Week 5 EOC: Lawyers Looking for Fame

The article was pretty interesting to me, mostly because it was taking a new perspective about lawyers. Most stereotypes about lawyers are that they are greedy and only in it for the money. This was about them being in it for the fame. The case was involving a man deported and denied rights to stay in the United States with his wife and child. I'm not exactly sure why this is such a special circumstance, considering so many of the deportation cases we hear about are situations involving less ground to stand on than a marriage and legal citizen child. But, I think it's intriguing that the lawyer who represents this case is apparently doing it for the fame, not for the money or let alone, the compassion. The lawyer is believed to be seeking reputability, which can be attractive to potential future clientele. People in search of a lawyer would likely select one that had been before Supreme Court with their case, and won. Cases taken to the Supreme Court are among the few and most serious of all. Lawyers that actually make it this far are supposedly considered reputable and powerful, likely to win their cases for their clients. This is what makes clients more partial to these lawyers. This article was especially interesting to me because of this. It wasn't about the usual stereotypes we hear about lawyers-being spineless and money hungry. It was about a whole new motive lawyers supposedly have. One not about the possible outcome of their current cases, it is about the outcome caused by their current cases that affects their future cases.

Week 4 EOC: Death Race Jeopardy

I really enjoyed the game, mostly because it was something new. We weren't sitting, copying definitions all class period and that, I'd say, all of us liked. We got a chance to choose our own teams, so picking of the best players was offered fairly. I noticed though, many of the answers of opposing teams were obtained by copying others'. This was not only unfair, but I also don't think those people are going to learn very much. I did work really hard on my game, and apologize for use of questions about fair use (not discussed until the next chapter). I made the mistake of using these, as I recently took the Copyright Law class where I learned all of these, and found a new love for Intellectual Property Law. However, a sour attitude from a few specific people was just not necessary. It was a distraction from the game, and made it harder for me, and if not everyone else, to enjoy and learn from the game. I thought the opportunity to earn bonus points was nice. It was a creative concept, letting us add our team’s points together, or keep our individual points separate. I earned a total of 18 bonus points in the end, which I was thrilled about. To make it even better, I even learned a few new things; a new term I happened to come across was 'misuse.' Somehow, I confused such a little big word, and was accidentally referring to it as ‘infringement’. I also learned the meaning of the term prior art, and a few various acronyms, USPTO, United States Patent and Trademark Office, FTC, Federal Trade Commission.

WEEK 3 EOC: Jeopardy Challenges and Operations

I think that the Jeopardy approach to learning definitions is definitely a lot more effective than just memorizing from a book. It is also much more fun. Typically, class is spent sitting in a desk in front of a board reading information from it, or a textbook. Or listening to a speaker lecture on the topic, while we're just supposed to memorize this, and learn it so we can hopefully later apply it to situations in the real world. Most of the time, we are lucky to memorize information reviewed in class long enough to take the final at the end of the course. But it's just not even somewhat likely we'll remember it later on. It's kind of a scary thought when considering doctors and lawyers in this position. Yes, they do need to take this information seriously, but I think the jeopardy game is possibly a better approach to learning. It is fun and exciting, but it encourages the actual learning of information. Some of the questions I am planning on using in my game are as follows:

A utility patent is valid for a time period of _____________.
What is 20 years

The use of material if for the purposes of education, research, parodies and news reporting without consent from its owner is referred to as _________.
What is fair use

The USPTO refers to a patent application as _________ if the applicant fails to respond to their actions or requests.
What is abandoned

Week 2 EOC: What I Think About Lawyers

The ways people feel about lawyers are generally pretty controversial. People can be gullible, and believe the things they hear lawyers say on commercials, about how they’re willing to fight as hard as it takes, to bring you justice. Contrarily, many feel that they are stone cold snakes who will defend even the most despicable and vile cases, solely for the sake of their profit. I once believed the negative extreme about lawyers, but now I feel my opinion about them is different from the norm. Someone brilliant told me “Lawyers are not defending their clients, they are defending the law.” And this statement made it all a lot clearer to me. Yes, maybe a lot of them truly are merciless, taking on cases that involve defending cruel and unjust actions. But, the simple fact remains, that if they are able to win a case that rationalizes dishonorable actions, they have contributed to strengthening our laws. More simply, a good lawyer takes on cases deserving justice, a bad one will take on any case that will put a nice profit in his/her pocket, a great one doesn’t let their emotions interfere, focusing only on the case as it applies to the legal system we created and live by. Should a lawyer end up winning a case for someone who is generally considered unrighteous, that should in turn expose our legal system’s corruptions to ourselves, and warrant change. After all, by holding an active legal delegation, we are fighting for justice in the first place.

Week 1 EOC: My Voice

It all started with a Vera Wang ad, hanging on the wall of a London subway station, in 1998. That’s when I realized my passion in life—fashion; which my love for later helped to create clothing label, FAUX SHO. I plan to open at least two stores in Los Angeles and New York City (headquarters) over the next four years. FAUX SHO is a clothing retailer, founded by myself, Randi Spencer. It includes two other brands as well: Chin up Princess in Los Angeles, and Boys Grow Up in New York City. The brand is inspired by elements such as: creativity, modesty, respect, cruelty-free, social responsibility, and style. As owner of this future company, I want to ensure that my strong concern for social issues is presented in FAUX SHO’s image. We will always be a sweatshop-free, fur and leather-free, eco-friendly, socially conscious establishment. Also, we are an active supporter of organizations: World Wildlife Fund, Girls Inc., National Organization for Women, and (PRODUCT)RED.