Legally Speaking – Legal Recruiter Blog

• By: Nancy C. Grimes
  President, Managing Partner
  Grimes Legal, Inc.

Nancy Grimes has over twenty years’ experience serving the legal industry. Clients include international, national, regional, local and independent law firms and attorneys. “Counsel to Counsel” is updated bi-weekly. Have a question you’d like answered? Email it to ncgrimes@grimeslegal.com.

The Question: I am a mid-level tax attorney and am looking to make a move from my current firm within the next year. In preparation for that move, a close friend suggested getting an LL.M. would make my more marketable. Is this true?

Signed,
The Tax Man Goeth

Dear Tax Man,

There is no question that an LLM degree in a particular discipline can be quite prestigious, but let’s tackle the issue of whether obtaining one will meaningfully increase your chances of obtaining a better position.

A Tax LL.M. degree is one of the most respected LL.M. degrees to receive. In fact, many firms require their tax attorneys have one. As a result, and especially in the current market, attorneys may find it useful to go right on for an extra year of study in order to have the added cache and prestige of an LLM in tax.

As you are well aware, tax law is obviously not for everyone. But it is a specialty that will always be in demand and many tax lawyers are capable of handling a number of transactional business matters in addition to their tax counseling and advisory work. Very few corporate transactional lawyers can say the same. The added cache of having a tax LL.M. makes them an attractive candidate to virtually any quality law firm, even if the attorney did not originally graduate from a top-tier law school.

One thing to keep in mind – NOT ALL LL.M. PROGRAMS ARE CREATED EQUAL! So, do your research. The US News and World Report publishes a yearly report on the best law schools in the United States. As you consider an LLM program, do your due diligence and:

• Speak with the school’s placement office and find out the number of recent graduates who received job offers upon completion of their studies.
• Find out which law firms came on campus to the school to actually recruit for attorneys from the program.
• Remember, with the exception of a few truly top ranked law schools such as Columbia or N.Y.U. which probably have a number of law firms from several parts of the country recruiting on campus, most LLM programs are more likely to attract indigenous law firms.  Consequently, if you want to practice as a health care attorney in Florida, don’t go for an LL.M. in health care law in Ohio – go to Florida.  No matter how successful that particular school’s placement record is in Ohio, there is little chance a Florida firm will be knocking on your door.

By Eric Sinrod

When you think news, do you think of print newspapers? If so, you are outnumbered, as more people now obtain their news from the Internet, according to a recent survey.

 Whereas only 24% of people reported obtaining their national and international news from the Internet as recently as September, 2007, that number now has jumped to 40%, higher than the 35% of people who currently get their news from newspapers, according to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press in December, 2008. Not to be lost in the shuffle, of course, is that fully 70% of respondents reported that they are informed about the news by television, the most dominant news medium.

The growing interest in the Internet as a news source has been attributed to major news stories in the past year relating to the poor economy, the Wall Street bailout, fluctuating gas prices, and the 2008 Presidential election. Furthermore, as time goes on, the Internet continues to be a more widely used communication and research tool in society.

 In addition, people under the age of 30 tend to rely on the Internet more than older age groups. Indeed, 59% of the under-30 set reports that the use of the Internet as a main news source, equal to reliance on television for the news.

We live in the information age, and plainly people can obtain their news from a variety of sources, with the Internet growing in popularity for national and international news.

Eric Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP (http://www.duanemorris.com) where he focuses on litigation matters of various types, including information technology and intellectual property disputes.  His Web site is http://www.sinrodlaw.com and he can be reached at ejsinrod@duanemorris.com.  To receive a weekly email link to Mr. Sinrod’s columns, please send an email to him with Subscribe in the Subject line.

This column is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.  The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual partners.

This article was originally published on www.findlaw.com.

 By Paul Cherner

There has been a substantial amount of debate concerning the proposed federal legislation entitled the Employee Free Choice Act (”EFCA”).

In 2007, EFCA was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, but failed to win a cloture vote to end a filibuster  in the Senate.   Labor unions have listed the passage of EFCA as one of their top priorities.  There has been fierce debate about this legislation, often accompanied by statistics supporting either the necessity or the lack of necessity for passing this law.

