There are few lives and careers so massively filled with impressive achievements as the life of William Thaddeus Coleman, Jr.
, who passed away on March 31, 2017 as the oldest then still living former Cabinet member.
Just read the obituary of William T. Coleman Jr.
by Dennis Hevesi at the New York Times.
Coleman's life is celebrated at the Paul, Weiss Alumni Network at LinkedIn
-- of which I am a member as a former Paul, Weiss associate -- via Brian Sogol, Alumni Manager at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, who quotes current Paul, Weiss Chairman Brad Karp as follows:
“ Bill graduated #1 from Harvard Law School in 1946, served as the
first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review, and clerked
for Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter (alongside Eliot
Richardson).
Bill tried to land a law firm associate position
in his home town of Philadelphia, but was rejected by every law firm at
which he interviewed. Through a serendipitous encounter with then-Paul,
Weiss associate (and later a respected federal district judge and dean
of both Yale Law School and Penn Law School) Louis Pollack, Bill was
introduced to Louis Weiss, interviewed at Paul, Weiss and was offered a
litigation associate position. Bill commuted daily from Philadelphia to
Paul, Weiss's New York office for three years (1949-1952). While at
Paul, Weiss, Bill worked with Thurgood Marshall on the historic Brown v
Board of Education matter, ultimately leaving the firm to join the NAACP
to fight full time for racial justice. Bill spent the next 65 years
breaking down barrier upon barrier.
”
Hevesi at the New York Times writes about Coleman inter alia as follows:
" His memoir, “Counsel for the Situation,” was written with Mr. Bliss and had a foreword by Justice Stephen Breyer. In it, Mr. Coleman reflected on his own life and on the American legal system, and paid tribute to the people who had influenced him — blacks and whites, Republicans and Democrats.
“They shared the strong conviction,” he wrote, “that individual talent, brilliance and effort can and will change the course of history.
”" [emphasis added by LawPundit]
As noted in an April 3, 2017 correction at the New York Times to set the "small detail" facts exactly
straight: " An earlier version of this obituary misstated the year Mr.
Coleman graduated from Harvard Law School. It was 1946, not 1947. It
also attributed a distinction to him erroneously. He was not the first
black member of the Harvard Law Review; Charles Hamilton Houston had
served on the board in the early 20th century. And the branch of the
service that Mr. Coleman joined was rendered incorrectly. It was the
Army Air Forces, not the Army Air Corps.
"
Saturday, April 08, 2017
Tuesday, April 04, 2017
Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.: U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: First Sale and the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine
The United States Supreme Court on March 21, 2017 held oral arguments on the first sale patent exhaustion case Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.
, which we previously discussed at First Sale and the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine in the Resale and Use of Printer Ink Cartridges
.
The issue presented is formulated by the Supreme Court:
" 15-1189 IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC. V. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
DECISION BELOW: 816 F.3d 721
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2014-1617, 2014-1619
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The "patent exhaustion doctrine"-also known as the "first sale doctrine"-holds that "the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item." Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617, 625 (2008). This case presents two questions of great practical significance regarding the scope of this doctrine on which the en banc Federal Circuit divided below:
1. Whether a "conditional sale" that transfers title to the patented item while specifying post-sale restrictions on the article's use or resale avoids application of the patent exhaustion doctrine and therefore permits the enforcement of such post-sale restrictions through the patent law's infringement remedy.
2. Whether, in light of this Court's holding in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351, 1363 (2013), that the common law doctrine barring restraints on alienation that is the basis of exhaustion doctrine "makes no geographical distinctions," a sale of a patented article-authorized by the U.S. patentee-that takes place outside of the United States exhausts the U.S. patent rights in that article.
CERT. GRANTED 12/2/2016 "
The main question in this case is reflected by the precedent-based reluctance of the U.S. Supreme Court to support the alienation of chattels in commerce, here the first sale patent exhaustion doctrine, a legal issue that goes back hundreds of years to common law and Lord Coke (who has retained his name over the centuries in spite of modern oft overreaching intellectual property protection of generic and name terms):
We think that Justice Breyer's comments during oral argument in the above-cited case represent what the Supreme Court will likely decide on the main issue, based on the logic of Breyer's arguments [here excerpted by LawPundit]:
" JUSTICE BREYER: What about Justice Kennedy's question? I mean, Lord Coke had that very question in mind, I think, that -- that one of the problems with restraints in alienation of chattel is that the buyer may not know, and -- and moreover, it stops competition among buyers. Those are the basic two things that have led that as a kind of underlying principle.
...
Then why don't you require the person who sells it to just resell it with the requirement that they promise not to, you know, whatever it is?
...
[O]ne of the reasons that it's hard to get away with that is the antitrust laws in the contract area. And another reason is because Lord Coke said 300 years ago, you know, it's -- you get into a lot of trouble when you start trying to restrict this buyer who's got the widget and he would like to use it as he wishes. Now, that's been the kind of basic legal principle for an awfully long time.
...
There ... are all kinds of exceptions.
But to go back to your basic point underlying this, of course, any monopolist, including a patent monopolist, would love to be able to go to each buyer separately and extract from each buyer and user the maximum amount he would pay for that particular item.
Dentists would pay more for gold perhaps than someone who wants to use gold for some other thing. Okay? They'd like that.
But by and large, that's forbidden under many laws, even though it does mean slightly restricted output, and it also means a lower profit for the monopolist.
