The RED ZONE
March 30, 2007
Ever wonder how outside counsel is selected? Their decision making process is often complex, involving multiple concerns and pressures. Lawyers and marketing professionals need to identify what they are up against and how to improve the selection challenges. We will be focusing on these components for several weeks.
Marketing Training for the Next Generation of Rainmakers
March 29, 2007
The practice of law has seen many changes in the past 10 years. The profession has changed to become more client focused, associates are entering at higher salaries, and firms are pressured to be more efficient. All this adds up to the necessity for new associates to be productive sooner — and that includes developing business. However, young lawyers do not learn how to develop clients during law school. They learn to research, cite cases, and think logically, but they do not learn the practical skill of getting and keeping clients. This must be taught by senior lawyers, outside consultants, or others responsible for training.
Exploring the Status of the Obvious Danger Doctrine in Failure-to-Warn Cases
March 28, 2007
Traditional tort law principles provide that product manufacturers and sellers have a duty to warn of hidden risks that pose a danger to product users. As a corollary, courts generally hold that manufacturers and sellers have no duty to warn consumers of obvious dangers inherent in the product. Consequently, most judges have left to the jury the question of whether the danger of injury from a product is obvious. Against this backdrop, a recent decision has cast doubt on the accepted notion that obviousness is necessarily a question for the jury. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Michigan held in <i>Greene v. A.P. Products, Ltd.</i>, 717 N.W.2d 855, <i>reh'g denied</i>, 720 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. 2006) that, as a matter of law, hair oil posed an open and obvious danger to consumers that negated any duty to warn that the product could kill if ingested or inhaled.
Tips for Negotiating Mobile-Game Development Agreements
March 28, 2007
The mobile-game industry can be lucrative. Mobile games ' which can be downloaded to cell phones and other mobile devices ' can be cheaper and easier to develop than games created for platforms like PCs or game consoles, where users expect higher production values. What also makes mobile games attractive to developers and entrepreneurs is the potential market of consumers who already carry and use cell phones ' estimated at 207.9 million nationwide and 2 billion worldwide. Mobile games present huge brand opportunities as well: Celebrities such as hotel heiress Paris Hilton, rapper 50 Cent, skateboarder Tony Hawk and poker champion Phil Hellmuth have each licensed their names and images to mobile games. Tom Cruise, notoriously shy of associating his name with videogames, lent his name exclusively to a Mission Impossible III mobile-phone game.
IP Branding: Adding Value to a Business
March 27, 2007
In a nutshell, the value of a firm or business is equal to not only the inherent value of its IP but also the value added from the successful branding of a company's intangible assets. This article presents four key steps, with a focus on patents and trademarks, toward adding an IP branding strategy to an existing business model.
'The Continuum of Value'
March 27, 2007
Despite no seeming fundamental economic differences, there have been occasions where divorce courts in different states have reached different conclusions of value for the same type of business. These states reach such different conclusions as to what constitutes marital property because they have different views as to the meaning of the term 'value.' This article represents a summary of some of our findings concerning the application of the premises and standards of value in divorce matters.
Units an Owner Can Recover for Self
March 27, 2007
The First Department's recent decision in <i>Pultz v. Economakis</i>, N.Y.L.J., Feb. 22, 2007, at 18, col. 1, has garnered a remarkable amount of press coverage for what is a fundamentally unremarkable case. The decision primarily stands for the humble proposition that a court must interpret a statute in accordance with its clear and unambiguous language. Nevertheless, the First Department's steadfast defense of an owner's right to recover one of more apartments for his or her own personal use merits further analysis.
