September 18 roundup

  • Details emerge on new demonstration grants for patient safety and medical liability [Point of Law, NLJ] GOP underwhelmed by Obama gestures [Fox News and earlier, Salt Lake Tribune, Washington Times, Examiner and more]
  • Trial lawyer charity effort donates Wii sets to rehab hospitals [Daily Business News Detroit] Wait a minute – what about those lawsuits contending Wii was a defective product?
  • No, John Edwards didn’t invent trial tactic of “channeling” thoughts of deceased. And is inflaming jury passion and prejudice “what good closing argument for a good trial lawyer is about”? [ABAJournal, Hochfelder/PoL, earlier]
  • “It took Arizona state police months to realize the same driver was involved” in monkey-mask speed-cam evasions [MargRev, LtB]
  • Connecticut lawyer’s complaints allege that business structure of Total Attorney service amounts to improper fee division [LegalBlogWatch]
  • “Want to Complain About a Cop? Better Bring Your I.D. — And Maybe A Toothbrush” [Ken at Popehat]
  • Tenth Circuit, McConnell writing, reinstates SCO suit against Novell over Linux [WSJ Law Blog]
  • New York employment law could bite Human Rights Watch in memorabilia controversy [Volokh]


  • […] Flexner was pursuing its anti-Linux claims on contingency. Earlier here, here, and here. [Update Sept. 18, 2009: in dramatic reversal, 10th Circuit, McConnell writing, reinstates SCO's suit; Boies firm still […]

  • Where was the judge when the plaintiff’s lawyer was “Channeling”? I read the opinion. The lawyer was allowed to pretend that he was the dead plaintiff explaining how he felt when he was being autopsied. Relevant? Facts in evidence? Appeal to passion and prejudice? Anyone read Rule 3.4? Someone explain to me how this is permissible argument.

  • The WSJ article about SCO is overly optimistic regarding the possibility of the decision in SCO v. Novell reviving SCO’s suit against IBM. Even if SCO were to prove to own the original Unix copyrights, in spite of massive and lengthy discovery SCO has yet to show that Linux contains any infringing original Linux code, a fact on which the judge has remarked. The two putative examples that SCO has presented both ended in humiliation for SCO.

  • Novell has asked for a rehearing en banc with the 10 COA. SCO has been given 14 days to respond. The clock ticks on SCO.