<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;cyberlaw&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:26:13 PST</pubDate>
<title>Cyberlawyer Gives Up Attempt To Register Cyberlaw As A Trademark</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080222/010305320.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080222/010305320.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last month, we noted that a lawyer wasn't just trying to trademark the term "cyberlaw" but was already <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080118/155827.shtml">threatening</a> other lawyers for using the term.  As the news broke a bunch of folks (mainly lawyers) pointed out how ridiculous this was, and now the guy has <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/02/eric_menhart_ba.htm" target="_new">dropped his attempt to trademark the term</a> (though he is still trying to trademark a logo of the term).  He claims: "It was very clear that this was not going to be an academic argument, it was going to be more of a shouting match, and I didn't think it was worth my time to get involved in a shouting match with people that were going to shout louder."  However, as Eric Golman notes at the link above: "Funny--I would have thought it wasn't worth his time because the application was completely unmeritorious."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080222/010305320.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080222/010305320.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080222/010305320.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>chalk-one-up-for-the-cybermasses</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080222/010305320</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:06:43 PST</pubDate>
<title>There Can Be Only One... Cyberlawyer?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080118/155827.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080118/155827.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In our culture where some companies (and their lawyers) have convinced people that intellectual property gives you total control over things, we start to see some <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071026/180024.shtml">bizarre</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070926/175956.shtml">ridiculous</a> trademark claims.  The latest comes to us via the EFF, who point to a lawyer who has <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/01/cyberlaw-and-cyberlawgs">received a trademark on the term "cyberlaw"</a> and is going after other lawyers who use the term which has been in fairly common usage for ages.  As the EFF notes, it's especially upsetting that an intellectual property lawyer would abuse trademark law this way in a manner well beyond what trademark law is supposed to do -- while also warning that courts as well as tech companies don't tend to look kindly on people who abuse trademark law.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080118/155827.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080118/155827.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080118/155827.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>seriously?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080118/155827</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>