The aim of the Statute of Limitations, 1957 (also here) is to achieve a degree of certainty and finality in litigation by ensuring that unlitigated cases get barred from coming to court by the passage of too much time. Periods range from 3 and 6 years to 12 and 20 years. But no claim is allowed persist indefinitely. However, via National Public Radio’s wonderful All Things Considered program, I’ve just heard and read about a case concerning a (restitution!) claim that may be more than 700 years old:
A group of people claiming to be the heirs of the legendary Knights Templar are suing Pope Benedict XVI, seeking more than $150 billion for assets seized by the Catholic Church seven centuries ago.
Isn’t barring cases like that what Statutes of Limitations are for? The claim has been taken in Spain, but it too has limitation (called prescription – prescripción – in good Civilian style) provisions; and I am sure that they will apply to bar the claim. It sheer audacity is breath-taking, but it would take a miracle for it to succeed.
I don't know why Canadian firms don't hire me to do their marketing and recruitment. Here is yet another good idea that is being ignored by Canadian firms. NYC firm Curtis, Mallet-Prevost,Cole & Mosle LLP has its own Facebook page for summer student info and hiring. Just another idea to throw out there….
More coverage: - Larry Bodine Law Marketing Blog “[A partner at the firm said:] We are pleased to be capitalizing on the popularity of the most widely used social networking site. As a firm, we recognized the power of this format of communication and the wide use being made of it by future lawyers”. - The ABA Journal Law News Now “The page promotes the 178-year-old firm with historical information and the benefits of starting a career in New York”. - The AmLaw Dailty and Law.com “[The firm] hopes the Facebook page–different from an actual profile, through which Facebook members build a network of “friends”–will increase interactivity between members of the firm and effectively tell the “Curtis Mallet story”. - The National Law Journal “The firm believes that the launch is the first of its kind for an AmLaw 200 firm”. - Robert Ambrogi’s LawSites “This is one of those innovations that makes you wonder why no one thought of it sooner”.
Ambrogi is absolutely right. I don’t much like Facebook myself, but many of my students do, and it makes perfect sense to me that the law firms seeking to hire them should go where they go. So, whatever about New York or Canada, what of Ireland? How about it, Arthur Cox, McCann Fitzgerald, A&L Goodbody, Matheson Ormsby Prentice, William Fry, et al?
A person who claims to be the subject of a statement that he or she alleges is defamatory may apply to the High Court for an order (in this Act referred to as a “declaratory order”) that the statement is false and defamatory of him or her.
It is intended as a remedy for those who simply want court recognition that they were defamed but who do not necessarily want a remedy in damages. An excellent example of how such an order might work is provided by a story by Frances Gibb in yesterday’s Times (with added links):
J.K. Rowling and her publisher [Bloomsbury / Scholastic] have launched an aggressive worldwide legal campaign against the unauthorized Potter takeoffs … [they] can use the courts in [TRIPS]/WTO-compliant countries to club her Potter rivals.
Now comes news from Legal Eagle on Skeptic Lawyer that Warners are taking on the might of Bollywood, seeking to restrain the distribution of an Indian movie called Hari Puttar – A Comedy of Terrors. Legal Eagle wonders “if they are going to attempt a breach of trademark claim? Or will it be a passing off claim?” Reflecting this, Skeptic Lawyer assets that it “couldn’t be copyright, as they’d skate by as ‘parody’.” Read the rest of this entry »
A wonderful video on YouTube seeks to teach the basic principles of copyright law using Disneycharacters. It’s very entertaining, and the legal analysis is pretty accurate. Perhaps Disney’s infamouslylitigious lawyers should have studied it, not for its potential breach of copyright, but for its content, since it seems that Disney might not in fact own some copyrights in their central character, MickeyMouse.
WaltDisney may be dead but thecorporation he left behind makes no secret of its intention to ensure Mickey’s worldwide legal immortality. To mangle Horace, this is one silly mouse that will produce mountains of law.
A little late, from Law is Cool, with added links, an extract from a recent speech by Prof Harry Arthurs (pictured) which is as relevant to graduates on this side of the pond as it is in Canada:
The Laws of Identity is the title of an intriguing project which proceeds from the starting point that the fact the internet was built without a way to know who and what you are connecting to not only limits what we can do with it but also exposes us to growing dangers. The fundamental aim of the enterprise was to construct a formal, and universal, means of dealing with identity online, which could be expressed in a series of Laws of Identity, and which would “define a unifying identity metasystem that can offer the Internet the identity layer it so obviously requires”. It is an ongoing process of online discussion, during which the laws have been put forward, trashed out, and fine-tuned. A recent summary of the outcome of this enterprise stated the following six basic laws:
People using computers should be in control of giving out information about themselves, just as they are in the physical world.
The minimum information needed for the purpose at hand should be released, and only to those who need it. Details should be retained no longer than necesary.
It should NOT be possible to automatically link up everything we do in all aspects of how we use the Internet. A single identifier that stitches everything up would have many unintended consequences.
We need choice in terms of who provides our identity information in different contexts.
The system must be built so we can understand how it works, make rational decisions and protect ourselves.
Devices through which we employ identity should offer people the same kinds of identity controls – just as car makers offer similar controls so we can all drive safely.
Posted elsewhere (some of my recent posterous posts)
My posterous site is a companion to this blog: anything that catches my eye on the wild wild web that's too long for twitter but too short for a normal post here will (probably - eventually) end up over there.
The aim of the Statute of Limitations, 1957 (also here) is to achieve a degree of certainty and finality in litigation by ensuring that unlitigated cases get barred from coming to court by the passage of too much time. Periods range from 3 and 6 years to 12 and 20 years. But no claim is allowed persist indefinitely. However, via National Public Radio’s wonderful All Things Considered program, I’ve just heard and read about a case concerning a (restitution!) claim that may be more than 700 years old: 
Entries (RSS)