Legal Blog of Attorney Greg Curry

On Twitter, I often link to articles about how robots are replacing humans in various jobs. This isn't something I like talking about. It's terrible for those being replaced. But it is a fact, and that's why I do it. We are in the early stages of a radical change in how companies provide services and produce or sell goods. It is scary for workers, but the change has started, and it's not going to stop, and if you can be replaced by a robot, you will be. Those people protesting outside McDonald's headquarters in Chicago, wanting a $15/hour minimum wage and the right to unionize? They're organizing battles in a war they've already lost. McDonald's isn't going to give you $15/hour. McDonald's will just replace you with robots, and it's already working on it. (Frankly, the Chicago protesters strike me as more of a union-thing, more union power, more mandatory union dues, etc. But unions will decline as their members are replaced by robots....

One of the questions most often asked on Shark Tank is: "Do you have a patent?" To the investors that's important. A patent means only you  can make a certain product or make it in a certain way. If you don't have a patent, the investors are quick to say "I'm out" because someone else can just copy you. Patents are valuable (in theory) in that they encourage innovation. You come up with something new and valuable, and if you are granted a patent, you get the right (a patent) to be the only one who can make that product, or in that particular way, for 20 years from the date you filed for the patent. But the trade-off is that in exchange for this 20 years of protection, you have to disclose exactly how your make your product. That means everyone else can see how you do it. And after 20 years, someone can just copy you. What's the alternative? The alternative is not  seeking a patent on your product or your formula. And if you can keep your proces...

Watched a good documentary on the brilliant and flawed and kind-of-weird Henry Ford. The documentary touched on one of the most important corporate law/finance cases in history, Dodge v. Ford Motor Company . "Dodge" was John and Horace Dodge, who created the Dodge car company. John and Horace were early investors in Ford Motor Co. (created in 1903) and owned about 10% of the shares. Ford came out with the Model T in 1909, and after Ford invented the "assembly line" in 1913, the Model T was produced and sold like crazy and generated massive profits. For many years, Ford distributed portions of the profits to shareholders like the Dodges. Henry Ford actually hated investors and wealthy people like the Dodges and believed in lifting up the common man and making their lives better (or so he claimed). In 1916 Ford Motor Co. had $50,000,000 in cash. Henry Ford wanted to use the money to build a new, giant factory, to give more jobs to more people, etc., and severel...

A recent lawsuit in the news got me thinking about something very basic in litigation called "standing". Standing means you, as the plaintiff, have a personal stake in a dispute, or in the outcome of a lawsuit, or you were the actual person or party injured by the acts of the defendants. Standing is a "threshold question" in a lawsuit. At a minimum you need standing, or your case will be thrown out.  The "lawsuit in the news" was the idiotic lawsuit brought by seven New England Patriots fans against the NFL, Commissioner Roger Goodell, and even Robert Kraft (the Patriots owner!) over Goodell's punishment of Tom Brady and the Patriots for Deflategate. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair competition under Massachusetts law, fraud, breach of contract, a civil RICO claim (originally meant for organized crime!), and some other things. The Patriot fans then made a motion for something called a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injun...

In a recent case in a New York appeals court, the plaintiff sued the defendants to recover money/payment for services he allegedly provided and for a judgment declaring that he was a member of a limited liability company (an LLC). It's not clear from the decision what these services were. The case went through discovery (the exchange of information, documents, depositions, etc.) and all the way through a trial. There was a bench trial (a trial by a judge, no jury); the judge found in favor of the defendants and dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiff appealed.  First, the appeals court said the plaintiff had failed to show any evidence at trial that he was a member of the LLC--no operating agreement for the LLC, no list of members of the LLC, etc.  The appeals court also said that the plaintiff had failed to prove his claim for quantum meruit. Quantum meruit is called a "quasi contract" theory of recovery, meaning there was no written contract, but you provided s...

When you bring a lawsuit (or some other kind of action or proceeding) in court, you are asking the court to give you some kind of relief. Generally speaking, that relief is either money (called "damages" or "money damages" or a "remedy at law") or equitable relief. Everyone knows what money is. What is "equitable relief"? It is relief other than money. Some examples of equitable relief (or "relief at equity" or an "equitable remedy") are:  specific performance of a contract -- you entered into a contract with another party for them to do something; they failed to do it; you sue them to force them to perform as they agreed to in the contract an injunction -- you bring an action to make another party do something or stop doing something rescission of contract -- you entered into a contract; you believe there is a problem with the contract, or the other side committed fraud, or the other side can't perform its oblig...