STEVE JOBS (1955 – 2011)

We here at Abnormal Use were saddened this week to learn of the death of tech pioneer and Apple, Inc. czar Steve Jobs. We’ve been fans of him for decades, and each day, when we use our iPhone and our iPads, we realize just how much he has changed the way we as consumers, and as lawyers, communicate with each other. Just two weeks ago, we were attending a CLE seminar in Columbia, South Carolina featuring a section called “Using the iPad in Litigation.” Pictured above is the February 15, 1982 cover of Time Magazine, almost thirty years old, showing that Jobs was making innovations even then. (See its Time Magazine Cover Gallery entry here.). Now, today, two days after his death, we pause to reflect upon his life and legacy and how his creations affected and influenced our daily lives.

I myself have had a long history with Apple Computers. As an elementary school student, I used an Apple IIe in computer class to learn the Logo programming language (and, of course, play The Oregon Trail). At home, I first began using an old school Macintosh computer – one of those clunky old boxy ones – in the mid to late 1980s. My mother, a freelance graphic designer at the time, brought one home one day.  Many grammar school homework assignments made their way through that old Mac (though I always preferred to play Shufflepuck Cafe).  Later, in high school, as the editor of the school newspaper, I used Macs to cobble together our monthly publication after school in the old journalism classroom (although staffers would often switch over from Aldus Pagemaker to Sid Meier’s Pirates!).  There was a point where I really, really wanted to buy a NeXT computer, although that never came to be. In college, working in the editorial department of the student daily, I used Macs and the QuarkXPress platform each day to design opinion pages.

Somewhere along the way, though, I reverted back to PCs. Even as a college student, I used a Dell as my home computer. I was a PC user for many years after that. It wasn’t until 2004 that I finally came back into the fold. It was April of that year, and I was in Los Angeles visiting an old friend, Daniel Loyd, who had a new device: a third generation iPod. That day, driving around L.A., we listened to a host of terrible heavy metal songs, simply because we could do so in such an easy fashion. (Dan makes a living as an editor using an Apple computer and Final Cut Pro). Within the week, I had bought my own iPod, and I’ve bought at least four of them since that fateful day in California. I was hooked. Every computer I’ve bought since has been made by Apple, including two successive desktops and a laptop. I’ve gone through three models of iPhones already (and I anticipate pre-ordering the new iPhone 4S sometime today – the first day one can do so). And of course, just a month ago, I bought an iPad, which is one of the most fun purchases I’ve made in many, many years.

With the iPhone, we are able to accomplish with a single device tasks that previously required multiple devices. Remember the old days, not so long ago, really, when traveling out of state, you’d have to take a laptop, Blackberry, cell phone, and iPod? Now, just one Apple product can cover for all of those devices. It’s a marvel. The products make you wonder how you ever lived without them.

What’s the legacy of Steve Jobs? Many have contemplated that over the course of the last two days in pieces far more eloquent than these words here. Really, though, he brought into existence the types of devices we’d previously only seen on Star Trek.

That’s a pretty good epitaph. May he rest in peace.

The last two days have seen many tributes to Jobs from the blogosphere. We would encourage you to take a look at this piece by Jeff Richardson of the iPhone J.D. blog as well as this article by Ben Stevens of The Mac Lawyer blog. Those are two of our favorite Apple-related blogs. We’d also recommend this post from The Rainmaker Blog and this entry from the Associate’s Mind blog.

This is not an intellectual property blog, although we couldn’t resist sharing the cover of The Adventures of Bob Hope #68, published way, way back in 1961. Hope, the comedian and star of the eponymous comic book series, appears at the Patent Office with a crate labeled “Top Secret,” which he claims contains “the greatest invention ever.” This appears to upset the caveman sitting nearby his own invention, the wheel. Something tells us this is not an accurate depiction of the patent application process as it existed in the early 1960s.