This law is intended to expedite the process by which unions can organize workers.  For the past 60 years, unions were recognized as the collective bargaining representative of a group of employees by either an employer voluntarily agreeing that a majority of their employees wanted the union as their representative (usually through a “card check”) or by the NLRB conducting a secret ballot election.  Initially, employees sign union authorization cards, which are then used by a union to obtain voluntary recognition or to petition the NLRB to conduct a secret ballot election.  In an overwhelming majority of the situations involving union organizing, the NLRB conducts a secret ballot election.

EFCA would allow a union to have the NLRB certify them as the representative of a group of employees based solely on a card check, which would determine whether a majority of employees in the group have signed cards.  This proposed change would have the practical effect of obviating the need (or opportunity) for an NLRB secret ballot election and would expedite the procees of unionization.  

According to the NLRB ’s  2008 Operations Report, it conducted elections within 56 days after a petition was filed in 95% of the cases.  Where there were post-election matters to consider, the NLRB finalized these elections within 100 days after the petition was filed in 84% of their cases.   The unions argue that undue delay has allowed employers to coerce employees into voting against the union.  In contrast, employers argue that a secret ballot election is needed to allow employees to weigh the pros and cons of union representation and permit them to vote in privacy without coercion.

EFCA would also expedite the first collective bargaining process by providing a short time (10 days) for the parties to meet and then 90 days to reach an agreement. If an agreement is not reached at that time, either party may request an FMCS Mediator, who has an additional 30 days to persuade the parties to reach an agreement.  If a contract has not been agreed to within that time period, the dispute would be submitted to an FMCS Arbitration Panel, which has the authority to resolve the dispute and impose the resolution on the parties for a 2 year period.  There would also be enhanced penalties and fines in this new law to protect employees against discrimination during the organizing period until the first contract is entered into.

It will be interesting to see what happens to this legislation during the next Congressional term given the current state of the economy.

Paul Cherner is a labor and employment attorney in Chicago, IL. Visit his blog at http://hrcounselblog.com.

By William M. Aukamp

             I began representing banks in late 1968, when I joined a Long Island-based two person law firm that served as general counsel to a 30 branch community bank. Today, I am of counsel to a 180 lawyer firm with offices in four states. During the intervening years, I have served as both inside and outside bank general counsel, as president of a state bankers association, and as a member of the American Bankers Association’s Government Relations Council. In addition, I have served as an outside bank director and as a bank president & ceo for four years. The latter was an unplanned career move that afforded me an opportunity to learn more about the banking business. The banks I have served have ranged in size from community, to regional, to money center, and have included national, state member and state nonmember banks. I mention all this to give you a sense of my perspective, having dealt with bank legal, regulatory, and legislative issues in a number of different capacities. Over these years there have been enormous changes in the field of banking law and they have greatly increased the demands on bank lawyers.

             One of the obstacles faced by aspiring bank lawyers today is a lack of opportunities to work in a variety of areas within the field of banking law. Often they become pigeonholed early in their career in fairly narrow areas. This makes it difficult to get the well rounded experience necessary to become a banking law generalist. It is not likely that such opportunities will come your way if you merely sit back and wait for them. You must seek them out. Over the years, I have seen too many bank lawyers who have been content to do the work assigned to them, and no more.  The best way to get noticed is to do more than what is expected from you.  You should make an effort to learn as much as you can about the business of the bank you serve, about the banking industry generally, and about the industries with which banks compete. Also, make an effort to learn about the functions and purposes of the banking regulatory agencies.  A good source of information is the agencies’ web sites. The Federal Reserve’s site is www.federalreserve.gov, the FDIC’s is www.fdic.gov, the OCC’s is www.occ.treas.gov, and the OTS’s is www.ots.treas.gov.  The state banking agencies also have web sites.

             It is important to keep abreast of legal and regulatory developments. There are a number of ways to do this, and I will touch on some of the publications I have relied upon later.  Issuances of the federal banking and other agencies that have jurisdiction over bank activities are often published in the Federal Register. They include proposed, interim, and final rules, regulations, and policies. I scan the Federal Register every day and hardly a week goes by in which there isn’t an item that can affect banks. It is available free and on line. Giving bank management an early heads up on new developments is something they appreciate. This gets back to my point of learning about the bank’s business. This is necessary to ensure that you direct the information to the right people. It is also a good idea to meet with representatives of the various business units from time to time to find out what is going on in their world.  Another reason to do this is that standard bank forms do not always accurately reflect the transactions for which they are intended. Sometime changes in systems are made that require changes to these forms; however they are not brought to the attention of those responsible for creating and updating them. This is particularly true in the case of credit card systems, but this kind of problem can occur in other areas as well. I can recall counseling a bank that had been using a form for major loan transactions that had been drafted years earlier by a prominent Wall Street law firm. The language describing a Libor pricing option stated that to determine the applicable rate, the bank would solicit two bids through its London office.  I asked the bank’s treasurer if this procedure was actually followed and he replied that it was not. Instead, he determined the rate by calling a New York money broker.

