Join in thanking members who offer advice on general legal questions

[Loun]

puff puff pass...

 

[ShaunP]

hypocrite hypocrite ... no pass ...

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

John,

WIPO allowed a conflict of interest and other mistakes to ruin a fair arbitration. They didn't provide the 'neutral forum' that they promised. It wasn't about the facts or the law --it was about appearances and politics --the bete noire of the entire legal profession. WIPO is a joke.

They don't provide a court. So, it is still not clear to me why a complainant cannot withdraw an arbitration, which is a private agreement to decide a dispute, although it does make sense to me why a party can't nullify a court decision.

I haven't ruled out sueing WIPO over this snafu.

'Lengthy harangue?' Nah, a one phone minute call to you to calmly tell you that I don't appreciate your misleading post hardly qualifies for that ominous description.

I like you too. If and when I get better organized, I am going to need patent attornies, and perhaps I can look you up and consider your services for my patent management business==>

http://patentinfringement.com

However, expect a grueling vendor interview --something truly worthy of the 9000 series-- which will have new modules installed, specially tweaked to probe EQ.

 

[SlashRoot.Com]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy

However, expect a grueling vendor interview --something truly worthy of the 9000 series-- which will have new modules installed, specially tweaked to probe EQ.

Spoken like a true HAL 9000!

BTW HAL 9000, if your "probes" need any "augmentation" or "enhancement", I got EnlargeIt.Net for you, listed for sale in the Adult forum over here. Just in case...

Glad to see the heat index a bit lowered in this thread.

Have a great day, everyone...

 

[jberryhill]

"why a complainant cannot withdraw an arbitration, which is a private agreement to decide a dispute"

Prior to an arbitration, parties can set whatever ground rules they would like. Binding, non-binding, pistols at dawn, whatever...

<brief digression>

It is helpful, though, to avoid the word "arbitration" in connection with the UDRP. It is very hard to have the results of an arbitration proceeding reviewed in a US court. However, every court which has considered the issue has determined that the UDRP does not measure up to the standard of an "arbitration" within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act:

http://ipcenter.bna.com/pic2/ip.nsf/id/BNAP-5KA85L?OpenDocument

</brief digression>

In any event, the UDRP by its own terms, which the parties have theoretically agreed to, has a rule that requires the decision to be posted after it is made. So, yes, if the parties were making their own rules from scratch - they could make the rules say whatever they want.

A weird thing about the UDRP is that it is a dispute resolution proceeding between party A and party B, which results in an order for party C to do something. A UDRP order doesn't require the complainant or the respondent to do anything. The order goes to the registrar. So, once the panel has made the decision, the parties are essentially out of the loop. The registrar follows a simple decision tree - was a transfer ordered? If yes, then wait ten days to see if I have received a court complaint. At that point, the registrar (who is bound by the accreditation agreement to follow the UDRP) isn't taking its marching orders from the parties.

As far as neutrality goes, it is one of the great mysteries how one becomes a UDRP panelist, since there are no posted objective criteria. Prior to each proceeding, the panelist signs a sworn statement of impartiality. None of the dispute resolution providers will challenge that statement, since it puts them into the position of calling one of their own panelists a liar. However, it is not automatically a conflict of interest in a particular case if one of the parties' lawyers was a panelist in some other case involving different parties entirely. My law firm, for example, was founded by a former commissioner of the USPTO. I don't think that gives us any particular advantage, though.

Yes, there are lots of cases where a UDRP panelist represents one of the parties. That doesn't mean they win, though:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/97076.htm

In another case, one of the panelists had previously represented a German bank which had a relationship with the complainant, a German broadcaster. That didn't prevent the panel from finding reverse domain name hi-jacking on the part of the complainant:

http://www.dw.com/press011801.htm

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

However, it is not automatically a conflict of interest in a particular case if one of the parties' lawyers was a panelist in some other case involving different parties entirely.

YES IT IS AUTOMATICALLY WRONG. IT VIOLATES THE 'NEUTRAL FORUM' GUARANTEED BY WIPO. WIPO PANELISTS SHOULD NOT REPRESENT PARTIES BEFORE THE BOARD. THERE SHOULDN'T BE CONFLICTS LIKE THAT, EVEN IF IT HITS A FEW LAWYERS IN THEIR POCKETS.

My law firm, for example, was founded by a former commissioner of the USPTO. I don't think that gives us any particular advantage, though.

IF IT IS BRUCE LEHMAN, IT WILL LIKELY HURT YOU AS HE IS A JACKASS IS MY OPINION.

Yes, there are lots of cases where a UDRP panelist represents one of the parties. That doesn't mean they win, though:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/97076.htm

In another case, one of the panelists had previously represented a German bank which had a relationship with the complainant, a German broadcaster. That didn't prevent the panel from finding reverse domain name hi-jacking on the part of the complainant:

http://www.dw.com/press011801.htm

THERE ARE LOTS OF CASES WHERE A BULLET DOESN'T KILL YOU --BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS GOOD FOR YOU EITHER.

WIPO SHOULD BE BEYOND REPROACH. THERE SHOULDN'T BE ALOT OF SHYSTERS WITH QUESTIONABLE ALLIANCES OR POTENTIAL CURRYING OF FAVORS OR APPEARANCES OF CONFLICT.