Maxwell Kennerly of the Litigation and Trial blog has a very interesting post on “The Three Types of Practicing Lawyer Blogs.”  He divides law blogs by practicing lawyers into three categories: the mainstream, the personalities, and the marketers.  And guess what? He identified us as an example of a personality blog! Says he: “The personalities are the single lawyer or handful of lawyers who write when they’re inspired, and they’re written with a distinctive voice. These blogs can range from analysis of case law (e.g., Drug and Device Law, D & O Diary) to personal observations about law (e.g., Erik Turkewitz, Associate’s Mind, Day on Torts) to a mixture of both (e.g., China Law Blog, Abnormal Use) . When someone mentions the ‘blawgosphere,’ they’re usually talking about those blogs — not least because those blogs are far, far more likely to link out to other websites and to engage in discussion with one another. ‘Organic’ is an apt description.”  Check out the full post.  In it, Kennerly offers the wisest advice one can give to prospective law bloggers: “Don’t feel compelled to write a particular type of blog; write what you like to write and get good at it, or it will suck and you will hate it.” We just discovered the post last night, and we may offer a more substantive response in the coming weeks.  We love blogging about legal blogging, after all.

Did you know that yesterday was National Coffee Day? We’ve written much about hot coffee lawsuits this past year, but it all began with our Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee FAQ, which we published in January in an attempt to dispel myths about the infamous lawsuit.  In writing the piece, we relied only on the original sources, those being the actual pleadings and motions in the case, as well as some contemporary media coverage of the verdict and settlement from 1994.  To celebrate this week’s National Coffee Day, take a look back at that FAQ here.

Well, I guess we’re going to have to buy new iPhones now.

You’ve got to hand it to Steve McConnell at the Drug and Device Law Blog.  In a post he ran Monday, he begins a paragraph recounting his memories of Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” with a Sgt. Pepper reference! (“It was 20 years ago today,” begins the old Beatles song, and Nirvana’s most famous song appeared on the Nevermind album 20 years ago this month). And the post itself is about a new Seventh Circuit opinion on “the standard of review for a district court’s refusal to permit an amended complaint.”  How did he tie it all together, you may ask? The musical references are to songs with misheard lyrics, while the new Seventh Circuit case is about unintelligible allegations in a pleading.  Nice.

We here at Abnormal Use typically discuss products liability issues (or even different areas of substantive law), but we feel compelled today to stray off topic and comment upon the passing of one of the greatest bands of the last three decades:  R.E.M.  Last week, the group announced that it had “decided to call it a day as a band,” bringing to a close a 31-year career which entertained not just generations of listeners but also generations of lawyers (thereby making this somewhat appropriate for a law blog). They were pioneers of what was once known as college rock music. They released many fine albums. For years, the band’s lead singer, Michael Stipe, was both literally and figuratively, the dean of alternative rock music. The band was, as some have said, “insanely influential.”

There is no question that the band’s work in the 1980’s and early 1990’s – from Murmur, Reckoning, Life’s Rich Pageant, Document, and Automatic for the People – resonated with listeners in an unparalleled way and provided the soundtrack for many fondly remembered moments. This is the band that wrote such songs as “So. Central Rain,” “These Days,” “The One I Love,” “Fall On Me, “Sweetness Follows,” “Find The River,” and so many more songs that will be admired and listened to for many, many years to come. It may sound silly, but for those of us who truly enjoy music, particularly R.E.M.’s era of music, the group’s passing is not unlike the jarring news of the death of a once close friend (albeit one with whom we lost contact many years ago).  We always figured they would be there, out there somewhere making music, whether or not that music was as good as it once was when we first encountered them so long ago. But now the band belongs to the ages.

In its later years, the band lost much of its edge. Certainly, like so many other groups, the band’s initial drive and ambition was tempered by mega success, and in response, it petered out a bit.  Later albums like Up, Reveal, and even this year’s Collapse Into Now, were remarkable only in that they were released by a band once so adored by so many, not because of their relative individual merits as works of art. But, as we know, acts like R.E.M., U2, The Rolling Stones, and even Bob Dylan, still live and thrive based on the good will engendered by their earlier, far more brilliant work.  Thus, even those later mediocre albums received a benefit of the doubt that a different band releasing a nearly identical album would never receive. Perhaps that kept the band in business longer than was prudent, but there was always the hope, among their fans (and presumably within the band itself), that it would recapture the creative energy it once wielded.

