We're not naming names, but many bloggers quote liberally from Associated Press stories. Sharing news from the mainstream media, and then digesting it and editorializing on it, is a big part of what we do. And the AP is a big part of the mainstream media.

So our ears perked up when we read that the AP is meeting with the Media Bloggers Association to discuss "standards for online use of AP stories." We imagine there will be quite a few lawyers at the meeting, and an extensive conversation about fair use of copyrighted material.

From the (*gulp*) AP:

Wendy Seltzer, a legal scholar and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, said it was encouraging that AP wanted to find an arrangement with bloggers to facilitate a mutually agreeable way for them to use AP content.

It sounds like the AP is looking to the future. The AP is likely thinking about new sources of revenue, and charging online outlets for use of their stories could offer the AP a way to make up for cuts from shrinking newspaper budgets.

But [Seltzer] cautioned that the news organization, a not-for-profit cooperative owned by its member newspapers and broadcasters, should not try to go beyond what's legally permissible.

"If they take those guidelines and start using them to refine the way they make complaints, and if they closely match the law, then it's helpful -- it's a restraint on their own legal department," Seltzer said.

"If they were on the other hand to say, you may use 10 words only and any time you use 11 we'll send a takedown notice, that wouldn't be helpful," Seltzer said.

Wendy, next time, could you tighten up your quotes to 10 words or less?

More discussion and speculation after the jump.

Earlier this year, we wrote about a puzzling situation involving Jeremy Pitcock, a successful young IP litigator in New York. Pitcock left Kasowitz Benson, where he served as head of the intellectual property practice, and joined Morgan & Finnegan. After Morgan's hiring of Pitcock was touted as a coup -- in IP Law360, and in a Morgan press release -- Kasowitz issued a statement claiming they fired him for "extremely inappropriate personal conduct." The following month, Pitcock left Morgan & Finnegan, under unclear circumstances.

Now Jeremy Pitcock is back on the legal scene, this time as a plaintiff. From the American Lawyer:

[Pitcock] filed a defamation lawsuit against the [Kasowitz] firm Thursday seeking more than $90 million for what he calls the "malicious and unwarranted smear campaign" that followed his dismissal.

The lawsuit, Pitcock v. Kasowitz Benson, was filed in the Southern District of New York. It has been assigned to Judge John E. Sprizzo.

So what exactly was the allegedly inappropriate conduct by Pitcock?

Find out, after the jump.

The Wall Street Journal has been writing about Mattel's lawsuit against Bratz and has a rundown on the upcoming trial on the WSJ Law Blog. Bratz, "the only girls with a passion for fashion," knocked Barbie from her throne when they hit stores in 2001. At issue in Barbie's suit is whether the man behind the Bratz concept was at Mattel when he dreamed up the attitude-laden dolls.

Allegedly, the person who broke the news to Barbie about the designer's possible betrayal is now a blogger at Jezebel. In 2003, when she broke the story, she was writing as Maureen Tkacik at the Wall Street Journal. Now, she's Moe at Jezebel and she's ignoring her summons for the trial!

Her Jezebel post starts off, "I'm supposed to be in court in Riverside County, California right now." She's totally got the Bratz spirit:

[Mattel] finally convinced me and seven or eight lawyers to show up in a conference room someplace downtown for a few hours of grilling about a story about which I couldn't have ethically provided any information even if I remembered it, which I of course did not. As we left, my lawyer, the in-house counsel of Dow Jones, marveled at the billable hours that had been assembled for our presence alone. It was enough to fund a reality show-worthy bar mitzvah. And they'd been at this case for years!

Today the case is supposed to go to trial and I am apparently, according to an email from the Gawker office manager, to be there, although I am not, because I don't leave my house to buy toilet paper if there is perfectly decent newspaper lying around, and the thing is going down in California.

Be careful, Moe. That Barbie knows how to fight!

Does This Look Like "Intellectual" Property To You? [Jezebel]
Brawl Over Doll Is Heading to Trial [Wall Street Journal]
Barbie Battles Bratz as Toy Makers Head to Trial [WSJ Law Blog]
To Lure Older Girls, Mattel Brings In a Hip-Hop Crowd [Wall Street Journal]

Last year, Viacom filed a $1 billion suit against Google-owned YouTube, asserting widespread copyright infringement. We predicted a smackdown, and that day has come.

Viacom filed an amended complaint [PDF] last month, saying it had found over 150,000 unauthorized clips of copyrighted material on YouTube. In its answer [PDF], Google says YouTube responds properly when made aware of copyrighted content, and said Viacom's suit threatens our way of life... pretty much. From the Associated Press:

A $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit challenging YouTube's ability to keep copyrighted material off its popular video-sharing site threatens how hundreds of millions of people exchange all kinds of information on the Internet, YouTube owner Google Inc. said.

