Barely Legally

Confessions of a Moot Court Bailiff

Monkeys on Ecstasy

From Neurobonkers:

The John Hopkins scientists defended their bonkers dosage by saying earlier ecstasy studies by the US National Institute for Drug Addiction (NIDA) injected monkeys with twice the dose they used, noon and night for 4 consecutive days. This dosage and timespan is so nuts that the fact that all of the monkeys in the study didn’t drop dead immediately should suggest ecstasy is a pretty safe drug.

Instead the NIDA study is one of the assortment of batshit studies used to support the claim that ecstasy causes brain damage. Of course ecstasy causes brain damage to animals if you inject vast amounts of it on a twice daily basis for days on end. Neither studies bother explaining why they are injecting the monkeys rather than using the normal method of oral administration.

Apparently, injecting massive amounts ecstasy into your brain nearly constantly only kills 20% of monkeys. Just great. Now I need to scrap my whole five-year plan.

Published in Irreverently Irrelevant on

Tiny Tots Taught Terribly, Toppling Top-Tier Trajectories

Manhattan mom sues $19K/yr. preschool for damaging 4-year-old daughter’s Ivy League chances:

Nicole Imprescia yanked 4-year-old Lucia from the York Avenue Preschool last fall, angry the tyke was stuck learning about shapes and colors with tots half her age - when she should have been prepping for a standardized test.

[…]

Imprescia’s court papers suggest the school may have damaged Lucia’s chances of getting into a top college, citing an article that identifies preschools as the first step to “the Ivy League.”

Your first instinct may be to construct a doomsday device and crash the Earth into the Sun, preventing future generations from withering under such stupidity. However, there may be a pretty solid false advertising action, if the school claimed to structure their classes one way and actually structured them another way. If that’s the case, a refund doesn’t seem like the worst remedy in the world.

Of course, if the claim is bizarre tort like “interference with intellectual hypertrophy of toddler,” that might be a little bit more strained.  Read the rest of this positively riveting tale at NY Daily News.

Published in The News on

No Duh(ck)

From Reuters:

Disability insurer Aflac Inc fired comedian Gilbert Gottfried as the voice of its iconic duck on Monday after a series of Twitter jokes about the earthquake in Japan, Aflac’s most important market.

Gottfried fired off a dozen jokes on [Twitter] over the weekend, all riffing in one way or another on the devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami. One joke suggested Japan needed an urgent shipment of rubber ducks, though many tended toward the crude and sexual.

The company said his comments “were lacking in humor and certainly do not represent the thoughts and feelings of anyone at Aflac.”

I think you could have left it at “his comments were offensive, disturbing, and we don’t want to be associated with him.” Way to go that extra mile, though.

Published in Irreverently Irrelevant on

Thanks, Professor B!

Microsoft and Apple are in a kerfuffle over the right to use the phrase “App Store” in conjunction with selling programs for mobile devices. This is a fight between two global electronics companies, which is to say that I don’t really care who wins.

But the way the fight is playing out is hilarious: Microsoft wants Apple to have to re-write its latest brief to the judge because the font Apple used was too small. I actually had to re-submit a brief in my legal writing class because I used improper margins, so I can sympathize with Apple here. Except not so much, because I didn’t have $60 billion in cash just lying around.

Published in The News on

What’s New About Copyright?

A heads-up from the Madisonian: What’s New About Copyright?

Madisonian Bruce Boyden posted a three-part series at Prawfsblawg about what’s new and what’s old about the aggressiveness on the part of copyright owners that is a disconcerting feature of modern copyright law.

Part 1: Ballooning Statutory Damages in Copyright Law

Part 2: Are Meritless Claims More Prevalent in Copyright?

Part 3: Aggressive C&D; Letters: Turbulence in the Copyright Phase Transition

Published in The News on

Headline of the Week

Some friends of mine run the “All Your Law Are Belong to Us,” a law blog that covers video game happenings. They’re covering the lawsuit between the makers of World of Warcraft and the makers of Glider, a program that players use to cheat at World of Warcraft.

Glider plays World of Warcraft autonomously — a player installs the program and sets it to slay goblins and level up, and the player can then go outside and pretend to be a high-functioning adult who doesn’t pay robots to play video games for him.

(Seriously, if I paid $15 a month for the privilege of playing a video game, I’d be more than a little disinclined to pay more to avoid the chore of playing it.)

Anyway, AYLABTU has the best headline: Glider Crashes After Running Into Blizzard. Go read their post, because they deserve many eyeballs.

Published in Legal Theory on