However, it’s interesting to speculate what would have happened if R.E.M. had broken up a decade and a half ago, perhaps after the release of 1992’s Automatic for the People (contended by some, including this writer, to be the band’s finest moment). Would Stipe still have mentored Kurt Cobain, Courtney Love, and Radiohead’s Thom Yorke? Perhaps Stipe might have begun a solo career, reinvigorating his path in a way not unlike Morrissey did after the destruction of The Smiths in the late 1980’s? Maybe Peter Buck would have still found work, if not fame, in obscure musical projects like Tuatara? Surely, Mike Mills, who composed many of R.E.M.’s finest songs, would have discovered suitable musical opportunities.  Whatever the case, had R.E.M. left music on a high note, the band would be remembered like those acts that released several excellent albums and left the stage before their members’ creative impulses soured or atrophied as a result of age.

A personal aside: I can still remember the first time I heard “Drive”, the lead signal off of Automatic for the People.  I was fortunate enough to be able to see R.E.M. play in concert on two occasions.  The first was in Austin, Texas in September of 1995, with Radiohead and Natalie Merchant serving as the opening acts.  (Check out the set list for that show here). At that time, R.E.M. was touring in support of 1995’s Monster, an overdone electrified album which, though inferior to the band’s previous work, still offered some catchy and radio friendly singles (a feat the band was not really able to accomplish again in subsequent years).  I saw them again in 1999 in San Antonio, Texas with Mercury Rev and Wilco as openers.  (That set list is here). Then, the band was beginning its slow decline, and it appeared that its members were more interested in entertaining themselves than the crowd that had assembled that day to see them. But it was still fun. Another fun story: In May of 2010, Steve Wynn, who once fronted the fabled 1980’s college rock band The Dream Syndicate, played two back to back shows at a tiny rock club in Atlanta, and at each, he played a full Dream Syndicate album. While at one of those shows, I turned to my right and saw I was standing right next to Mike Mills, who was clearly enjoying Wynn’s performance.

In the end, the creative slumps of the band’s later years don’’t matter.  The band did something that so few musical acts are able to do: For a period of time, they released a series of fantastic albums which listeners still enjoy and respect decades later. They captured, and in many ways, personified, a moment in music that influenced many to come.  A fine epitaph, that.

(For another lawyer’s take on the demise of the band, see this piece by Pennsylvania’s Jay Hornack a/k/a Panic Street Lawyer).

The comic book cover above, that of Action Comics #301, published way back in 1963, presents a bit of a dilemma for Superman, the apparent criminal defendant. “Superman, the people will prove that you killed reporter Clark Kent because he discovered  your secret identity,” asserts the district attorney.  Meanwhile, Superman thinks to himself, “How can I prove I’m innocent without revealing that I am Clark Kent?”  Well, we think one thing he might have done would have been to simply walk into the courtroom as Clark Kent, rather than Superman, thereby obviating the need for a trial. Our favorite part: The exhibit tag on the suit says “Clark Kent’s Clothes” instead of Exhibit A.

Filthy files may be destroyed, says the South Carolina Supreme Court. (Hat tip: Legal Profession Blog).

Today, in Columbia, South Carolina, the South Carolina Bar is putting on its 2011 Solo & Small Firm CLE and Annual Meeting, subtitled “Exploring the Business Side of Law Firms.” There is a heavy emphasis on legal technology at this conference, which is why we’ll be there to check it out. (We are looking forward to the speeches on DropBox and Cloud Computing, and there’s even a presentation on “Using the iPad in Litigation!”) If you find yourself there, seek us out! We’ll also be live tweeting the event from our official Twitter account, which you can find at @GWBLawfirm.

The Risk Management Monitors lists “The Ten Most Dangerous Jobs in America.”

Five years ago this week, the Legal Profession Blog was born. Mike Frisch of that site reflects on the occasion here. We here at Abnormal Use are big fans of that site, and we wish them a happy birthday.

As we’ve previously noted on this site, Daredevil is a Marvel Comics superhero whose alter ego, Matt Murdock, happens to be a practicing lawyer. Murdock is  blind; his heightened other senses serve him well as a costumed vigilante.  The point: He’s a lawyer, thus, we can write about the character on our law blog! (If it’s been a while since you read comics, you might recall the 2003 film, Daredevil, which starred Ben Affleck in the title role.).