Google's lawyers made the claim in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan as the company responded to Viacom Inc.'s latest lawsuit alleging that the Internet has led to "an explosion of copyright infringement" by YouTube and others.

The back-and-forth between the companies has intensified since Viacom brought its lawsuit last year, saying it was owed damages for the unauthorized viewing of its programming from MTV, Comedy Central and other networks, including such hits as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."

It's sad that MTV no longer has the spirit of rock-and-roll rebellion and has officially become The Man.

In Google's corner are Wilson Sonsini, Mayer Brown, and Bartlit Beck. In Viacom's corner are Jenner & Block and Shearman & Sterling.

Google vows not to settle, saying it will take the case to the Supreme Court if necessary. Let the law firms rejoice!

Google: Viacom's YouTube suit threatens freedom [Associated Press]
Google's Answer To Complaint [PDF] [IP Democracy via Paid Content]
Google vows to keep fighting Viacom [Business Week]
Google Case Spells Windfall For Lawyers [Forbes]

Earlier: Coming Attractions: Viacom - YouTube - Google Smackdown

Well, if the name is "Wolfgang" and you're in the restaurant business, maybe a lawsuit. Celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck, owner of the famous Spago restaurant in Beverly Hills, is taking legal action against a new neighbor.

From TMZ.com:

Wolfgang Puck is filing a lawsuit, claiming another Wolfgang has screwed him over....

Puck claims a guy named Wolfgang Zwiener opened a rival restaurant, Wolfgang's Steakhouse, just blocks from Spago in Bev Hills. According to the suit, one of the owner's of Wolfgang Steakhouse had a license to use the Spago trademark, but that expired last year.

In L.A., Wolfgang Zwiener may be just "some guy." But in New York, he's an esteemed veteran of the legendary Peter Luger steakhouse (popular for summer associate outings), who has now embarked upon his own restaurant career.

Wolfgang Puck's lawsuit, which seeks injunctive relief, claims trademark infringement and unfair competition. The TMZ.com editors seem unsympathetic:

A frustrated Puck says, "The most common reaction is, 'It says Wolfgang's Steakhouse and you are Wolfgang." We're thinking Mozart might have one up on him. Dude, you make pizzas.

Will the courts be more supportive? If Puck's first name were more common -- say, "John" or "Bill," with the competitor calling itself "John's Steakhouse" or "Bill's Place" -- then his claim might not satisfy the distinctiveness requirement of trademark law. But with a name as unusual as "Wolfgang" -- not as unusual as Omarosa, to be sure, but certainly uncommon -- maybe he has a better shot. "Wolfgang" is not in the top 1000 baby names in the United States (although it does crack the top 3000 in Belgium).

We're not experts in this area, so we'll stop rambling. Any IP lawyers care to weigh in?

Wolfgang to Wolfgang -- Puck You [TMZ.com]

Pity the poor partners of McDermott Will & Emery. Sure, their firm is highly regarded and highly profitable. But when they head off to try cases in far-off places, they often get benchslapped silly.

You may recall the case of bankruptcy partner William Smith, who found himself in the deep-fat fryer after telling a judge she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal." Although the judge was upset, in the end Smith got a slap on the wrist.

Things didn't end as happily for Terrence McMahon and Vera Elson, MWE partners based in Silicon Valley. Judge Richard P. Matsch -- the tough, well-regarded trial judge who presided over the Oklahoma City bombing case -- sanctioned McMahon and Elson for "cavalier and abusive" misconduct and a "what can I get away with?" attitude during trial. From the Denver Post:

A federal judge recently got so infuriated by the conduct of two highly regarded trial attorneys that he overturned a jury's $51 million verdict, then ordered the lawyers to pay the fees and costs of the opposing lawyers, a sum that could total several million dollars.

Ouch. So is that coming out of their partnership draws?

Or maybe the firm will find other ways to cut costs. Read more, after the jump.

Update: Please note that this post has been corrected since it was first published. The correction appears after the jump.

Some of you may recall the strange tale of Jeremy Pitcock, a successful IP litigator in New York. As we previously reported, he recently left Kasowitz Benson, where he headed the intellectual property practice, for Morgan & Finnegan. That's par for the course, in this age of increased lateral partner movement. The weird part was that Kasowitz issued a statement, apparently in response to Morgan's trying to tout Pitcock's move as a hiring coup, in which Kasowitz said they fired Pitcock for "extremely inappropriate personal conduct."

