Comments for Business Law in the Big Bend

Comment on Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart – Part II by Business Law in the Big Bend

Business Law in the Big Bend — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:03:46 +0000

[...] The evidence used to persuade the lower courts included statistical data that suggested differences in pay between men and women, anecdotal testimony from witnesses who alleged gender-based discrimination, and the social framework analysis of the plaintiff’s expert sociology witness. The social framework analysis was discussed in greater depth in a prior post on this blog. [...]

Comment on Google Obtains Design Patent For Its Website by 2010 in review « Business Law in the Big Bend

2010 in review « Business Law in the Big Bend — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 02:48:25 +0000

[...] Google Obtains Design Patent For Its Website September 2009 2 comments [...]

Comment on Vote For Your Favorite Shape Trademark by 2010 in review « Business Law in the Big Bend

2010 in review « Business Law in the Big Bend — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 02:48:21 +0000

[...] Vote For Your Favorite Shape Trademark September 2009 6 comments 5 [...]

Comment on Watch Kanwal Rekhi’s Lecture at Michigan Technological University by 2010 in review « Business Law in the Big Bend

2010 in review « Business Law in the Big Bend — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 02:48:17 +0000

[...] Watch Kanwal Rekhi’s Lecture at Michigan Technological University March 2009 5 comments 4 [...]

Comment on Matsuflex by 2010 in review « Business Law in the Big Bend

2010 in review « Business Law in the Big Bend — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 02:48:14 +0000

[...] Matsuflex March 2009 3 [...]

Comment on Liquidators Buy Bankrupt Brands For $175 Million by 2010 in review « Business Law in the Big Bend

2010 in review « Business Law in the Big Bend — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 02:48:10 +0000

[...] The busiest day of the year was January 6th with 84 views. The most popular post that day was Liquidators Buy Bankrupt Brands For $175 Million. [...]

Comment on Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart – Part II by Ninja Lawyer

Ninja Lawyer — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 22:35:06 +0000

Let me preface my comment by stating that I haven’t reviewed the Dukes case with a fine-toothed comb.

For the purpose of class certification, the role of a district court is similar to that of Judge Dredd: the article 3 judge is both judge and jury. (“I am the law! Put down your weapons and prepare to be judged.”) The court both acts as a gatekeeper in determining the appropriateness of expert testimony, then acts as the finder of fact in determining numerosity, commonality, typicality and whether the class will be fairly represented. FRCP 23(a). This is the reason that class cert determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

The merits of all jury trialable claims, on the other hand, are left for a jury. For those decisions you’re right – the court only acts as a gatekeeper for the evidence (including expert testimony), and the jury decides the claims.

Comment on Watch Kanwal Rekhi’s Lecture at Michigan Technological University by proforozco

proforozco — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 01:07:57 +0000

Simi,

Thank you for your request. I’m afraid, however, that Mr. Rekhi’s lectures are usually as a guest lecturer to an existing class. I’m sure he would be flattered to know of your interest.

Best,

Prof. Orozco

Comment on Watch Kanwal Rekhi’s Lecture at Michigan Technological University by SIMI

SIMI — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:27:42 +0000

pls i want join in rekhi class

Comment on Several ways to protect a website by Lagrost

Lagrost — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:56:32 +0000

I was really interested by the article you wrote with Mr Flignor “Intangible asset and intellectual property valuation: A multidisciplinary perspective”, especially the pyramid figure. I would like to use this figure to illustrate an article in the Journal of Intellectual Capital. Could you kindly contact me in order to discuss about hte permission of reproduction of this figure? Sorry to have to go through your blog Kind regards Celine