In his private life, Murdock is a partner at the small New York City firm of Murdock & Nelson, which handles, among other things, personal injury and civil rights cases.  Murdock’s partner, Foggy Nelson, is a brilliant attorney  who helps cover for Murdock when he’s out fighting crime.  Just a few months ago, Marvel Comics rebooted the Daredevil comics series and brought Mark Waid on as the writer of the new series. Waid is known for such popular works as Kingdom Come and Superman: Birthright. As Waid takes responsibility for the character, Daredevil finds himself a persona non grata in the eyes of other superheroes. In fact, because of some recent exploits, Daredevil’s secret identity has been compromised, and Murdock is now attempting to rebuild his life and law practice. Waid was kind enough to agree to an interview regarding the challenges of writing a lawyer superhero character. Waid’s latest issue, Daredevil #4, hits the stands tomorrow, and the first three issues can be found at any local comic shop.  Our interview with him (which includes a few minor – though clearly marked – spoilers about tomorrow’s Daredevil #4) is as follows:

JIM DEDMAN: Matt Murdock has two full time jobs:  attorney in private practice and costumed super hero.  You’ve described that as a sort of a “paradox of a vigilante by night, lawyer by day.”  How does he manage doing both those tough jobs?

MARK WAID: Like all good comic book superheroes, he manages to squeeze an awful lot in a 24 hour day.  When I go to the bank and the post office, I’m done, and I have to lie down.  But these guys, in Matt’s case, one of the things that’s enormously helpful to him is that he relies very, very heavily on his partner and best friend, Foggy Nelson. Their dynamic is such that Matt is brilliant in the courtroom.  He is a showman, he is charming, he is well spoken. What Foggy brings to the table is . . .  an eidetic memory for court history and for case history. So he’s the one who was always in law school, nose in the books, 23 hours a day, while Matt was out chasing skirts and stuff.  So, if you will, Matt’s the face, and Foggy’s the brain, and sorry to say, the brains have the harder job.

JD: Nelson & Murdock is a small New York City firm. You’ve mentioned that you’ll be introducing some interns and assistants at the firm in the future, which is foreshadowed at the end of issue three.  How do you go about depicting the day-to-day operations of a law firm in the comic book medium?

MW: With all due respect to the fine lawyers who have represented me in the past and can sue me out of existence today, basic office law work is not the most terribly visual thing in the world for comic books.  So, we don’t spend a whole lot of time in the Nelson & Murdock offices and what time we do there is – to the chagrin of many of my lawyer friends – is sort of the TV and comic version of what a law office looks like, which is not reality.  People having fun all the time.  People are having parties, blah, blah, blah.  Luckily, Marvel has a couple of really good writers who also have legal backgrounds.  Marc Guggenheim is one, and so I’m able to lean on these guys pretty heavily for background and to sort of back stop me to make sure that my rudimentary layman’s knowledge of how a law office works, at least has some grounding in reality.

JD:  We also spend some time in the courtroom.  What efforts do you make to accurately depict that process in that arena?

MW:  Same thing.  I talk to Gugenheim, I talk to a couple of my other lawyer friends.  It’s a fine line.  I mean, it’s fiction, it’s not a documentary, so every once in a while to make it visual or to sort of compress into 20 pages of comics what would, in fact, be an entire day’s worth of law proceedings, we have to cheat a little bit.

…

JD:  At this point, it’s public knowledge that Matt Murdock is Daredevil, at least for the most part, and the new assistant district attorney actually tells him, “Every litigator in the game is going to use your Daredevil identity against you every time you set foot in a courtroom.” You’ve said in a past interview that Murdock is doing his clients “no favors by representing them.”  Why is his identity as Daredevil such a problem in his private practice?

MW: Because every time he steps into the courtroom, a smart lawyer on the other side will invoke – especially in criminal cases, particularly criminal cases – the fact that Daredevil is an unsanctioned vigilante, and therefore, he must have some sort of antagonistic relationship with law enforcement or by nature must have some sort of antagonistic bent against authority, none of which is true, but it doesn’t matter.  . . . [W]hat I’ve been told is that, paradoxically, the courtroom itself is the only place where you don’t have to worry about slander because lawyers can say whatever they need to about each other in order to win the case, essentially.  There’s boundaries to that, but Matt is not in a position to sue an opposing attorney for slander for calling him Daredevil in court.