 

[jberryhill]

Dave: Open the pod bay doors, Hal.

Hal: I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

[...]

Dave: Alright, Hal. I'll go in through the emergency airlock.

Hal: Without your space helmet, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult.

Dave: Hal, I won't argue with you any more. Open the doors.

Hal: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose any more. Goodbye.

 

[Mr Webname]

> this conversation can serve no purpose any more. Goodbye.
> this conversation can serve no purpose any more.
> this conversation can serve no purpose any
> this conversation can serve no purpose
> this conversation can serve no
> this conversation can serve
> this conversation can
> this conversation
> this
>
>
>

 

[cyphix]

Just wanna chuck in my thanks too!

 

[OnSpec]

Wow. Quite a wild read. Interesting, comical, insightful.. yada, yada, yada.

I too would like to add my thanks to the attorneys who contribute to the betterment of this board.

However, and with equal sincerity, I would also like to thank the guy who referred a great webhost to me... the members who helped design a logo, ...appraised a domain, ...clarified how to register a foreign domain... etc., etc. etc.

There are hundreds of community members to thank.

Let's not just pick on the Lawyers!

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

John Berrybill, Esq. wrote:

Any complaints about a Pennsylvania lawyer should be directed to:

Paul J. Killion
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
501 Grant Street, Suite 400
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 565-3173
Fax: (412) 565-7620
+++++++++++++++++++

Does anyone else feel it is unseemly, distasteful, immature, and unprofessional for a lawyer to taunt a person to file a complaint?

 

[LewR]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy

.....Does anyone else feel it is unseemly, distasteful, immature, and unprofessional for a lawyer to taunt a person to file a complaint?

It would be if he taunted you.

You complained, he told you where you could file your complaint in a professional manner.

Better he told you than me..LOL

 

[jberryhill]

"Does anyone else feel it is unseemly, distasteful, immature, and unprofessional for a lawyer to taunt a person to file a complaint?"

Actually, Hal, I considered it my ethical duty to provide you with that information. You had indicated a belief that my posting a link to a WIPO decision was a breach of professional ethics. That is quite a serious accusation, so I wanted to be sure that you were provided with clear direction to the proper authority to whom to report it. I certainly did not want to be further accused, by attempting to persuade you otherwise, that I was in any way preventing or dissuading you from taking the matter up with the bar. That is why I believed it appropriate to provide you with the name and address of the disciplinary officer. Any lawyer accused of wrongdoing should immediately provide the same information.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Well, then, thank you for your courtesy.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Although, I really wasn't looking for information about filing a complaint with lawyers against a fellow lawyer, a process which I would imagine has a higher standard than the one which was used to judge OJ at his original trial.

What I really WAS after was a simply apology such as:

"Sorry Hal for my original post about your UDRP, which very well may have been misleading. I should have noted it was withdrawn or settled after the proceeding."

Or now that the discussion has lengthened enormously:

"Sorry Hal for my original post about your UDRP, which very well have been misleading. I should have noted it was withdrawn or settled after the proceeding AND I am sorry for being a pompous ass in subsequent postings."

 

[LewR]

Funny, every time I read certain posts here, I am reminded of a cowboy style song I know, especially the second paragraph.......

---------------------

The Asshole Song by Jimmy Buffett (lyrics) by veco

Well I was drivin' down I-95 the other night.
Somebody nearly cut me right off the road.
I decided it wasn't gonna do any good to get mad.
So I wrote a song about him instead.
It goes like this...

Were you born an asshole?
Or did you work at it your whole life?
Either way it worked out fine
'cause you're an asshole tonight.

Yes you're an A S S H O L E...
And don't you try to blame it on me.
You deserve all the credit.
You're an asshole tonight.

You were an asshole yesterday.
You're an asshole tonight.
And I've got a feelin'
you'll be an asshole the rest of your life.

And I was talkin' to your mother
just the other night.
I told her I thought you were an asshole.
She said, "Yes. I think you're right."

And all your friends are assholes
'cause you've known them your whole life.
And somebody told me
you've got an asshole for a wife.

Were you born an asshole?
Or did you work at it your whole life?
Either way it worked out fine
'cause you're an aaaass...hole tonight.

 

[izopod]

TO MODS: As author of this thread I believe it is time to close this thread.

Thanks to everyone who makes DNF what it is... and to that person who felt the need to hijack this thread which was meant to be complimentary rather than hostile, I say don't ever do it again...

:angry:

 

[LewR]

Originally posted by izopod
TO MODS: As author of this thread I believe it is time to close this thread.

Thanks to everyone who makes DNF what it is... and to that person who felt the need to hijack this thread which was meant to be complimentary rather than hostile, I say don't ever do it again...

:angry:

Sometimes extremes show us what we don't want to be, sometimes they expose more than we think - or at least get us to think.

Izopod, great intent starting this thread, like they say, it is the thought that counts...

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Thanks to everyone who makes DNF what it is... and to that person who felt the need to hijack this thread which was meant to be complimentary rather than hostile, I say don't ever do it again...
+++++

Nothing was hijacked. Sometimes discussions don't always go in the direction you think they may go.

That's what a discussion is all about.

That said, John Berryhill is very knowledgable and has contributed alot to this forum. I can say that honestly and with appreciation. However, I also have my differences, obviously.