ChuckRunyan’s Techdirt Profile

chuckrunyan

About ChuckRunyan

I am an Intellectual Property and technology attorney. I am a sole-practioner leaving on my farm off of the grid in Northern Arizona.

http://www.linkedin.com/charlesrunyan



ChuckRunyan’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 19th, 2010 @ 8:49pm

    This is typical product liability law

    Any time a product injurs someone, their lawyer argues to the jury that a different design could have precluded the injury and therefore the product was defective. Usually, manufacturers are required by that body of law to be fairly close to average safety standards.

    The problem here is that the sawstop device is still under patent.

    This is not a problem of the patent system. No one really believes that Sawstop didn't invent something that was novel and useful to at least some consumers.

    The problem is that for the last century the American public, including most of the posters above, have let product liability run amuk. Disclaimer: I am a patent attorney. But the result of this case could have been predicted by a first year law student because it is completely unsurprising in terms of product liability law.

    But try to get legislation passed that rationalizes the system and everyone cries that the legislation is pro corporation and anti safety.

    Face it people. We have the legal system we asked for. Crying about it now does no good.

    Charles E. Runyan, Ph. D. J. D.
    Runyan Law
    4836 Zeniff Rd.
    Heber, AZ 85928
    Tel. (480) 205-9365
    Fax. (866) 593-3697

    Email: Charles.Runyan@runyanlaw.net

    View my LinkedIn profile here: http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesrunyan
    Disclaimer: The fact I may communicate with you via electronic communications, letters or the telephone does not mean that I am your attorney or that I am giving you legal advice unless and until: (i) you first elect to hire me, (ii) we sign an engagement agreement that sets forth what legal services I will provide and how you will be charged, and (iii) you pay any required fee or security deposit. Otherwise, my comments are general and non-specific and you should not rely on them as legal advice.

  • Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 12:03pm

    Re: Percentage of what you make per year.

    He had the chance to prove that his damages should be less.

    One side argued he should be held liable for everything. He argued some other measure of damages.

    Chances are if any group of reasonable individuals had all the information that came out at trial, they would reach the same conclusion or at least understand the result.

    And as for free speech rights, the right to expression was codified to serve society as a whole. And the original codification in no way invisioned his activities being speech.

    If you want stronger free speech rights, go through the process of amending the Constitution.

  • Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 11:33am

    Re: Re:

    The fact that a not for profit can gather things and let them be downloaded for free is not the point.

    Some artists will produce their art just because they want to or are driven to. Others need to make a living.

    I presume you don't hand your pay back to your employer. Why should an artist who chooses to try to make a living off of their art not be paid, as well?

  • Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 11:20am

    Re: Copyright itself is a sword of Damocles

    So I write a book, a very good book, it takes all of my spare time for 5 years. I have it published. Another company takes the book and publishes it themselves. They get to make all the sales because they can inherently charge less for the book. Why? Because my publisher has to pay me something for the work I did to make the book.

    I think it is unethical to strip artists of the right to compensation for their creations, which is what abolishing copyright would do.

  • Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re: The public

    Trespassing has been a cause of action in a civil suit under the common law, which we inherited from England, for probably a thousand years. In fact, in this case the judge is letting the trespassing claim move forward.