JD: Does Matt have a dilemma in that in his private practice he appears to be a very idealistic person who believes in due process of law, and presumably the rights of the accused, but he’s also out there at night fighting crime and presumably prompting the arrest of criminals who are going to end up in a courtroom in the future?

MW: Yeah.  That’s part of it.  The real problem for Matt gets back to the idea that a good attorney needs to be fairly invisible when it comes to the facts of the case.  The moment the attorney becomes more of the focus of the trials than the evidence or the clients, you’ve got a problem.  So then, it’s all about personality, and as we saw in issue one, it doesn’t always do the client any favors.  So Matt’s now in a position where he loves trial law.  It’s the thing he’s best at.  He’s really good at it – [but] what can he do to use that knowledge to help others?

…

If you come to Matt with a case that seems unwinnable, if you come to Matt with a case that nobody else will touch, if you come to Matt with a case that you cannot afford to have tried but he believes in you and he knows that you’re right because, again, he’s got the super senses, he can tell whether you’re telling the truth or not, then he’ll be your advocate.  He will work with you to be your own lawyer.

JD: . . . Is that the model that he’s going to adopt, where he is not [creating] the attorney/client relationship but instead assisting people in representing themselves pro se?

MW: That’s exactly it.  Exactly.  It’s a dangerous place for him to be, but frankly, it allows him to use his skills. He’s a very good coach, as it turns out, because again, he can read you like a book when you’re standing in front of him.  So,  he and his guys are not going to win every single case, but this serves two purposes for us.  One is that I kind of like the idea that it gets him back in a courtroom milieu without having to deal with the Daredevil identity.  The other, quite frankly, is that the problem with Daredevil, with Matt Murdock as a lawyer in comics, is that it’s not as interesting as Daredevil swinging across a rooftop, and you don’t want to spend a whole lot of time in a courtroom in comics because it kind of gets dull.  So this gives us a chance to do the courtroom material but not actually have to worry so much about having page after page after page of a guy in a business suit arguing in front of  a jury, which is deadly dull on the page.

JD:  Now, Foggy appears to be in a romantic relationship with the new assistant district attorney.  Is that going to present him any problems, romantic or ethical, in the future?

MW: I think the key word there is “appears,” so I’m afraid I will have to actually stall the question for a couple more issues.

JD: Fair enough.  As Daredevil, Matt has witnessed many crimes and foiled many villains. Now that his identity is out there, might he be subpoenaed to testify himself or even be sued by any of these villains for brutality?

MW: Yeah, absolutely.  It’s a dangerous place that Matt is in where he’s gone public . . . .  Like I described in the first issue, . . .  his identity is sort of out there, but following on Daredevil continuity from a few years ago, when he was originally exposed, he denied all charges.  He sued the newspaper that reported his identity and won the case.  He did everything he could to fight back.  Now, that’s past continuity, and that’s not my story.  I feel kind of squidgy about that, frankly, because as a reader, that bugged me that a superhero and a lawyer would deliberately mount a false case even though it was all for a greater good.  That he would sue the newspaper for telling the truth really bugged me.  But those are the cards I was dealt.  So instead of focusing on the history of that, what I take away from that is that the reality in Manhattan now is that about a third of the people remember that he was accused of being Daredevil and they think it’s probably true.  A third of them think this is crap because he’s a blind man and this is some sort of weird publicity hoax.  And the final third of them just don’t care anymore because it’s like news of Anna Nicole Smith at this point.  It’s old news.

JD: Now, there’s a police brutality civil rights lawsuit that plays a role in the first several issues. . . . [H]ow did you first come up with the idea of using that type of litigation to advance the narrative?

