https://revolution.radio/
Hour 1
Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC
Holding: When a defendant in a trademark suit uses the mark as a designation of source for its own goods or services — i.e., as a trademark — the threshold Rogers test for trademark infringement claims challenging so-called expressive works, see Rogers v. Grimaldi (https://casetext.com/case/rogers-v-grimaldi), does not apply, and the Lanham Act’s exclusion from liability for “[a]ny noncommerical use of a mark” does not shield parody, criticism, or commentary from a claim of trademark dilution.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jack-daniels-properties-inc-v-vip-products-llc-2/
Jack Daniel’s prevails against dog toy maker.
Justice Kagan pointed to the statutory language in the Lanham Act indicating that the fair-use exception has an exclusion for source-indicating use and concluded: “The problem with the Ninth Circuit’s approach is that it reverses the statutorily directed result” in cases such as this one and would “nullify Congress’s express limit on the fair-use exclusion for parody.”
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/08/scotus-decides-jack-daniels-v-vip-products/
Important newsflash from The Onion
(Starts at 8 minutes)
The Onion Files the Funniest Sup. Ct. Brief EVER! for real
(Starts at 12 minutes)
BRIEF OF THE ONION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
Another Judicial Order Related to Lawyer Use of Generative AI
(Starts at 41 minutes)
The Court has adopted a new requirement in the fast-growing and fast-changing area of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) and its use in the practice of law.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/08/another-judicial-order-related-to-lawyer-use-of-generative-ai/
The requirement is as follows: Any party using any generative AI tool in the preparation or drafting of documents for filing with the Court must disclose in the filing that AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used to conduct legal research and/or to draft the document.
Further, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure continues to apply, and . . .
Argument Against Sanctions for Lawyer’s Filing of Motion That Contained AI-Hallucinated Cases
In the Order, the Court describes this situation as “unprecedented.” We agree. We can find no case where, as here, a lawyer using a new, highly-touted research tool obtained cases that the research tool itself completely made up. The lawyer, Mr. Schwartz, had no idea this was happening, even when opposing counsel brought their inability to locate the cases to his attention. ChatGPT even assured him the cases were real and could be found on Westlaw and LexisNexis, and continued to provide extended excerpts and favorable quotations. Now that Mr. Schwartz and the Firm know ChatGPT was simply making up cases, they are truly mortified; they had no intention of defrauding the Court, and the mere accusation – repeated in hundreds (if not thousands) of articles and online posts – has irreparably damaged their reputations. They have apologized to the Court in earlier submissions and do so again here.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/08/argument-against-sanctions-for-lawyers-filing-of-motion-that-contained-ai-hallucinated-cases/
More on the Sanctions Hearing for Lawyer Who Used ChatGPT, Which Fabricated Precedents
Matthew Russell Lee (Inner City Press)](https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/lawyer-suing-avianca-used-chatgpt) has what appears to be a live-Tweet transcript of the hearing, as it progressed; I can’t be certain that it’s accurate, but it seems credible enough to link to. There should presumably be a decision soon from Judge Kevin Castel. For the backstory, see my earlier post (https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/27/a-lawyers-filing-is-replete-with-citations-to-non-existent-cases-thanks-chatgpt/) (which is based on written court filings).
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/08/more-on-the-sanctions-hearing-for-lawyer-who-used-chatgpt-which-fabricated-precedents/
UPDATE: John Russell (Courthouse News) (https://www.courthousenews.com/lawyer-who-cited-bogus-legal-opinions-from-chatgpt-pleads-ai-ignorance/) has a story on the hearing, with quotes.
Lawyer who cited bogus legal opinions from ChatGPT pleads AI ignorance
“I deeply regret my actions,” Schwartz said in court on Thursday. “I have suffered both professionally and personally due to the widespread publicity. I am both embarrassed and humiliated and extremely remorseful. To say that this has been a humbling experience would be an understatement.”
https://www.courthousenews.com/lawyer-who-cited-bogus-legal-opinions-from-chatgpt-pleads-ai-ignorance/
Jack Daniels Faces Boycott Calls Over LGBTq Campaign
(Starts at 51 minutes)
Jack Daniels said in June 2021 that it had teamed up with three drag queens from the hit TV show to produce a series of videos called Drag Queen Summer Glamp, which was released during pride month. It features the participants completing challenges around the company’s Lynchburg, Tennessee, distillery.
https://www.newsweek.com/jack-daniels-whiskey-boycott-calls-lgbt-campaign-1792890
Hour 2
Re: Don’t confuse the courts (which may be corrupt) with the law, which is beautiful
The law and city hall are like the Deathstar
A listener interacts by email.
A lesson on how to view the ever-expanding body of law and legal system.
What Does “Can’t See The Forest For The Trees” Mean?
Can’t see the forest for the trees” is used when describing a person who cannot see a situation they are in as it truly is, instead they get lost in the details of it, and lose perspective on the bigger issue. In other words, one who gets blinded by a situation they are fully involved in.
https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/what-does-cant-see-the-forest-for-the-trees-mean
Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
(Starts at 21 minutes)
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit (http://ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/), a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/09/short-circuit-a-roundup-of-recent-federal-court-decisions-214/
Stalking Protective Order Against Grandmother Vacated
(Starts at 38 minutes)
Pursuant to OCGA § 16-5-90 (a) (1), “[a] person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person.” The term “harassing and intimidating” is defined as:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/09/stalking-protective-order-against-grandmother-vacated/
a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes emotional distress by placing such person in reasonable fear for such person’s safety or the safety of a member of his or her immediate family, by establishing a pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior, and which serves no legitimate purpose.
further thoughts on the the ever-expanding body of law and legal system
(Starts at 46 minutes)
No! Attorneys did not write the law in a convoluted way to ensure their employment. Take for example, the Uniform Commercial Code.
The Story of Stephen’s Boats
Copyright © 2011 by Robert M. LeVine
ISBN-978-0-615-308-35-7
Credits
Danheim – Mannavegr (Full Album 2017) Viking Era & Viking War Music
https://youtu.be/8tilKaOINmE
Waffenruhe – War Chant Ritual
https://youtu.be/brczxLKD9jY
Marvin Gaye – I Heard It Through The Grapevine
https://youtu.be/hajBdDM2qdg
The Police – Message In A Bottle
https://youtu.be/MbXWrmQW-OE
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (MetroGoldwyn-Mayer 1968)
David Allen Coe- Jack Daniels if you please
https://youtu.be/B1sDTTRjncY
Frank Sinatra — High Hopes
https://youtu.be/S94Bh3Qez9o
Mason Proffit – Two Hangmen
https://youtu.be/CC3yZdG_2B
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved in print and audio content.