Bonus Number Four: Learn how to spell “do.”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1

The references are to the Orange County Codified Ordinances. The ordinances read:

Sec. 2–5-49. — Diving/jumping.

No person shall dive or jump into any body of water in park, beach or any recreational area from any pier, bridge, rock or precipice other than at those places designated and posted for diving or jumping by the Director, as authorized by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. Violation of this section shall be an infraction.

Sec. 2–5-49.1. — Landing in water after having jumped or dived.

No person shall land in any body of water in any park, beach or recreational area after having jumped or dived from any pier, bridge, rock or precipice above such body of water, other than at those places designated and posted for diving and jumping by the Director, as authorized by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. Violation of this section shall be an infraction.

Despite the similar construction, I think the two statutes prohibit two different acts. I added bold to the ordinances to try to make some sense out of them. The first prohibits jumping from an undesignated pier, while the second prohibits jumping into an undesignated body of water from any pier, designated or not. For example, a pier may be designated as appropriate for diving, but only in the deep water off the end. It would not be an infraction to jump from the middle of the pier, but it would be an infraction to enter the water under the middle of the pier after having jumped therefrom, because that water was not also designated for jumping.

At least, that’s the only way the second ordinance makes any sense to me. These are still wrecks of legislation, and this is still a wreck of a sign. Orange County lawmakers need to get off their lazy asses and write laws that clearly indicate what is prohibited. Or better, sell the parks and public beaches to private entities and let those entities make the rules and signs.

Surely it can’t be too difficult for “The Terminator” to terminate Punternet and that’s what I am demanding that he does.

Patently, Ms Harman is not acquainted with our First Amendment, which is precisely what prevents “The Terminator” from “terminating” such a Website. The Website’s owner responds with a brief lesson in free speech, then thanks Ms Harman for the beneficial effects of her ignorance:

In closing, I would like to thank you for the huge influx of traffic to my website which your actions have caused. I am sure that the ladies who are a part of the PunterNet community thank you as well, as they will no doubt benefit financially from the many new clients who might otherwise never have found them.

And candy for cuties!

They were right about the cantilever heels, pants, and mobile phones, at least.

My favorite is the headlight.

See, if the Georgia suit went ahead, the Georgia District Court would have had to determine whether the bust supporters sold by Woolworth’s indeed infringed Playtex’ patent. This would be the same issue as what would have to be decided in the declaratory judgment action in New York. So if the Georgia court made a decision on the subject, that decision would have had a binding effect on the New York court under the doctrine of res judicata. (Woolworth’s probably could have had the Georgia case dismissed for failure to join a necessary party who could not subsequently be joined because of a lack of personal jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, but that’s not what happened.)

Gluckin, therefore, really wanted to make sure it had the opportunity to litigate the patent infringement issue itself in the New York suit, and not by proxy through Woolworth’s in the Georgia suit. But ordinarily, the suit that gets filed first gets priority, and later suits get enjoined until earlier ones get finished.

Fortunately for Gluckin, there is an exception to this first-filed-goes-first rule, arising out of patent law. An infringement suit against a customer of a manufacturer always has the manufacturer as the real party in interest, and the policy of the Second Circuit is to place preference on the real party in interest litigating his own claim, so long as it is more convenient than the customer suit. Which is why Gluckin got the injunction against the Georgia suit.

Anyway, I’m sure all you peoples out there who don’t care about civil procedure were bored to tears reading about all that.

On a more entertaining note, reading this case reminded me of this fun yet highly inaccurate account of the invention and patenting of the brassiere from the ultra–tear-jerker film Beaches, starring Bette Midler and some other people whose names I cannot remember.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqxWhBZXF8Q

A: [Link]