MW: I wanted something visual.  . . . [I]t couldn’t have been a criminal case per se.  People who are accused of crimes and are in prison, basically, they have a right to a lawyer.  You know this better than I do with the speech: “You have a right to an attorney.  If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you. ” And Matt needs to be dealing with people who can’t get any sort of representation at all.  So, I needed to get away from criminal cases in that case.  But I needed something visual.  I needed something where . . . it was an open and shut case.  Matt has all the evidence, the poor guy is for real.  Matt knows that the guy is completely telling the truth when it comes to police brutality.  And it should have been a cake walk.  It should have been just a complete read through, easiest case Matt ever did, and the reason it backfired is because he wasn’t taking into account his own celebrity.  So, that’s why I wanted something visual – giving the guy a broken arm.  I needed something visceral . . . .  Readers have a very strong response to cases like police brutality and stuff.

JD: Are there other types of cases besides that you’re going to explore in the future?

[NOTE: SPOILERS FOR DAREDEVIL #4  BELOW]

MW: Yeah.  . . . [W]hat I like about setting this world up this way . . . is that all of these cases can lead to bigger things.  Not every case has to, but certainly, the cases we’ll be focusing on in the comic [are] the kind of things that are going to lead to bigger things.  For instance, in issue four, Matt takes the case of a kid who was fired without cause, apparently.  And he’s upset and he’s suing the company.  The problem is that New York is an “at will” state.  So, Matt says, “That’s why no one’s taking his case.  It’s a dog of a case.  He didn’t have a contract, he can’t win.”  And Foggy says, “Yeah, but I thought you may be interested because the kid is blind.”  And so now Matt’s intrigued – does it has something to do with disability?  . . .  And that ends up turning into a case where the kid inadvertently heard something that leads Matt in turn to a criminal conspiracy that in turn leads into something bigger as Daredevil.  So, that’s kind of the structure I see playing with.  You start with a small case.  And the more interesting ones turn into bigger cases that Daredevil needs to be involved with.

JD: I have to ask this. In the first issue, when Matt first enters the courthouse, he’s mobbed by newspaper reporters, including one law blog.  How did that reference come to be?

MW: That you would have to ask my editor, Stephen Wacker, because I believe I left that stuff fairly open, and I said, “Steve, let’s you and I figure out what these people are screaming.”  That’s also why one of the guys in the background is screaming, “Bababooey, bababooey!” because of Howard Stern.

JD:  . . . Have you had any reactions from lawyer readers?

MW: Yeah, a couple.  And luckily, everybody seems to understand that I’m doing my best.  I’m not a lawyer, but I play one in comics, and everybody sort of understands I’m trying to do my level best to keep it as accurate as I can, and at the same time, try and keep it as entertaining as I can, and sometimes, those are not always things that work in concert.  But so far, so good.

JD: Last question.  More generally, you tweeted very recently that “[n]ot all mainstream comics have to be written for the existing fan base.”  What’s your philosophy about that?

MW: My philosophy about it is that it makes me insane that most comics today, most super hero comics, are written specifically for the guys who’ve been reading them all their lives, which is a really inbred way of going about getting new readers.  When I sit down and write a first issue, whether it’s Daredevil or Fantastic Four or anything else I’ve done, but particularly with Daredevil – I bend over backwards to make sure that it’s a comic that you could hand to anyone if they’ve read a thousand comics or they’ve never read comics before – it doesn’t matter.  They understand who the character is, what he wants, and what’s in his way, and why we should care.  Those are the four litmus paper questions that need to be asked about every story.

“Don’t Judge This Man Until You Hear Why I Defended The Monkey Man!,” proclaims the fabled hero, Mr. District Attorney, on the cover of Mr. District Attorney #12, published way, way back in 1949. Here’s the thing: Why is the district attorney -defending- anyone? He’s a prosecutor! If there were concerns about the guilt of the Monkey Man, shouldn’t he have simply refrained to prosecute him? And if the Monkey Man is not to be prosecuted, why on earth is he in court being put on display? Or is the district attorney suggesting that – due to unexplained reasons – he temporarily left the prosecutor’s office to defend the Monkey Man? If that’s the case, surely he knows that his own personal reasons for electing to defend the Monkey Man are not admissible? And if he has decided to represent this poor soul, why is he calling him The Monkey Man, rather than by his real name? That doesn’t seem right. Oh, well. (For our prior discussion of Mr. District Attorney comic book covers, please see here, here, here, and here.).

