This month's ABA Journal points out that the Patent and Trademark Office is issuing patents covering tax strategies. The first tax patent strategy was issued in 2003. The patent gives rights to a particular type of grantor retained annuity trust. The holder of the patent has now filed suit to enforce the patent against the former CEO of Aetna who used trusts that allegedly are covered under the patent in his estate planning.
There are now at least 52 patents issued on specific tax strategies. Tax and estate planning lawyers are concerned that they will be sued if clients have used their advice that incorporates ideas or techniques covered by the patents.
I know next to nothing about patent law, but there is something about this that just doesn't seem right. Those who want to use the techniques covered by the patent may have to obtain a license from the patent holder. What other legal strategies might be covered by a patent? There is a rumor that a lawyer has filed a patent application for a new way of preparing patent applications.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Lawyer sues for $67 million for lost pants
This is my inaugural post. I am a lawyer. I try lawsuits. I hope to use this blog to exchange ideas with other lawyers and make observations about matters that strike me as noteworthy, funny, or perhaps out of proportion.
Today I came across a story about a lawyer, a judge no less, who is suing his dry cleaners for $67 million for a pair of lost pants.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3119381&page=1
How could any lawyer or judge so drastically lose sight of the big picture? Do you suppose that he brings the same measure of common sense and good judgment to the bench on the cases he tries? How do you suppose that he determined that $1 million just wasn't enough?
His actions suggest that he embraces the notion that our court system should be an instrument of brutality. Public resources that could be used to resolve disputes or seek justice are being diverted to provide him a forum for his temper tantrum. He is the equivalent of a playground bully.
I say, let him have his day in court, and hope for a just result. I have a notion of what I think would be just, but it would not result in $67 million dollars going to the plaintiff. No, I think justice would be best served by the money flowing in the other direction.
Today I came across a story about a lawyer, a judge no less, who is suing his dry cleaners for $67 million for a pair of lost pants.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3119381&page=1
How could any lawyer or judge so drastically lose sight of the big picture? Do you suppose that he brings the same measure of common sense and good judgment to the bench on the cases he tries? How do you suppose that he determined that $1 million just wasn't enough?
His actions suggest that he embraces the notion that our court system should be an instrument of brutality. Public resources that could be used to resolve disputes or seek justice are being diverted to provide him a forum for his temper tantrum. He is the equivalent of a playground bully.
I say, let him have his day in court, and hope for a just result. I have a notion of what I think would be just, but it would not result in $67 million dollars going to the plaintiff. No, I think justice would be best served by the money flowing in the other direction.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)