Just like your company's HR department is there to protect the company, not you. The Bar is there to protect lawyers from the public, not the public from lawyers. After all, it is lawyers who are paying the dues.
I have zero faith that a bar association will do anything to sanction a lawyer as long as he pays his dues.
Yea.... Remember folks. Your state's Bar Association is just like your company's HR department. The HR department is there to protect the company, not you. The State Bar is there to protect lawyers and their industry, not you the public.
Same thing on the Nevada/Cal border on I-15. There is a shopping mall with a large parking lot on the border. On the Cal side of the border, there is nothing but one small store that sells Lotto tickets. During the big lotto draws you see a nice long line of Las Vegas residents winding through the parking lot waiting to buy a Cal lotto tix.
The current ticket purchasing system is not benefiting either the artist/performer or the audience. The middle men, either it be Ticketmaster, or scalpers, are the ones making the money.
The answer would appear to be to get rid of the middleman. But that is not correct. There is nothing wrong with an artist selling their tickets to middleman as long as the middle man assumes the market risk. In the current setup, I'm not sure that the middlemen (Ticketmaster) even does that. I suspect that they stick the artist with the cost of unsold seats.
An analogy would be agriculture future options. A farmer knows he need $100K to grown a crop of soybeans. So he sells an option for those beans for $150k which guarantees that he will not lose money. The option buyer is betting that he can sell the beans for more than he paid. But if he loses that bet, it is the option buyer, not the farmer, that takes the loss.
That is the proper use of these middle men in the ticket industry. And the scalpers do this far better than the official ticket brokers.
An artists doesn't need to sell their risk. Very successful artists should be able to auction their tickets and keep the money themselves. In other words, they could bet on themselves.
Artists are being swindled by believing that they are buying "goodwill" with their fans by agreeing to sell seats at fraction of their market value. The reality is that these cheap seats always get taken by middleman and resold at a huge mark up.
Bottom line. This industry is as corrupt as it can be, and now they want the government to condone and protect their scam.
However, he specializes in IP law. And he has been a Cal lawyer since 1979. That is a very senior lawyer with over 35 years of experience. You would think that someone who has been in this game this long would know better.
So.... I'm thinking that some newby associate, or even a clerk in his office, is making these claims.
I have written to the Calif. Dept of Weights and Measures asking them to do this exact thing in the past. They told me that they don't have jurisdiction.
If a business sells a product by some metric, then I can't imagine why it would not fall under this department's jurisdiction. I wrote in complaints about AT&T Wireless charging me for megabytes of data that didn't make any sense.
I fail to see why mobile cellular data, minutes on calling cards, internet data caps, whatever, are exempt from regulation. There is something very wrong with allowing a merchant to control the "meter" for their product.
I also wanted to add. The cable TV companies will learn the hard way that when these Millienials do have kids, those kids aren't going to watch cable TV. They are going to be using digital data apps using entertainment that the cable TV companies have no ownership of.
..."most cable sector executives still desperately cling to the narrative that cord cutting is a fad that stops once Millennials procreate."
Yea. They don't realize that most Millienials can't afford to procreate. You know, with those crazy tuition loans, sky high rents, low salaries, rising health insurance co-pays and premiums, and other more important bills than cable TV.
Let me add. I really don't think that any judge is going to let plaintiffs do this very often. After all, they wasted the courts time too. So he/she must have done a damn good job convincing a judge of the merits of his/her argument.
Man. I am really torn here. I don't like absolutes that leave no discretion. It leads to insanely stupid execution of policies.
The classic example is the zero tolerance of drugs/weapons policy in schools that cause them to blow misunderstandings and mistakes out of proportion. Or the mandatory sentencing laws that force judges that hand out sentences that don't come close to matching the circumstances of the case.
We have to trust judges. If a judge felt that this case was enough of a mistake that it should not appear in the records, then I feel he needs to have the discretion to purge it.
What should be examined here is the process that is used to purge this case. Was the defendant notified? Was he/she allowed to contest the judge's decision? If all three parties are cool with it, then let them do it.
I think a good balance would be: (a) Approval of defendants (b) Automatic review of decision by that judges superiors