We typically don’t write about applications to change one’s legal name, but a guy in Missouri has legally changed his name to Led Zeppelin II.  Can you believe that? Is there anything cooler than that? We doubt it. However, it probably would have been too much to change his name to Led Zeppelin IV. That would be gilding the lily. Whatever the case, good for the new Mr. Zeppelin, and we hope this inspires someone to change his or her name to Van Halen II. (Hat Tip: Boing Boing).

If you haven’t already, check out this piece by Dionne Searcey at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog entitled “Congress Examines Alleged Fraud by Asbestos Claimants.” It’s worth a read, to be certain.

By the way, thanks to the Greenville chapter of the Public Relations Society of America for its invitation to our editor, Jim Dedman, to speak on “The Perils of Blogging.” They seemed to dig his speech, although they must not have read Steve Buckingham’s piece on Monday about his editorial management style. Alas.

We here at Abnormal Use enjoy going to concerts, which is why we were curious to learn of the recent rumors that Apple is developing some type of software to prevent iPhone users from surreptitiously filming a live music performance. Here’s what The Daily Mail reported earlier this year:

The days of filming a live concert or sporting event on your iPhone may soon be a distant memory.

Apple is developing software that will sense when a smartphone user is trying to record a live event, and then switch off the device’s camera.

Anybody holding up their iPhone will find it triggers infra-red sensors installed at the venue.

These sensors would then automatically instruct the iPhone to shut down its camera function, preventing an footage from being recorded.

Only the iPhone’s camera would be temporarily disabled; other features, such as texting and making calls, would still work.

It may be too early to speculate, as the only evidence is a patent application, one which we here at Abnormal Use have not seen.

But that’s not going to stop us from speculating.  That’s what we do best. Sometimes. Give us a break, we’re a blog. Let’s assume the report is accurate and analyze the issue.

There are some obvious free speech issues if there is a kill switch for a video instrument, but we’ll leave those issues for a con law blog. We suppose that if the venue controls the sensors then they could be disabled for bands that permit video recording of their performances.  However, generally, we’re not sure how we feel about a third party – a rock club – enabling some device which thwarts certain functions on our phones.  But, if the venue elects to enable the sensors at all times, then they may be depriving the owner of a phone from recording the performance of a band that has no objections to such recording.

However, this got us thinking.  If true, the rumor suggests that Apple is being responsive to pressure from record companies who have identified a problem of sorts:  surreptitious and possibly illegal recording of concerts. That irks some artists, too (although others are happy to have their live performances available on the Internet). Might this all set some type of precedent, though?

One wonders how long it will take the Plaintiffs’ bar, inspired by this news, to suggest novel modifications that Apple (or any smartphone manufacturer, really) could have or should have offered.  Often in the news are automobile accidents caused by texting drivers.  Clearly, such an accident is likely the result of that driver’s own negligence – and perhaps even negligence per se in light of recent ordinances and statutes that have been adopted in recent years.  However, if that driver is catastrophically injured, will we soon see plaintiffs’ lawyers suing cell phone manufacturers on the theory that the smart phones, using their own GPS technology or other functions, could have or should have detected that the vehicle was traveling at a certain number of miles per hour and thus the texting function should have been disabled?  The GPS function on the phone can tell a user where they are, where they are going, and they even track in real time the movement of the phone. If a user utilizes the iPhone’s Maps program and clicks on the GPS button, a blue circle appears on the map representing the location of the phone, and if the phone is moving at 60 miles per hour because it is in a moving vehicle, the blue circle moves in real time on the map to correspond with the vehicle’s movements. In sum, the phone recognizes that it is traveling at a high rate of speed and might be configured to disable certain functions under the circumstances. Or perhaps the cars themselves could have been enabled with sensors that thwart texting when the vehicle is in motion? (Obviously, such functions might cause issues with passengers who elect to text while the vehicle is in motion.).

But you get the idea. Sure, it sounds silly, but how many times have we been surprised by the craziness of certain plaintiffs’ theories in recent years?  It’s only a matter of time.  After all, there are devices already in existence which will prohibit a person who is intoxicated from using their car. (Those too would have seemed nutty just a few decades ago). Why not something along these lines?

Maybe, maybe not. It’s not like we’re futurists or anything.