The plot thickens. A source informed us that Jeremy Pitcock is no longer at Morgan & Finnegan, which we have confirmed. His bio is no longer on the firm website, which has also been scrubbed of the press release touting his hire. If you try emailing him at his Morgan & Finnegan email address, which is the one provided in his LinkedIn profile, as we did, your message will bounce back to you.

We tried calling Jeremy Pitcock at the Morgan & Finnegan phone number listed in his profile. The nervous-sounding woman who answered the phone told us that he's no longer with the firm, that she didn't have forwarding information for him, and that his last day in the office was "last week."

Did Morgan & Finnegan get rid of Pitcock after investigating the alleged "inappropriate personal conduct"? One source said it would be surprising. First, Pitcock is a superstar IP lawyer. Rumor has it that "when he left Simpson, he had a $6 million book of business, as a 6th or 7th year associate. He decided he wanted to be a partner [immediately, rather than waiting a few years,] and Kasowitz took him up on that."

Second, some claim Morgan & Finnegan has a reputation for tolerating a certain degree of inappropriate personal conduct. One source tells us that "they aren't known for being friendly to women -- or in some cases, they're known for being too friendly. There were partners who asked female associates on dates repeatedly and others who referred to female associates as 'pretty young girls.' Still others simply refused to work with women."

We contacted the firm's spokesperson to inquire about Pitcock's departure; she wasn't in, so we left a message. We haven't heard back from her yet, but if we do, we'll let you know.

If you have the 411, feel free to email us. Thanks.

Update (2:30 PM): We just heard back from the Morgan & Finnegan spokesperson. She stated that the firm generally does not comment on internal firm matters.

Update (6/6/08): Jeremy Pitcock has filed a $90 million defamation lawsuit against Kasowitz Benson. See here.

Earlier: Musical Chairs: Kasowitz Attributes IP Head's Departure to 'Extremely Inappropriate Personal Conduct'

If we hadn't already named a Lawyer of the Day, the prize might have gone to Jeremy Pitcock of Morgan & Finnegan. From the American Lawyer:

The former head of intellectual property at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman was fired in December for "extremely inappropriate personal conduct," according to the firm.

Not merely "inappropriate" conduct, but "extremely inappropriate" conduct. We're guessing it was strenuously objectionable.

Jeremy Pitcock, 35, joined Kasowitz in March 2006 after being wooed from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, where he was a senior associate. Kasowitz named him head of IP not long after. But after less than two years, Pitcock left the 200-plus-lawyer firm for 52-lawyer New York IP boutique Morgan & Finnegan.

Morgan touted Pitcock's hiring as "an outstanding addition to our successful litigation practice" when it announced his move on January 8. But the Kasowitz firm says he was forced out following an unspecified incident.

"Mr. Pitcock was terminated for cause by Kasowitz, Benson in December 2007 because of extremely inappropriate personal conduct," name partner Daniel Benson said in a statement.

So what prompted the firm's statement?

Kasowitz's statement followed the publication of an article in trade publication IP Law 360 last week, which reported that Morgan had lured Pitcock from Kasowitz. In his statement, directed toward the publication, Benson said, "It was inaccurate to use 'nab' in your headline, or to use 'jump ship' in your opening paragraph."

"We were not looking to publicize this incident, but because of those incorrect news items, we felt compelled to set the record straight," Benson said in a press release that the firm distributed online.

We're intrigued -- and the full article in the American Lawyer doesn't offer much more. If you have details on the alleged conduct, please email us. Thanks.

Update (6/6/08): Jeremy Pitcock has filed a $90 million defamation lawsuit against Kasowitz Benson. See here.

Kasowitz Fired its ex-IP Chief for Inappropriate Conduct [The American Lawyer via Law.com]
Jeremy S. Pitcock bio [Morgan & Finnegan]

* Oral argument in New Jersey v. Delaware. [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF) via How Appealing]

* I'll have a Joey Bag of Lawsuits. [AP via Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* TB Andy didn't hurt anybody. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Grandpa got screwed over by a lawsuit ... [AP via Reno Gazette-Journal]

* Pakistan lets (almost) everyone go, but will the rule of law return? [Jurist]

People who practice intellectual property law tend to be really, really smart. This is a good thing, since you'd have to be a genius to understand the new associate pay plan just announced by Fish & Richardson.

Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration. But we just couldn't bother reading a document as long and complex as the Fish & Richardson memo, at least this early in the day; the caffeine from our morning coffee is still working its way through our system.

