June 22 roundup

  • Funny how the government sometimes regards our time as necessarily worth $15 an hour or more, and other times as worth far less [Coyote]
  • “Trademark lawsuit over LARP archery gets thrown out of court” for lack of personal jurisdiction [Joe Mullin/ArsTechnica, earlier here, etc.]
  • A sucker deal? Consumer class action alleges substitution of squid for canned octopus [Nick Farr, Abnormal Use]
  • Those who knowingly send texts that distract drivers could face liability in Pennsylvania [ABA Journal]
  • Zach Graves, “Optometrists Push For State Laws Blocking Online Eye Exams” [TechDirt]
  • D.C. Circuit upholds net neutrality regulations in a “majority opinion…dripping with agency deference.” [Daniel Lyons, Jonathan Adler, Michael Greve]


  • Jury duty at is rarely $15.00 an hour.

  • On that third party texting liability article. My wife calls and texts me all the time knowing I will let it go to voice mail or read it when I am free. If she knows I am on my way to the store, she will text me items to pick up. I have sense enough to ignore them until I am stopped.

    Will the fact that a text was simply SENT make me( or even more bizarrely, my wife) liable for a distracted driving complaint or liability? Seems rather absurd. Will we charge kids playing on the side of the road. I find them distracting and their parents should know we are going to be distracted by them and keep them inside!

    Or attractive individuals walking down the street? I personally find curvy women in tight clothing distracting but I imagine others will be distracted bot other types. I think we should ban hot men and women from wearing tight clothing where they might be visible to drivers.

    Everything that is not the road and the other vehicles is a distraction, will we hold all of it responsible? I have been distracted by an oddly colored house. I can’t imagine that the owners did not know it would attract attention. Can we name them?

    Maybe I should shut up before I give the blood suckers MORE targets.