All right. Now, it's against that background that I think the law and economics professors, who are telling what is correct, that -- and the argument that you're making has to be evaluated. That's what I think on the first part.
All this precedent is very hard for you to get around. And I'm not talking about just Lord Coke; I'm talking about the Supreme Court precedent. "
The issue presented is formulated by the Supreme Court:
" 15-1189 IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC. V. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
DECISION BELOW: 816 F.3d 721
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2014-1617, 2014-1619
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The "patent exhaustion doctrine"-also known as the "first sale doctrine"-holds that "the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item." Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617, 625 (2008). This case presents two questions of great practical significance regarding the scope of this doctrine on which the en banc Federal Circuit divided below:
1. Whether a "conditional sale" that transfers title to the patented item while specifying post-sale restrictions on the article's use or resale avoids application of the patent exhaustion doctrine and therefore permits the enforcement of such post-sale restrictions through the patent law's infringement remedy.
2. Whether, in light of this Court's holding in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351, 1363 (2013), that the common law doctrine barring restraints on alienation that is the basis of exhaustion doctrine "makes no geographical distinctions," a sale of a patented article-authorized by the U.S. patentee-that takes place outside of the United States exhausts the U.S. patent rights in that article.
CERT. GRANTED 12/2/2016 "
The main question in this case is reflected by the precedent-based reluctance of the U.S. Supreme Court to support the alienation of chattels in commerce, here the first sale patent exhaustion doctrine, a legal issue that goes back hundreds of years to common law and Lord Coke (who has retained his name over the centuries in spite of modern oft overreaching intellectual property protection of generic and name terms):
We think that Justice Breyer's comments during oral argument in the above-cited case represent what the Supreme Court will likely decide on the main issue, based on the logic of Breyer's arguments [here excerpted by LawPundit]:
" JUSTICE BREYER: What about Justice Kennedy's question? I mean, Lord Coke had that very question in mind, I think, that -- that one of the problems with restraints in alienation of chattel is that the buyer may not know, and -- and moreover, it stops competition among buyers. Those are the basic two things that have led that as a kind of underlying principle.
...
Then why don't you require the person who sells it to just resell it with the requirement that they promise not to, you know, whatever it is?
...
[O]ne of the reasons that it's hard to get away with that is the antitrust laws in the contract area. And another reason is because Lord Coke said 300 years ago, you know, it's -- you get into a lot of trouble when you start trying to restrict this buyer who's got the widget and he would like to use it as he wishes. Now, that's been the kind of basic legal principle for an awfully long time.
...
There ... are all kinds of exceptions.
But to go back to your basic point underlying this, of course, any monopolist, including a patent monopolist, would love to be able to go to each buyer separately and extract from each buyer and user the maximum amount he would pay for that particular item.
Dentists would pay more for gold perhaps than someone who wants to use gold for some other thing. Okay? They'd like that.
But by and large, that's forbidden under many laws, even though it does mean slightly restricted output, and it also means a lower profit for the monopolist.
All right. Now, it's against that background that I think the law and economics professors, who are telling what is correct, that -- and the argument that you're making has to be evaluated. That's what I think on the first part.
All this precedent is very hard for you to get around. And I'm not talking about just Lord Coke; I'm talking about the Supreme Court precedent. "
Saturday, April 01, 2017
EU Laws and UK Law As the Result of Brexit : The Example of the General Data Protection Regulation
The government of the United Kingdom has now invoked
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and has thus formally triggered the UK intention to leave the EU, a separation widely called "Brexit" for short.
In two years, Brexit will finalize the divorce of the UK from the EU, but that divorce does not automatically repeal laws in force in the United Kingdom.
Brexit has many complex legal aspects, many of which will beset Europe and beyond for many years, among which is a widespread misunderstanding of how EU Law applies to UK persons and businesses in the interim ... and beyond.
Brexit itself does not nullify laws in effect in the UK.
As headlined at Out-Law.com:
Survey reveals UK business' misunderstanding on GDPR and Brexit .
The GDPR is the General Data Protection Regulation, which goes into effect in the EU before Brexit occurs.
The UK government has said that the GDPR will be adopted in the UK regardless of Brexit.
What happens thereafter is then up to the lawmakers in the United Kingdom.
In two years, Brexit will finalize the divorce of the UK from the EU, but that divorce does not automatically repeal laws in force in the United Kingdom.
Brexit has many complex legal aspects, many of which will beset Europe and beyond for many years, among which is a widespread misunderstanding of how EU Law applies to UK persons and businesses in the interim ... and beyond.
Brexit itself does not nullify laws in effect in the UK.
As headlined at Out-Law.com:
Survey reveals UK business' misunderstanding on GDPR and Brexit .
The GDPR is the General Data Protection Regulation, which goes into effect in the EU before Brexit occurs.
The UK government has said that the GDPR will be adopted in the UK regardless of Brexit.
What happens thereafter is then up to the lawmakers in the United Kingdom.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Native American Rock Art Petroglyphs Pictographs
Deciphered as Land Survey & Astronomy by Andis Kaulins
paperbacks in color print
Volume 1, 2nd Edition, 266 pages
ISBN: 1517396816 / 9781517396817
Volume 2, 2nd Edition, 262 pages
ISBN: 1517396832 / 9781517396831
Sky Earth Native America Volume 1
Sky Earth Native America Volume 2
by Andis Kaulins J.D. Stanford by Andis Kaulins J.D. Stanford
(front cover(s))
(back cover with a photograph of the author and book absract text)
