February 22 roundup


  • The Kwikset story is interesting. I’m not sure how the voters in California were manipulated into voting for Proposition 64 either–I voted against it because it seemed to make a complicated, bad law even more complicated. And I can think of many valid UCL cases that may not have any measurable monetary damages.

    One business practice that annoys me greatly is Apple’s labeling of all its (Chinese-manufactured) products “DESIGNED BY APPLE IN CUPERTINO.” Even though there’s a compliant “Made In China” somewhere on the device, there’s no other purpose to this message than to make consumers think this device is more “American” than any other Chinese import they may be using. Of course Steve “Backdated-Stock-Options” Jobs gets away with a lot, perhaps by having a former Vice President on his board….

  • The wearing glasses gambit is easily overcome: ask the arresting officer “Was the defendant wearing glasses when you approached him?”

    Cop says no. Maybe even others say no. Then show the mugshot where the defendant has no glasses. I’ve seen it done.

    And suddenly the defendant looks like a great big liar.

  • […] you might take Gerald to Lenscrafters.  According to this story (h/t to Overlawyered) in the New York Daily News, “nerding” up the defendant by having him wear glasses at […]