Fortunately, our sources offered some explanation:

"Attached is the new Fish & Richardson compensation plan. The basically cut salraries by taking around 20k of salary away from each year and then giving it back when you make 2000 hours. Pretty sh**ty for patent prosecutors. Everyone is pretty pissed off about this."

"I am pissed. Not only are they effectively taking 10k from my pocket because I always bill over 2000 hours, but we don't get the target bonus or the special bonus. In short, someone from my year will make at least $80,000 more at another firm for hitting 2000 hours."

To see what's causing such bitterness, check out the memo, after the jump.

* Happy Birthday, Mrs. President! Scott Shrake conducts an astrological analysis of Hillary Clinton. [Huffington Post]

* Speaking of witch, is Stephen Colbert "the best-scripted candidate this side of Hillary Clinton"? [Radar Online]

* "'Terrorism,' Censored Legal Briefs & The Blogosphere: Awesome Together." [Fishbowl NY]

* Lawsuit of the Day: Mom of "Let's Go Crazy" Baby fights back. [ABC News]

* Benchslap of the Day: federal judge tells SEC lawyer, to "sit down" and "shut up." [WSJ Law Blog]

We're rather late on this, but better late than never. Some time ago, one of you sent us this tip:

Fish & Richardson has asserted ownership over patents secured by a former principal who, in addition to being an attorney, also is a prolific inventor (and alleged "patent troll").

Interestingly enough, Fish appears to have made its claims only after Google, one of its clients, was sued under a patent claiming a technology that Harris invented while at Fish. See Patently O, which has a copy of the Complaint.

What a mess. Anyway, we were reminded of the case yesterday, when it was picked up by Overlawyered:

Annals of creative patent lawyering: Highly placed attorney with intellectual-property specialists Fish & Richardson accumulates his own portfolio of patents, quits the firm, begins suing Fish & Richardson clients, things get messy fast (Patent Troll Tracker, Oct. 21).

We expect to be following this case for a while. If you have some inside info to share, please email us. Thanks.

Annals of creative patent lawyering [Overlawyered]
A Tangled Web of Patent Rights [Patently O: Patent Law Blog]
Fish & Richardson Strikes Back at Scott Harris [Patent Troll Tracker]
Patent Troll Sues Fish & Richardson [Patent Troll Tracker]

A reader drew a legally-themed music video to our attention:

It's from a specialized patent blog, but some of your readers may find it funny -- especially because is an actual partner from a large firm singing the song. Is this a new BigLaw marketing trend?

Check out the video via Patently O. As you can see from the lyrics, the song is a comparison of dating to the Patent Act.

Performer Lana Knedlik, a fine-boned, pixieish beauty, looks like she could be an indie film actress or Indigo Girl. She strikes us as considerably younger and more attractive than the average (1) registered patent attorney or (2) partner at a large law firm.

(No offense to patent lawyers or Biglaw partners. We're just sayin'...)

Redefining the Bar Date [Patently O]
Bar Date by Lana Knedlik [YouTube]
Lana M. Knedlik bio [Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP]

Courtesy of ATL's career partner, Lateral Link, here is the latest Job of the Week:

Company: Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. (Columbia, Maryland)

Position Description: The medical care company, which commercializes products from adult bone marrow, seeks a Chief Intellectual Property Counsel to work in Columbia, Maryland. As the successful candidate will manage the company's IP-related matters, the position requires 6+ years of experience, with a law firm and/or biotechnology corporate environment; a scientific background, preferably a Ph.D. in a biological or chemical field; admission to a State bar and the U.S. Patent & Trademark office; and experience with preparation and prosecution of patents (U.S. and foreign).

Location: Columbia, Maryland

Earlier: Prior Job of the Week listings (scroll down)

Sometimes it seems like we talk about the same handful of general practice Biglaw shops again and again. So let's mix things up a bit. Here's a suggestion from a loyal reader:

I'm in the field of patent law. It might be interesting to post a Fall Recruiting Thread that discusses both patent boutiques (Finnegan Henderson, Fizpatrick Cella, Kenyon & Kenyon) and general practice firms with a strong IP practice (Kirkland, Irell, MoFo, Jones Day, Ropes & Gray).

Yes, it might. So here's that post -- an open thread in which people can talk about firms that specialize in or excel at intellectual property law.

(Last month we had a post dedicated to discussion of compensation issues at IP firms. But this open thread is intended to be broader, to go beyond pay to discuss quality of life, strong practice areas, type of work, etc. Enjoy.)

