
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
I have no clue and I'm super excited to be working on a bunch of 101-only appeals right now because I have no idea how this is supposed to work if we're simply not issuing rejections on subject matter that the Federal Circuit deems ineligible??? Anyway, we'll see what the memo says when it comes out
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:I'm going to quit this poo poo, I'm a terrible businessman. File a motion to withdraw and set it for a hearing 14 days from now (assuming no upcoming deadlines). Client knows you're serious and either pays or tries to do a final hearing on his own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:good news for the patent bar, word through the grapevine is there's a memo coming out in the next two weeks that Iancu's going to basically get rid of 101 rejections Going to be a fun notice and comment period on that one. E: I suspect the grapevine has it wrong because whatever else Iancu is, he isn’t stupid enough to stop issuing 101s (esp since that would likely trigger an APA challenge and the agency would lose). The Berkheimer memo is more his speed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
Yuns posted:edit:
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Going to be a fun notice and comment period on that one. I've been mostly responding to Berkhekmer on the basis that nothing significantly more than the abstract idea is recited necessitating a factual inquiry into whether such subject matter is routine and conventional, or giving a 112 enablement rejection along with it and saying that based on the level of disclosure either it's not enabled or it's routine and conventional Speaking to junior examiners, I'm surprised we're not seeing APA challenges to current 101 practice
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
Yeah, the latter is what I’d hope more examiners start doing. If your spec is silent on some claim element, it’s either routine or you failed to enable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I've been mostly responding to Berkhekmer on the basis that nothing significantly more than the abstract idea is recited necessitating a factual inquiry into whether such subject matter is routine and conventional, or giving a 112 enablement rejection along with it and saying that based on the level of disclosure either it's not enabled or it's routine and conventional Did berkhekmer change anything on your end besides a new stupid argument you have to put up with on occasion? As in, were there any cases that would have/would not have received a 101 rejection before or after the memo? I always felt like the routine etc side of things was rarely if ever close enough to be worth arguing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
Meatbag Esq. posted:Did berkhekmer change anything on your end besides a new stupid argument you have to put up with on occasion? As in, were there any cases that would have/would not have received a 101 rejection before or after the memo? I always felt like the routine etc side of things was rarely if ever close enough to be worth arguing. I've used the explanation at 881 F.3d at 1369 as to why the Applicant didn't disclose anything more than the idea itself if they can't point to a benefit, as opposed to the invention as a whole merely being a particular implementation of the idea on the theory that there's many ways to implement the idea and merely choosing a specific one isn't patentable absent more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 06:23
|
|
|
Could one of you patent turbo-nerds explain this in terms I can understand because it sounds interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 13:26
|
|
|
After the Supreme Court decision in Alice 4 years ago, there's been a bunch of developing case law at the federal circuit over what can and can't be patented. As the case law has developed, a test has arisen that inventions directed to an abstract idea are not patentable unless they are directed to significantly more than the abstract idea, and are not routine and conventional. Of course, what all those words mean is not clear, and case law has been further explaining what "abstract", "significantly more", and "routine and conventional" mean. Earlier this year, Berkheimer came out, which says that whether something is routine and conventional is a factual determination, and everyone was hand-wringing over weather this meant that examiners would have to start providing evidence instead of just hand waving away the claims. At least in my experience, it hasn't really changed much, because most of the applications I examine don't recite anything significantly more than the abstract idea in the first place such that I would need to determine whether or not it's routine and conventional. of course, the federal circuit also hasn't actually explained what "significantly more" means, so we have to work by way of example in cases where they have found packable subject matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 13:58
|
|
|
I've suggested that they take 101 away from the examining core, and have a pre-examination specialist read the disclosure to see if anything significantly more than an abstract idea is disclosed before sending it to an examiner, and moving payment of the search fee to when the case is forwarded to the examiner, who determines both 102 and 103, and, if subject matter significantly more than an abstract idea is disclosed, whether it is routine and conventional
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
So my application to patent "high quality shitposting" is about to gain new legs??
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:So my application to patent "high quality shitposting" is about to gain new legs?? If your shitposting has legs, then it's patentable. If it doesn't, it's not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:So my application to patent "high quality shitposting" is about to gain new legs?? You don't need to patent something when there's no one who can compete with you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 15:22
|
|