Above you’ll find the cover of Batman Gotham Adventures #35, published not too long ago in 2001. There Batman stands behind the judicial bench, gavel in hand, with some type of governmental shield in the background. The bench itself is even emblazoned with the scales of justice. “Crime and Punishment,” reads the tagline on the issue’s cover. This cover begs the question: What is Batman doing in a courtroom? Why is he the judge? Was he appointed by the president? (We’d love to see that confirmation hearing). Or is this state court? Why isn’t he out catching bad guys?

By the way, you might recall our humble appeal a few weeks back to nominate us for this year’s ABA Journal Best Blawgs Award. Well, today is the last day that the ABA Journal is accepting those nominations.  The deadline is finally upon us! We’d sure appreciate it if you would consider nominating us for the honor, and we thank you if you have done so already. For information on how to make a nomination, please see here.

If you’re a South Carolina lawyer, turn to page 30 of this month’s South Carolina Lawyer bar magazine to see an article written by GWB associate and former Abnormal Use contributor Mary Giorgi.  It’s title: “Admissibility of Expert Testimony and Scientific Evidence / It Must Be Required to Be Desired.” Good reading, to be sure, and if you’re feeling nostalgic, check out Mary’s past blog posts here.

In this recent post, Kevin Underhill of the very funny Lowering The Bar law blog remarks upon news reports of an Iowa man sentenced to ten days in jail for failing to timely return materials checked out from his local library.  What got our attention, though, was Kevin’s linking of a past piece on the President George Washington Library Book Presidential Scandal. We’re stunned. Agog, even.

Last but not least: Orangutans use iPads! (Hat tip: iPhone J.D. blog).

How to celebrate Labor Day in the legal blogosphere? Last year, we made some Ayn Rand references. We thought about posting this comic book cover, but it’s a bit much we think, especially for a blog run by corporate lawyers. Instead, you get the cover of Labor Force #1 (above) and Justice League #28 (below), both of which offer a slightly difference take on issues of labor in the superhero community. The former, published by Blackthorne Comics back in 1986, asks that the general public pay its community’s heros instead of thanking them. The latter, published by DC Comics way back in 1964, shows the Justice League, apparently on strike, complete with picket signs.  “Lift the Ban on Superman,” says one sign, while another proclaims, “The JLA demands the right to work.”

Somebody better call the NLRB.

Whatever the case, we here at Abnormal Use wish you a safe and happy Labor Day.

Above, you’ll find the cover of Secrets of the Sinister House #17, published way back in 1974. As you can see, the prosecutor has called the murder victim himself to the stand to identify the criminal defendant as his killer. Is there precedent for that, we wonder? We suppose there is no confrontation clause issue if the defense lawyer gets to cross examine the dead guy.  However, everyone in the court room appears shocked by the testimony. Why is that?  They all just observed a  spectral figure walk into the courtroom, take the stand, receive the oath, and provide all of the relevant background information prior to the courtroom identification. Presumably, the corpse had to sit in the courtroom and wait while some other witnesses testified, as well. What’s so shocking about this particular moment taking place after all that? Oh, well.

Our own Frances Zacher’s recent post regarding legal issues prompted by driverless cars is getting some play in the blogosphere.  Max Kennerly of the Litigation & Trial Blog responded here, while friend of the blog Alan Crede of the Boston Personal Injury Lawyer Blog – whose original post here prompted Frances to respond – replies here. Want to hear something off topic but cool? In his post, Alan called us “the darling of The New York Times, National Public Radio and Jackie Chiles” and recipients of “well-deserved blogospheric celebrity.”  Aw, shucks.

Remember back in May when we remarked upon the controversy surrounding Superman’s renunciation of his U.S. citizenship? Well, according to this report, in the final issue of Action Comics – the series in which Superman first appeared in 1938 – Superman addresses the issue yet again. Click here to see the panel in question while you can read a review of that issue here. Oh, well. (By the way, Action Comics is ending its run of more than 900 issues and more than 70 years because DC Comics is rebooting its universe and relaunching all its series).

Well, we’ve previously mentioned that you can now access our blog content on Facebook, right?  Well, guess what? We’ve now got a fancy personalized Facebook URL! How about that? Check it out at http://www.facebook.com/abnormaluse and if you’ve not yet become a fan of Abnormal Use on Facebook, now is your chance.