             We have a complex banking regulatory system and it takes time and effort to understand it and the interplay between state and federal law. Some things are counter intuitive. For example, one would not logically think that investments permissible for state chartered banks are governed by a section of the National Bank Act that delineates the powers of National Banks and by implementing regulations promulgated by the Comptroller of the Currency.  Another example not rooted in the law, but in custom and practice, is the deference given by the other federal regulators as well as state regulators to the Comptroller’s fiduciary regulations. They are considered to be the banking industry’s standard.

             Once you have gotten up to speed in banking law, another good way to become noticed by both your department management and potential clients is to write articles for industry trade publications. There is no way that my old three person law firm could provide full service to a bank client today, not only because of the proliferation of banking laws and regulations, but because of developments in other areas of the law that have an impact on banking organizations. Back in 1968 employment law was not a separate discipline. Today, employment law looms large among a bank’s needs for legal support. Fortunately, my current firm’s practice groups cover virtually every area of the law important for banks and we can provide full service to banking organizations of any size. Before I list the various banking law resources that I have found helpful over the years, I will make one final point about broadening your experience.  I think every aspiring bank lawyer should spend time in a litigation group. I have found my experience in both banking and general litigation to be very useful when counseling bank clients in matters not involving litigation. I am sure the same could be said for every legal discipline, not just banking.

             There are many fine publications and services on the market that are useful to bank lawyers. I will mention some that I have kept close at hand in my office and frequently rely upon. They are:  4 volume loose leaf Federal Reserve Regulatory Service (updated monthly); 10 volume CCH Federal Banking Law Reporter (updated bi-monthly); Federal Bank Holding Company Law by Heller & Fein, published by Law Journal Seminars-Press (periodically updated);  2 volume Brady On Bank Checks, published by A.S. Pratt & Sons (periodically updated) 2 volume Clark’s Law of Bank Deposits Collections and Credit Cards, also published by A.S. Pratt & Sons (periodically updated).; Pratt’s Payment System Library – this includes Brady on Bank Checks and Clark’s Law of Bank Deposits, etc. and is available electronically; and the Federal Reserve’s loose leaf Consumer Compliance manual.

             The federal banking agencies all publish examination manuals, which provide a wealth of information relating to compliance with laws and regulations. They are free and available on line. I have in my office the FDIC’s Trust Examination Manual and FFIEC’s Bank Secrecy Act/Anti- Money Laundering Manual. Compliance with the Act and the Department of the Treasury’s implementing regulations commands a very high priority.  The US Code and Code of Federal Regulations are available through Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute web site. (www.law.cornell.edu.)  Although 12 CFR is available through some of the other sources mentioned, I find the US Government Printing Office’s 7 volume paperback version to be a useful quick reference… The UCC is, of course, important for bank lawyers. I do not presently have a UCC service in my office – after all, you can’t have everything.  Over the years, I have found Hawkland’s UCC Service to be very good. It is now available through Westlaw.

             I have written a handbook for bank directors, titled Banking Law For Bankers. While it is intended for laymen, lawyers who have not had a lot of experience in the field of banking law may find it to be of some use. If you would like to have a copy, contact Nancy Grimes at ncgrimes@grimeslegal.com or 800-875-3820.

                                                                                                                                                                         Bill Aukamp has represented financial institutions since 1968, as both outside and inside counsel. He has contributed numerous articles on the subject of bank regulation to the American Banker, US Banker and Bank Director and has appeared as a panelist discussing banking legal topics on programs sponsored by the New York State Bankers Association, Bank Administration Institute, Consumer Credit Association of Metropolitan New York, Financial Women International, Delaware State Bank Commissioner, the Delaware State Bar Association, and National Law Foundation.