Earlier: Nationwide Pay Raise Watch: IP Firms

* Can a shoe infringe on copyright? [Fashionista]

* Maybe there IS such a thing as bad publicity. Business ain't so hot for "TB Andy" right now. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Some Chemerinskygate updates. [TaxProf Blog; TaxProf Blog]

* Thinking of a career as a professional blogger? Read this first. [Career Journal]

In case you're not familiar with it, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione is an intellectual property law firm headquartered in Chicago, with approximately 150 lawyers firmwide. A tipster recently wrote to us: "Word on the street is that Brinks no-offered half their SA class."

Here's the posting on Greedy Chicago cited by this source:

To confirm, I was in their 2007 summer class that included 16 people in Chicago, and at least 8 of us, perhaps more, did not get offers to come back. I'm probably biased towards myself, but I can honestly say that the other people who did not get offers are very competent people who worked very hard during the summer.

The reasons that we all received for not receiving offers were absolutely ludicrous and obviously cooked up. What's worse is that we were all told throughout the summer that we were doing a great job (some of us did not hear a word of "constructive criticism" all summer). A lot of shady stuff took place over the summer, and I'm happy to provide more info to anybody who is interested

From our source: "I want to know what other firms are cutting back!"

You're not alone! Here's an open thread for discussion of firms that (1) "no-offered" sizable portions of their summer classes or (2) didn't extend offers to summer associates for dubious reasons.

Please discuss, in the comments. But please do NOT identify any individual summer associates by name. Thanks.

Re: Brinks troubles? [Greedy Chicago / Infirmation]

* News you can use: "Latin phrases law students should know, but likely don't." [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Two angry pharmacists walk into a bar. [Concurring Opinions; NY Personal Injury Law Blog]

* Methinks Senator Craig doth protest too much. [Blogonaut]

* And what about his daughter? She may have been a bad girl too. [Washington Wire and The Smoking Gun (both via Blogonaut)]

* A consumer law firm resorts to product placement. Is this better or worse than having a theme song? [National Law Journal (now registration free, thanks to yours truly)]

* Miranda Priestly at the MoMA? That's all. [Althouse (last photo)]

* And did she mention that it's NOT a beauty pageant? [WSJ Law Blog]

Please see the short parody video posted below. Is this a casebook-ready example of "fair use," or what?

To ChurchHatesTucker, who produced the video: You are a genius and a god.

(Please note that we had no hand in making this video. ChurchHatesTucker acted sua sponte, after reading this Techdirt story.)

Update: Blawg Review, quoting from Nixon Peabody's own Copyright & Internet Law Glossary, explains why the video is fair use over here.

Re. Nixon Peabody [YouTube]

Sadly, the humorless crew over at Nixon Peabody has had their fabulous law firm song -- which, mind you, is NOT a theme song -- pulled from YouTube. See here.

Even if it's gone from YouTube, you can still access "Everyone's A Winner" as a plain-vanilla MP3 file. Just click here. We incorporate by reference all of our prior commentary on the song.

This memorable tune will also live on in the blogosphere. Numerous fine websites and blogs picked up on the story of the Nixon Peabody song controversy. Here are a few links:

1. Law Firms, the Blogosphere, and Unexpected Attention [Volokh Conspiracy (Orin Kerr)]

2. That ridiculous Nixon Peabody “theme song” was for real [Daily Intelligencer / New York Magazine]

3. Wow. Big law is so lame. With a capital "L" [Legal Antics (Nicole Black)]

4. Nixon Peabody Throws Fantastic Tantrum: Threatens Blogger Over Leaked Song [Keeping Up With Jonas]

5. Blogger contends posting silly leaked law firm song is fair use [ZDNet (Denise Howell)]

6. Everyone's a Winner (or, Friday Music Blog) [PrawfsBlawg (Liz Glazer)]

7. Sorry, but no one involved is a winner [IPTAblog (Andrew Raff)]

8. Best/Worst Law Firm Song. Ever. [the (non)billable hour (Matt Homann)]

9. OMG...The Worst Song Ever [Two Guitar Heroes and a Cat]

10. Everyone Is A Winner At Nixon Peabody [The Dish Daily]

11. Nobody Is Above the Law [Galley Slaves (Jonathan Last)]

If you know of a link that's missing, feel free to email us, and we can add it. Thanks!

Update: Additional links:

12. Sure, your firm just gave you a $25k raise, but do you have a theme song? [Sophistic Miltonian Serbonian Blog]

13. Law Firm Going Crazy to Keep Its Corporate Song Off the Internet [The Startup Lawyer]

14. Law Firm Freaks Out That Ridiculous Corporate Song Leaked Out To Blogs [Techdirt]

15. Re. Nixon Peabody [YouTube (ChurchHatesTucker)]

Everyone's A Winner at Nixon Peabody (mp3 file)

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Nixon Peabody (scroll down)