BDAbramson/Archive - Law

I have separately archived law-related discussions here. == Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe == Are you sure this if from the Three Stooges. I could have sworn it was from the Marx Brothers. User:Nricardo 22:08, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC) *I have the picture on my hard drive! See [http://www.123posters.com/stooges7.htm] --User:BDAbramson 22:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Federal citation system == There's nothing unique in the U.S. about the way federal cases are cited. ''Volume''/''Reporter''/''Page'' is the format of ''every'' case reporter in the United States, state or federal. This information is already at court citation, so I will redirect your article there. User:Postdlf 03:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) *That's reasonable - I had not realized there was an entry for court citation - I did look for a few variations, but not that one. --User:BDAbramson 03:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Court case infobox == I created instructions at User:Postdlf/court case infobox to aid in the use of my infobox. I've been planning on adding this to the SCOTUS project page but haven't gotten around to it yet. I hope it's of some help to you on future articles. User:Postdlf 03:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Excellent - I think the infobox is great, and I appreciate the link. I gather you're a lawyer as well :-D Referring to your previous post, btw, I think a lot of non-lawyers will not understand the meaning of the citations that follow the case names in many case-articles, so I'm making a practice of putting all case citations in the text in a link leading to court citation. --User:BDAbramson 04:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) **I'm ''almost'' a lawyer...I graduate this May (and none too soon—I'm a little sick of law school at this point). Regarding the case citation link, there's a conflicting practice of making the first cite a link to the full text of the decision; someone even created a template to do this quickly (see ''Texas v. Johnson'' for an example). I've never seen the point of that, as the findlaw link is always additionally put at the bottom under "see also" or "references", and you'd think the last thing you'd want to do at the very start of an article is to send someone off-site. Anyway, I think your habit makes more sense. User:Postdlf 04:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) ***Actually, we are in the same boat - I also graduate in May, from Florida International University College of Law (but my ConLaw prof insists that we are already "lawyers" b/c we understand the law, and must follow the rules of professional ethics). It seems there should be a standard practice for doing all legal cases the same way (your infobox goes a long way towards accomplishing that). Is there a forum in which to raise this issue for the entire community? --User:BDAbramson 16:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) ****I'm at Georgetown. Know what you're doing yet afterwards? There is Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, but the project is kind of stale, and the format suggested is (in my opinion) not a very good one and has been rendered largely obsolete by my case infobox (esp. the section "The Bench"). I've been meaning to unilaterally update it but haven't gotten around to it yet. I think that the content of the article should dictate the form of headers and paragraph divisions rather than the other way around. There are certain sections that every case article ''should'' have, but if they don't yet either due to lack of information or effort, there's no point in trying to force it to conform to a structure that it's not ready for. See United States v. O'Brien for a simple example of organization in a complete article; by conrast, Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony was a rather short opinion with simple issues, without a really complex fact pattern, and without any opinions other than the unanimous court's. It could be expanded to include more historical context (the history of expanded copyright protection for nonwritten works, subsequent developments in that area, perhaps even the public perception of photography as merely mechanical or creative) but until that's done, it simply didn't make sense to cram a bunch of headers into a few short paragraphs. User:Postdlf 16:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Req. for Sony v Betamax == Great work on all the legal/case law articles. I don't think wiki has an article on the 1980's Sony v Betamax supreme court case. I think that's too important a ruling to be left out of wikipedia. Any chance you can throw together a stub? User:Feco 22:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Indeed - that's actually on my list of things to do! --User:BDAbramson [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BDAbramson BDAbramson]gab">User talk:BDAbramson 22:11, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC) **Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios is the case. User:Postdlf 22:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) ***Hmmm, then it's off my list of things to do ;-) ... I've been planning to do articles on all the Supreme Court cases I've had to brief this semester for IP, Fed Courts, and Conflicts of Law. In any event, I've now redirected Sony v Betamax (and Sony v. Betamax) to the appropriate case. --User:BDAbramson [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BDAbramson BDAbramson]gab">User talk:BDAbramson 22:19, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC) == Apple v. Microsoft == Hi there -- you commented in editing Apple v. Microsoft: "There have been more complicated software cases since Apple Computer v. Microsoft". Have there? Any pointers are welcome. User:Tempshill 21:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Thanks for merging the articles == Hello: Thanks for merging the two Erie R.R. v. Tompkins articles---you did a great job of integrating both of our contributions. My apologies again for creating a separate article by accident! --User:Coolcaesar 17:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Req. for your work on Sony v Universal== I think Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios could make a great WP:FAC. It doesn't quite meet the Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article yet, but it could with a little work. In light of the debates and cases about digital piracy and the obligations of hardware/software creators, the affirmation/modification/elimination of the ''Sony'' precedent is a key issue for the future of information technology. Since you've worked on the article in the past, feel free to take another look to bring it "up to code" for a nomination. User:Feco 21:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) **Oh ''hell'' yeah - but not until tomorrow night, as I'm stepping out in about 10 minutes, and won't be back until then. --User:BDAbramson [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BDAbramson BDAbramson]gab">User talk:BDAbramson 22:00, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC) == Intellectual property == Question: Do you know how the GFDL applies to comments posted on talk pages? I'm asking because I'm planning on adding some essays/commentaries under my user space, and I don't want to have to include a revision history or anything like that if I post them somewhere else. I also want to retain normal intellectual property rights in regard to comments that I've posted on talk pages. I'm happy and honored to have my contributions to Wikipedia ''articles'' licensed under the GFDL, but my comments are my own. I'm asking you rather then the "general population" because you are an expert on intellectual property. (OK, you're just a "student" at this point, but you're an expert compared to 99% of the population, and you will be an expert soon if you aren't already.) - User:Pioneer-12 06:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC) == re: Intellectual property == :''"...if you want to be sure that a particular piece of work on your part is, in fact copyrighted, a � will do it."'' What do I have to do in order to officially use the �? I know that you have to apply for patents and trademarks, but I also know that authors automatically get certain rights. What's the deal with the copyright symbol? - User:Pioneer-12 22:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ---- Thanks for the info. I'm happy to be quoted; I just don't like to be misquoted. And I don't want people to think they can take my words on talk pages and slice and dice and salt and pepper and fold and bend and flip and toggle and wiggle and twist them. (No one has really tried yet, but I want to know and assert my rights just in case. Premptive strike.) - User:Pioneer-12 22:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ---- How's my copyright (and copyleft) notice look? I wonder if I'm the first on Wikipedia to explicitly claim copyright of signed contributions... Lots of people talk about muti-licencing and such, but I haven't seen a copyright notice on a Wiki page yet.... until now. :-) - User:Pioneer-12 23:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC) == Janice Rogers Brown == Thanks for your work on the Janice Rogers Brown article - I appreciate having my occasional biases reigned in. I do think it's important to get a good start on articles for everyone on Bush's "potential nominee" list, as these pages will all get very hectic when Rehnquist actually leaves the court, and are likely to go through vandalism hell when someone actually gets the nom. btw, turns out there's quite a few of us law students here! -- BDAbramson">User:BDAbramson thimk">User talk:BDAbramson 22:13, 2005 May 3 (UTC) *I'd suggest that the way to handle the article is not to remove the critical information, but to balance that with the opposing point of view. -- BDAbramson">User:BDAbramson thimk">User talk:BDAbramson 19:26, 2005 May 12 (UTC) :::See Janice Rogers Brown Talk page.-----User:Keetoowah 20:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC) == Intellectual property redux == Hi, could you poke your head in on the ongoing discussion about User:Pioneer-12's licensing of contributions, over on his User talk:Pioneer-12? You've apparently become our legal expert on Wikipedia. ;) Perhaps the question is best flipped over to the Village Pump or some other venue; I'm not sure. --User:TenOfAllTrades (User_talk:TenOfAllTrades/Special:Contributions/TenOfAllTrades) 13:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC) == Blackacre == There is no question that Blackacre is by far the most frequently used wording, so I can understand a preference for the Blackacre title. I think my motivation to adding the generalized term is because in the past I've seen the name run the gamut of colours (even pinkacre!). I suspect that it's just the result of a handful of law professors taking a bit of liberty with the names, so of course it should be taken with a grain of salt. I was not aware of any "official" or traditional set of designated colours, so if you believe that I may have generalized the title it too much, by all means change it back. I don't feel too strongly one way or another so I'll leave it to your discretion. -- User:PullUpYourSocks 01:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Eggshell skull doctrine == Thank you for the notice, it's no problem at all. Though it isn't a major sticking point for me, I would just comment that I'm not entirely convinced that "eggshell skull" is more frequently used than "thin skull". In English and Canadian case law I have found the "thin skull" term is far more dominant. But in the end, I can't really speak for its use in the world as a whole so I'm not about to make a issue out of it. I appreciate the good work you're doing. Cheers! - User:PullUpYourSocks 21:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I probably should have dropped a note before I did this, but I moved your article to Eggshell plaintiff... Then I also noticed all the double redirects that resulted... So how do we decide which is the "proper" term? User:Postdlf 00:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Re: Andrew McClurg == Sorry, after an hour of *X - is a whore *PArtyPoker.com - is great *Math sucks *October for all - is a party type articles, you get numb. Now that I see someone trustworthy is on the article, I'll leave it alone. Sorry again. User:Antares33712 15:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

B

BA | BC | BD | BE | BF | BG | BH | BI | BJ | BK | BL | BM | BN | BO | BP | BR | BS | BT | BU | BW | BX | BY | BZ |

Words begining with BDAbramson/Archive_-_Law:

BDAbramson/Archive_-_Law