(Part 2)

Registration: The Lawsuit Prerequisite

While copyright ownership exists at the moment of authorship, prior to being able to file a lawsuit in order to recover any damages, let alone statutory damages, the copyright owner must register with the United States Copyright Office, part of the Library of Congress.14 Registration need not happen upon authorship, nor even prior to infringement. Indeed, in theory, registration can happen at any time that the copyright subsists (in most cases for contemporary works involving personal authorship, from the date of creation until 70 years after the author’s death15).

Registration: The Limited Statutory Damages Prerequisite

A copyright infringement plaintiff may elect to recover statutory damages under two circumstances: if the infringement occurs after registration, or if the infringement occurs within a statutory safe harbor period between publication and registration.16 To take advantage of the safe harbor period, the copyright owner must register within three months after publication of the copyright work. “Publication” in the copyright setting is much more narrowly defined than in its traditional sense; under the Copyright Act, “publication” generally constitutes the distribution, or offer to distribute, copies of a work to the public or a limited subset of the public for sale, rental, lease, or further distribution or display, or to display or perform a work in public or in front of a substantial group of people constituting more than “a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances.”17

Statutory Damages: The Calculus

Statutory damages are available to the infringed copyright holder in an amount not to exceed $30,000 “for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work…”18, with statutory damages up to $150,000 available when willful infringement is proven. Any one infringer may infringe a copyright literally innumerable times by, for example, engaging in numerous, independent unauthorized reproductions of textual or graphical material. Nonetheless, the statutory damages calculus provided by 17 U.S.C. § 504(1)(c) sets forth maximum available awards on the basis of all infringements with respect to a single work. 

Not every copyright infringement warranting statutory damages will warrant a maximum statutory damage award. Trial courts enjoy wide discretion regarding the amount of statutory damages awardable, constrained only by the maxima and minima set forth in the Copyright Act19, and the Ninth Circuit has made it clear that it will defer to trial courts regarding the appropriate measure of statutory damages.20 In 2001, the Ninth Circuit upheld a $31.68 million statutory damages award against a television station found liable for willful infringement of copyrights of 440 individual television program episodes, reckoning that the damages award per infringed episode divided out to $72,000, well within the maxima and minima set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 504(1)(c).21 The Ninth Circuit similarly upheld a $65,000 statutory damages award in 1994 predicated on 13 separate infringements by an importer of counterfeit Nintendo video game cartridges, notwithstanding the fact that the importer was also held liable for actual damages for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act based on the same counterfeit cartridges.22 Not only had the defendant committed two separate wrongs, against both the copyright and against the trademark, the Ninth Circuit reasoned, but the statutory damages provision of the Copyright Act specifically contemplates that enhanced damages may be imposed in cases of willful infringement as a punitive and deterrent measure.

Despite such discretion, common factors “to be considered in determining the amount of statutory damages include the expenses saved such as licensing fees) and profits reaped by the defendants in connection with the infringements, the revenues lost by the plaintiffs as a result of the infringing conduct, and the infringer’s state of mind.”23 Comparable factor analysis includes: “(1) ‘the expenses saved and profits reaped,’ (2) ‘the revenues lost by the plaintiff,’ (3) ‘the value of the copyright,’ (4) ‘the deterrent effect on others besides the plaintiff,’ (5) ‘whether the defendant’s conduct was innocent or willful,’ (6) ‘whether a defendant as cooperated in providing particular records from which to assess the value of the infringing material produced,’ and (7) ‘the potential for discouraging a defendant.’”24 Once again, none of these factors needs to be proved by the plaintiff in order to enjoy statutory damages, but form the basis of the discretionary analysis of the court. In this vein, perhaps demonstrating the willfulness of the infringer will be most persuasive in viewing the overarching scheme of the Copyright Act and the case law, but that is not to conclude that massive licensing fees lost by the copyright infringement will not yield great statutory damage results. However, if the copyright plaintiff is able to demonstrate said lost revenues, then query why leverage statutory damage structures.

Conclusion

Copyright registrations are hardly occurring at the pace required in order to protect material copyrights. Independently, copyright registrations are not occurring in the timeframe required in order to have the statutory damage schematic applied: hence the need for speed. Copyright owners have the tools to protect themselves. Given the Internet and the vast quantify of content readily misappropriated, it would behoove copyright owners to use these tools.

