Month: February 2014

Hearsay Culture – Denise Howell’s interview with David Levine

February 13, 2014 Hearsay Culture Leave a comment Podcasts

At last, the big moment: here’s Show 200, Denise Howell‘s wonderful interview with me! I had a great time being on the other side of the proverbial “glass,” and developed a deeper appreciation for the great work of all 199 previous guests. Denise asked me about my history in radio, as well as my current non-Hearsay Culture substantive focus on information flow and system issues in hydraulic fracturing and international trade.

After Denise’s interview, I ran through the long list of people who have helped make Hearsay Culture possible. It is a LONG list. I am in your debt.

I hope that you enjoy the discussion, and thanks again to Denise for being a great interviewer! To that end, and most of all, thanks to YOU for listening! Here’s to 200 more.

Briefing Best Practices: iPad Edition

February 12, 2014 Administrator Leave a comment Tech for Lawyers

Writing briefs when judges read on iPads (Volokh Conspiracy, 17 Jan 2014) – I just read a very interesting article, Daniel Sockwell, Writing a Brief for the iPad Judge . The basic problem: [M]ore and more judges are reading briefs primarily on iPads or other tablets…. The Fifth Circuit judiciary reads the majority of their briefs on iPads, and, from conversations with numerous judges and clerks, the other Circuits are not far behind (though I was told that the Third Circuit is “not as iPad heavy as some circuits”). The best way to know how a particular judge typically reads briefs is to ask – the clerks will likely be happy to help. Why do iPads even matter? … Lawyers who care about communicating forcefully and clearly should seek to perfect style and typography in addition to substance. The rules of typography are simply different for a screen than for print… And here are the author’s suggestions (reprinted with his permission, some paragraph breaks added): A brief written to be read on an iPad should differ from one written for text in three main ways: it should use fewer footnotes, should use a different font, and should avoid confusing hierarchical organization. Lawyers who expect a brief to be read on an iPad should try to avoid footnotes. One of the advantages of reading on an iPad is that judges can adjust the screen view, zooming in and focusing on the current passage. However, this advantage is lost if footnotes require the reader to constantly scroll to the bottom of the page for citations or substantive material. Worse, the extra scrolling raises the risk that the footnotes won’t be read at all, already a concern with substantive footnotes. Next, lawyers should carefully consider what font to use in a brief that may be read on an iPad. Fonts designed for screen reading are significantly different from those designed to be printed. Most importantly, quality printers print at a much higher resolution-even the retina iPad display has only 264 pixels per inch, less than half the dots per inch of a quality laser printer. As a result, some of the best print fonts can become jagged or difficult to read at screen resolutions, especially when readers zoom in. * * *

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/bplanet.

Social Media And The SEC

February 11, 2014 Administrator Leave a comment Tech

Tweets, likes and follows: social media and the fair disclosure (Corporate Counsel, 10 Jan 2014) – Is tweeting considered Fair Disclosure? Have social rules changed the rules? The SEC says yes, but the landscape is new and the dust is still settling. Be careful. In April 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cleared public companies to use social media outlets such as Twitter® and Facebook® to announce key information in compliance with Regulation Fair Disclosure (Regulation FD), “so long as investors have been alerted about which social media will be used to disseminate such information.” However, the SEC’s guidance was general, leaving room for error. Some executives may be rightfully worried about those in their organizations with “itchy Twitter fingers,” while balancing a desire to communicate with shareholders and potential investors who are eager for information. Indeed, social media are essential channels in today’s world, and there is good reason to act prudently when using them to announce financial and other key information to investors. Some law firms, such as Philadelphia-based Pepper Hamilton LLP, recommend some best practices. A commentary posted on the firm’s corporate website shortly after the SEC guidance was released includes several key “Pepper Points” that are particularly instructive. For example * * *

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/bplanet.

How Access Can Affect Copyright Infringement

February 7, 2014 Administrator Leave a comment Copyright

Does publication on the web give rise to “access” in copyright infringement analysis? (Evan Brown, 30 Jan 2014) – Plaintiff sued defendant for copyright infringement. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings (which is essentially the same thing as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim except it is after defendant files an answer). Defendant asserted that plaintiff had not pled copyright infringement because under the Seventh Circuit’s “substantial similarity” test to demonstrate infringement, plaintiff had not pled defendant had “access” to the allegedly infringed work. In some copyright infringement cases, a plaintiff may not have direct evidence that the defendant committed infringement. In those situations, a finder of fact may infer that infringement has occurred when it is shown that: (a) the defendant had access to the copyrighted work; and (b) the accused work is substantially similar to the copyrighted work. In this case, defendant argued it never had access to plaintiff’s designs that it was alleged to have infringed. But the court considered the online publication, 11 years ago, of plaintiff’s designs, to find access for purposes of the motion for judgment on the pleadings: “With regard to online publication, in 2003, [plaintiff] first published the [allegedly infringed work] at [its website]. The Internet already was widely used and accessible at that time. Because the non-movant is entitled to reasonable favorable inferences in evaluating a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the online publication is enough to establish access for purposes of denying [defendant’s] motion for judgment on the pleadings.”

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/Stuart Miles.

Rockefeller Challenges Target On Data Breach

February 5, 2014 Administrator Leave a comment Security

Rockefeller to Target: why haven’t you reported data breach to the Securities and Exchange Commission (US Senate, 28 Jan 2014) – Chairman John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV today sent a letter to Target asking why the company has not yet reported its recent massive data breach to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), as the Commission recommended in an October 2011 guidance. Rockefeller encouraged the SEC to issue this guidance, and is a strong supporter of giving investors more complete and timely information about cyber incidents such as the Target data breach. “A data breach involving the theft of personal information about tens of millions of Target customers is clearly a material cyber attack that has affected how your business operates. I am therefore puzzled why your company has not yet updated its SEC filings to reflect this event. Your failure thus far to provide this information to your investors does not seem consistent with the spirit or the letter of the SEC’s financial disclosure rules,” Rockefeller wrote. More recently, Rockefeller encouraged SEC Chairman Mary Jo White in April 2013 to issue Commission-level guidance to spur companies to take their cybersecurity efforts seriously. Chairman White recently asked SEC staff to review disclosure rules, saying, “I believe we should rethink not only the type of information we ask companies to disclose, but also how that information is presented, where and how that information is disclosed, and how we can take advantage of technology to facilitate investors’ access to information and make it more meaningful to them.” Rockefeller and Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) asked Target on January 14, 2014 for the latest findings on the circumstances that permitted unauthorized access to the financial and personally identifying information of as many as 110 million Americans. [Polley : see also the earlier To 8-K, or not to 8-K? For Target, that is indeed the question (Mintz Levin, 17 Jan 2014)]

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/Stuart Miles.

Sanctions Hit Coursera And Online Ed

February 4, 2014 Administrator Leave a comment Education

US forces Coursera to ban students from Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria (Slashdot, 29 Jan 2014) –“Coursera is an online website that offers free courses from many of the world’s top universities. Now, all students from Syria, Sudan, Iran and Cuba will no longer be able to access Coursera . The official blog provides more info regarding the ban: ‘ Until now the interpretation of export control regulations as they relate to MOOCs has been unclear and Coursera has been operating under the interpretation that MOOCs would not be restricted. We recently received information that has led to the understanding that the services offered on Coursera are not in compliance with the law as it stands … United States export control regulations prohibit U.S. businesses, such as MOOC providers like Coursera, from offering services to users in sanctioned countries, including Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria. Under the law, certain aspects of Coursera’s course offerings are considered services and are therefore subject to restrictions in sanctioned countries, with the exception of Syria.’”

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/cooldesign.