Latest & Greatest – The 2016 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide

By Sharon D. Nelson, John W. Simek, and Michael C. Maschke

Published by American Bar Association Law Practice Division (2016)

KF 320 .A9 N457 2016

To kick off ABA Resources Month, we are featuring one of the ABA’s annually-updated books, The 2016 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide. Simply because you are a small firm or solo attorney, you are not insulated from the technological advances that are happening around you. In fact, the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct mandate that a lawyer should be competent with relevant technology. Keeping up with technology seems like a cost-prohibitive and daunting task, but the folks at the Law Practice Division of the ABA have made it easier for you with their 2016 Guide. The Guide offers information and recommendations to allow attorneys to find the technological equipment that will give them the most bang for their buck. From hardware to software to smartphones and anything else in between, the Guide takes the guesswork out of purchasing the computer equipment that is most appropriate for your office and business. Not sure which type of case management software is right for you? Turn to Chapter Fourteen to find descriptions of the offerings available. Chapter Fifteen will help you decide which time and billing software is right for you. Confused by cloud computing? Check out Chapter Nineteen for an explanation and some considerations. Want to know more? Come to the Harris County Law Library and look for The 2016 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide in our ABA Resources display or ask for it at the reference desk.

An Introduction to Poké-Law

A Goldeen splashing around outside the Harris County Law Library

Anyone who’s not living under a rock (or Rock-type Pokémon, if that be the case) has heard plenty in the last few days about Pokémon Go, the augmented reality game breaking download records and causing the worst outbreak of Pokémon fever since the late ‘90s. As a response to the millions of players trying to become Pokémon masters, the Harris County Law Library would like to spotlight a few of the potential legal issues raised by the app:

“I was trying to catch an Eevee” is not a legal defense

If you’re trying to be the very best, “like no one ever was,” make sure you respect property rights. Criminal trespass in Texas occurs when a person enters or remains in or on the property of another, without effective consent and the person (1) had notice the entry was forbidden and (2) received notice to depart but failed to do so. Tex. Penal Code § 30.05 (West 2015). The offense is a misdemeanor. Texas also recognizes civil causes of action for trespass where an unauthorized entry to property results in injury to the property owner’s possessory interests. In cases where the entry was inadvertent, the defendant may still be liable if they failed to exercise a duty of reasonable care (e.g., accidentally driving your car off the road into someone’s yard because you spotted a Pikachu). So heed the warnings of police and don’t look for Pokémon in any place where you don’t have permission to be.

(On this note: While the law library is open to the public for legal research, please don’t use the library for any other purpose. Your local Harris County Public Library branch is a much better Pokémon hunting ground.)

Know Your Rights as a Pokémon Trainer

Like any other app on your phone, players trying to catch ‘em all are subject to the software manufacturer’s Terms of Service. Unfortunately, like most other TOSs, these terms are rarely actually read, and can have serious legal ramifications if a dispute arises. The Pokémon Go TOS contains an “Agreement to Arbitrate” clause that strips users of their rights to participate in class action suits against developer Niantic Labs or to have a trial by jury. If users want to retain these rights, they must email Niantic within 30 days of agreeing to the TOS with an “Arbitration Opt-out Notice.” More information on opting out can be found in this article by The Consumerist.

This is only the beginning of Pokémon Go’s impact on the legal system, as lawyers grapple with the challenge of applying existing laws to new digitally augmented environments. Be safe when out looking for Pokémon, and happy hunting!

A Tale of Two Amys: Ice Cream Trademarks Under Dispute

In celebration of National Ice Cream Month, the Harris County Law Library would like to spotlight an ice cream dispute involving one of our capital city’s favorite desserts. In the summer of 2013 Austin-based Amy’s Ice Creams, Inc. filed suit for trademark infringement and related claims against Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., a manufacturer of frozen vegetarian and vegan foods sold in grocery stores across the United States.

Prior to the suit Amy’s Ice Creams filed a federal trademark application for its mark on t-shirts, catering, and “restaurant services featuring: ice cream, fruit ice, candy, chocolates and beverages.” Amy’s Kitchen opposed the application, having begun its own expansion into the cold treats business with a line of “non-dairy frozen desserts.” Applications by Amy’s Kitchen to trademark its mark for cookies and candy bars were then in turn opposed by Amy’s Ice Creams. When discussions between the parties failed to bring about a resolution, Amy’s Ice Creams sued.

Anyone with doubts about the prudence of fighting a protracted legal battle over the name “Amy” will be happy to learn that both “Amy’s” eventually came to the same conclusion. In Amy's Ice Creams, Inc. v. Amy's Kitchen, Inc., 60 F.Supp.3d 738 (2014) the court, inter alia, granted Amy’s Kitchen’s motion for summary judgment on Amy’s Ice Creams’ unjust enrichment claim, denied Amy’s Kitchen’s other motions for summary judgment, and denied Amy’s Ice Creams’ motions for summary judgment. In other words, for either party to obtain relief through the courts, a full (and likely expensive) trial would be necessary. Both parties subsequently dismissed the lawsuit and Amy’s Ice Creams narrowed its food services trademark to “restaurant services featuring ice cream; catering.” It’s a winning scenario for everyone: The two companies no longer have to argue whether the name “Amy’s” is distinctive or has secondary meaning in Texas, and Texans are free to enjoy a greater variety of ice cream—both with and without dairy.