 14 www.copyright.gov.

15 17 U.S.C. § 302(a).

16 17 U.S.C. § 412.

17 17 U.S.C. § 101.

18 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1).

19 L.A.Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co., 249 U.S. 100, 39 S.Ct. 194, 63 L.Ed. 499 (1919).

20 See, e.g., Harris v. Emus Records Corporation, 734 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir. 1984).

21 Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.

2001).

22 Nintendo of America Inc. v. Dragon Pacific Int’l, 40 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 1994).

23 Frank Music Corp. v. Sugg., 393 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (W.D. OK. 2005).

24 Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. Luban, 282 F. Supp. 2d 123, 125 (S.D. N.Y. 2003), citing, Fitzgerald Pub. Co. Inc. v.

Baylor Pub. Co., 807 F. 2d 1110, 1117 (2d Cir. 1986).

Steven Gibson is one of the leading business and intellectual property attorneys practicing in Las Vegas. Not only is Mr. Gibson one of the most experienced attorneys in Nevada practicing in intellectual property and business areas, Mr. Gibson’s practice in Tokyo with one of the nation’s largest law firms, as well as in Chicago with a major, international Chicago-based law firm, has given him a level of experience few attorneys in Las Vegas can claim. With 20 years as an attorney, including 10 years of Nevada practice, Mr. Gibson has some of Nevada’s largest companies as clients, including large media companies, gaming and casino companies, and software and development companies, as well as client companies in an array of industries across the United States and worldwide.

Jodi Donetta “J.D.” Lowry practices in the areas of intellectual property, commercial litigation, and health law. The focus of her practice is copyright and trademark law, and she has a strong interest in intellectual property torts related to blogs, social networking websites, and other new media. She has presented seminars and published in the fields of copyright law, plaintiff litigation in federal courts, and medical malpractice. Before entering law practice in 1999, Miss Lowry was the assistant editor of the Journal of College Science Teaching and the copyright officer of the National Science Teachers Association.

Steven A. Gibson

J.D. Lowry

Introduction

The irony is remarkable: copyright law provides arguably the most robust protective matrix for any intangible assets and yet remains horribly underutilized by owners of copyrights. While copyright registration is not necessary for copyright ownership,1 copyright registration provides particularly relevant and practical advantages, one of which is the ability to claim statutory damages.2 As proving damages in any lawsuit is often the province of expensive expert witness battles, the ability on the part of copyright owners to avoid altogether that battle, and merely prove ownership and then infringement to obtain substantial monetary damages, provides an immense advantage.

Copyrights: What Are They

Copyright protection attaches to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.”3 “Works of authorship” include literary works; musical works (including any accompanying lyrics); dramatic works (including any accompanying music); pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works.4  Copyrights ought not to be, but often are, confused with trademarks, service marks, and patents. The fundamental role of a copyright is to protect expressions of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. Conversely, patents, at least the more commonly recognized utility patents, protect the functionality of inventions – the ideas associated with the function rather than the expression of the function. It is true that both copyrights and patents have as their focus the protection of a proprietary interest, but the nature of the interest that is protected is cognizably and significantly different.5 This commonality of copyrights and patents in protecting proprietary interests arises out of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, which confers on Congress the power “[t]o promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” 

In contrast, trademarks and service marks are governed by the Lanham Act,6 passed by Congress under its authority pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Marks protect indicators of source; a mark may be a single word used in a particular manner, a design, or another thing (including a musical tone) capable of imparting a sensory input. Some forms of marks, such as designs, may also engender copyright protection, while few, if any, textual marks will enjoy copyright protection, as such text almost inevitably lacks the substantiality to meet the originality threshold required for copyright protection.7

