It was the wrong thread

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Then I think your prior post was overbroad. "No copyright in federal government works." I thought you were implying there was some kind of common law of public intellectual property, and I had concluded there wasn't. Oakland can stop me from marketing "Oakland PD" hats the same way it can charge admission to the Colisseum when the Warriors are playing even though both are public property. And I can't steal Oakland's website and put it up elsewhere, etc. Yes?

He was talking about the real government, not local backwaters.

I'm back. Why is GGG using a pic of TM as his avatar?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Cite, please.

adder is on holidAY and burger is already busy. we'll get to this when we do.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

He was talking about the real government, not local backwaters.

I'm back. Why is GGG using a pic of TM as his avatar?

Despite the fact that we're first cousins, we're married now.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Then I think your prior post was overbroad. "No copyright in federal government works."

It was specifically designed to cause a panic attack on your part. Since I was referring to an FBI logo, I didn't really think I needed to cover state governments or, for that matter, foreign governments.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the hats are more grounded in TM- although Obama tshirts are freely sold in every non-rich neighborbood party store in the Metro D

Perhaps I should explore a cross promo with motor city bagels?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

ABA Journal:

As large law firms continue to hire fewer highly paid associates, law school applications will eventually drop and the number of law schools will likely contract, two professors predict in a recent article.

The most prestigious “super elite” law schools will remain, according to the article by University of San Diego law professor David McGowan and academic fellow Bernard Burk of the Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford. Outside the super-elite, schools attracting more applicants will have good placement records, lower tuition because of state subsidies, or will be in regions less served by other institutions.

The article notes outgoing Northwestern law dean David Van Zandt’s estimate that the break-even starting salary for law grads—the point where the cost of law school is a good investment—is $65,000. For many students the break-even may be even higher, McGowan and Burk say.

The article notes that law school tuition has risen at a rate higher than inflation, forcing students to borrow ever-greater sums of money. But the recession has reduced the number of highly paid associate positions, making law school a bad economic proposition for more and more people. Although many law schools are seeing more applications, “the lessons of hard experience will eventually seep into the market,” the article says.

The profs’ predictions are part of a larger article analyzing “two seemingly contradictory observations,” McGowan writes at the Legal Ethics Forum. One the one hand, firms are getting bigger. On the other, they seem more prone to rapid collapse.

McGowan and Burk argue that law firms operate as referral networks, and partners with well-connected colleagues get more business, creating financial incentives for law firms to get bigger by adding more successful partners to the network. But partners with the most business will move to a different network with better referral opportunities, making law firms more fragile.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

ABA Journal:

So, David is arguing against the continued existence of his own law school?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

So, David is arguing against the continued existence of his own law school?

I hope so, cuz he's a fucking idiot or just a glaring example of how ignorant lawyers are of economics. $65K is the break even point for starting salaries??!? If they want to live in a van down by the river......maybe.....or are student loans dischargable in BK in his world?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I hope so, cuz he's a fucking idiot or just a glaring example of how ignorant lawyers are of economics. $65K is the break even point for starting salaries??!? If they want to live in a van down by the river......maybe.....or are student loans dischargable in BK in his world?

I think it's under the presumption that the alternative career path is a minimum wage job.

Even at median income as an alternative, I don't think $65k is break even for the lost wages for 2.75 years out of the workforce + borrowed living expenses, never mind tuition.

David's not a dumb guy, nor is he a typical prof who only worked at a firm for 2 years, max, but that is a dumb point even in the world of law review writing which (almost) encourages making dumb points. I'd blame it's use as a data point on the non-lawyer Stanford guy, but do consider the source--the outgoing dean of NWU, who's apparently trying to rationalize the tuition at NWU (I read that twice, as I first assumed seeing "NWU dean" and "$65k" was referring to the total cost of attendance at NWU).

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I hope so, cuz he's a fucking idiot or just a glaring example of how ignorant lawyers are of economics. $65K is the break even point for starting salaries??!? If they want to live in a van down by the river......maybe.....or are student loans dischargable in BK in his world?

Uh, that break-even point came from the former dean of Northwestern Law. Which is a little bit like a BMW dealer telling you that not only can you afford to buy this car, you can't afford not to buy it.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

you can't afford not to buy it.

That is sort of how I feel when I drive by the Ferrari dealership.

http://www.eppc.org/docLib/20101028_tribeletter.pdf

Has this been seen/discussed before? Just got sent to me by a friend. Highly amusing, in a cringeworthy way.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Does anyone know off the top of their head whether there is a time limit to re-file in federal court after a plaintiff takes a voluntary dismissal?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by ironweed

http://www.eppc.org/docLib/20101028_tribeletter.pdf

Has this been seen/discussed before? Just got sent to me by a friend. Highly amusing, in a cringeworthy way.

After reading this, I am struck that it would be nice if some of you progressive leftists here wrote a nice thank you card to GHWBush for the Souter thing.

Also, I'm struck that Tribe must be a painfully certified asshole irl. No wonder no president has ever appointed him to the Court.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Does anyone know off the top of their head whether there is a time limit to re-file in federal court after a plaintiff takes a voluntary dismissal?

I guess it would depend on the cause of action and whether there's an applicable SOL. Other than that I'm not aware of a generally-applicable limit off the top of my head.