The Vast Universe of Infringements

As virtually any textual or graphical work of any material substantiality is protected by copyright, the universe of works that enjoy copyright protection approaches the infinite. Every day, people write notes, companies produce textual material, and various entities display a vast array of content on the Internet, all of which work product is, generally speaking, properly the subject of copyright protection. It is an absolute mistake to believe that merely because content is displayed on the Internet that such content is not protected by copyright and may be reproduced without express authorization. Indeed, books in a traditional library enjoy copyright protection despite being publicly accessible. Public accessibility is one of the hallmarks of copyrighted works, not vice-versa.  An immense and almost immeasurable array of content resident in an also impressive array of media (including print, electronic, digital, and optical) is thus subject to copyright protection. A vast, perhaps almost equally incalculable, ocean of infringement exists alongside it. Various content-generating industries report billions of dollars in infringements every year in their own media alone. For example, in 2003, the Recording Industry Association of America reported over $4 billion of infringement annually faced by the recording industry.8 The Software & Information Industry Association reports $11 billion of software infringement worldwide annually,9 a figure also cited by the Business Software Alliance.10 In 2004, the senior vice-president and director of worldwide anti-piracy operations for the Motion Picture Association of America estimated copyright theft losses in the motion picture industry, not even including illegal Internet downloads of copyrighted motion pictures, as $3.5 billion annually.11

Perhaps a better way to analyze the vast nature of the infringements is to understand that in electronic media such as the Internet, billions of unauthorized reproductions occur in any given year.12 As discussed below, if copyright owners take necessary measures to secure their entitlement to statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringement,13 and if each of those billions of infringements were multiplied by a reduced statutory damage award of merely $100,000, the dollar value of infringements would exceed trillions of dollars, arguably into the quadrillions. Even if estimates in the quadrillion range are greatly overvalued (by even a factor of 1,000), the potential value of statutory damages for copyright infringement still mandates more aggressive action on the part of copyright owners.

1 7 U.S.C. § 401(a).

2 17 U.S.C. § 412, § 504(c).

3 17 U.S.C. § 102(a).

4 Id.

5 The interests protected by patents and copyrights are substantially different, but that does not mean that

the subject matter may be different at all. For example, the functionality that is expressed by the source

code of computer software may very well be afforded patent protection (if novelty and non-obviousness

prongs are met), while the textual expression of the ideas in the wording of the source code is afforded

copyright protection.

6 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.

7 In theory, an individual who writes the word “the” on a piece of paper has authored text “fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” That writing, however, is hardly substantial or original. Moreover, it would be both unfair and unworkable for that individual to enjoy the exclusive right to reproduce the word “the.” Originality often requires far more substantiality. The minimum amount of substantiality required for copyright protection can be described as slightly more than that embodied in the routine instructions on a bottle of shampoo. In another vein, the telephone directory’s white pages (as opposed to the yellow pages), while substantial in scope, are not original in nature because mere alphabetization of data does not constitute a level of originality cognizable for copyright purposes.

8 www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/default.asp, accessed September 30, 2006.

9 www.siia.net, accessed September 30, 2006.

10 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Software_Alliance, accessed September 30, 2006.

11 Press release, Federal Bureau of Investigation, February 19, 2004

(www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel04/piracy021904.htm, accessed September 30, 2006).

12 One commentator has cited billions of unauthorized music downloads alone (Heins, Marjorie, “Understanding Grokster,” www.fepproject.org/commentaries/grokster.html, March 30, 2005 [accessed September 30, 2006).

13 The infringement referred to here is per occurrence of infringement, not a calculus of how many reproductions by one infringer of a work. See Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Filipiak, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (N.D. CA. 2005).

Steven Gibson is one of the leading business and intellectual property attorneys practicing in Las Vegas. Not only is Mr. Gibson one of the most experienced attorneys in Nevada practicing in intellectual property and business areas, Mr. Gibson’s practice in Tokyo with one of the nation’s largest law firms, as well as in Chicago with a major, international Chicago-based law firm, has given him a level of experience few attorneys in Las Vegas can claim. With 20 years as an attorney, including 10 years of Nevada practice, Mr. Gibson has some of Nevada’s largest companies as clients, including large media companies, gaming and casino companies, and software and development companies, as well as client companies in an array of industries across the United States and worldwide.

Jodi Donetta “J.D.” Lowry practices in the areas of intellectual property, commercial litigation, and health law. The focus of her practice is copyright and trademark law, and she has a strong interest in intellectual property torts related to blogs, social networking websites, and other new media. She has presented seminars and published in the fields of copyright law, plaintiff litigation in federal courts, and medical malpractice. Before entering law practice in 1999, Miss Lowry was the assistant editor of the Journal of College Science Teaching and the copyright officer of the National Science Teachers Association.

www.gibson-lowry.com

Stay tuned for Part 2 on Tuesday, March 10^th.