In the lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan, Lee says Samuel Pinkus, the son-in-law of Lee’s long-time agent, Eugene Winick, took advantage of her failing hearing and eyesight to transfer the rights on the book, which has sold more than 30 million copies worldwide and became an Oscar-winning film.
The 87-year-old says she has no memory of agreeing to relinquish her rights or signing the agreement that cements the purported transfer.
Winick had represented Lee for more than 40 years. When he became ill in 2002, Pinkus diverted several of his father-in-law’s clients to his own company, the lawsuit said.
According to the lawsuit, in 2007 Pinkus “engaged in a scheme to dupe” Lee into assigning the novel’s copyright without any payment and had since failed to respond to licence requests.
Lee received the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her book in 2007 from President George W. Bush, a fan of Lee’s work. She has rarely shown her face in public otherwise.
So this is where I was profoundly foolish. I told them about the Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto. And in doing so, Aaron would explain to me later (and reporters would confirm), I made everything worse. This is what I must live with.Journalist, and close friend of Aaron Swartz, Quinn Norton • Discussing her role in the case, during a long article she wrote for The Atlantic. Read the whole thing. This one quote does not do the story justice. But we recommend starting with the editor’s note from Alexis Madrigal. It’s a tough one to read, and shows how the federal government can break people down in federal cases.
I decided to resign from Square so my colleagues could continue to do great work without the distraction that a lawsuit would most certainly bring. I deeply regret that I let my personal and professional lives to become intertwined, and I apologize to my colleagues and friends (at Square and elsewhere) who I’ve let down, and who will bear the brunt of some of the unnecessary, negative attention this situation will likely bring.Former Square chief operating officer Keith Rabois • Discussing why he chose to resign from the company. To put it simply, Rabois faced a lawsuit over his relationship with a former employee of the company, one who Rabois claims he had a consensual relationship with. With the prospect of a sexual harassment lawsuit claiming otherwise hanging over his head, and also threatening Square’s business, Rabois was clear that he was innocent of the allegations he faced. “While I have certainly made mistakes, this threat feels like a shakedown, and I will defend myself to the full extent of the law,” he said. The company, in a statement, did not find any evidence of misdeeds on the part of the departing executive but admitted his departure was the right move. ”Keith exercised poor judgment that ultimately undermined his ability to remain an effective leader at Square,” a spokesperson said.
[Lawyer Stephen] DeNittis said both plaintiffs — John Farley, of Evesham and Charles Noah Pendrack, of Ocean City — came to him after reading last week about the short sandwiches.
DeNittis is asking for compensatory damages for his client and a change in Subway’s practices.
The Milford, Conn.-based firm should either make sure its sandwiches measure a full foot or stop advertising them as such.
Most people can handle the fact that occasionally Subway’s bread bakes a little shorter than a foot. But not these guys. John Farley and Charles Noah Pendrack, stick to Jersey Mike’s, for everyone’s sanity.
It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies.
Inman sparked a flood of charity donations, and yet Carreon still tried to punish him for making fun of his baseless legal threats by dragging him through the court system. We’re very pleased that Carreon has seen that his lawsuit had no merit, and hope that this is the end of his abuse of the legal system.EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry • On the decision by Charles Carreon, the lawyer for FunnyJunk, to quit his legal battle against Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal and everyone indirectly touched by their spat — from fundraising sites to those whom the funds were being raised for. The EFF was pulled in to fight Carreon’s lawsuit, and he almost immediately folded. Talk about Independence Day.
Hey Pizza Hut: If you use an obvious rip-off of a Black Keys song in your commercial, you’re gonna get sued. Just an FYI. You too, Home Depot. Dan Auerbach and company doesn’t mess around.
In 2007, I was...
I started tumblr when I was at one of the lowest points of...
Exclusive: How the Syrian Electronic Army hacked the...
soon
Yahumblr.
Google found the...
» Illinois resident Katie Szpyrka, represented by Edelson McGuire, filed the suit nearly two weeks after the passwords first hit the web. Szpyrka claims that the ease with which hackers accessed user information constitutes a violation of promises that LinkedIn made to consumers. LinkedIn disputes Szpyrka’s claim, and intends to fight the suit in court. “No member account has been breached as a result of the incident,” said LinkedIn spokeswoman Erin O’Harra, adding, “We have no reason to believe that any LinkedIn member has been injured.”
Follow ShortFormBlog • Find us on Twitter & Facebook
On Friday, June 15, 2012, attorney Charles Carreon passed from mundane short-term internet notoriety into a sort of legal cartoon-supervillainy.
He transcended typical internet infamy when he filed a federal lawsuit last Friday in the United Sates District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland. He belonged to the ages the moment he filed that lawsuit not only against Matthew Inman, proprietor of The Oatmeal, but also against IndieGoGo Inc., the company that hosted Inman’s ridiculously effective fundraiser for the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society.
But that level of censorious litigiousness was not enough for Charles Carreon. He sought something more. And so, on that same Friday, Charles Carreon also sued the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society, the beneficiaries of Matthew Inman’s fundraiser.
Yes. Charles Carreon, butthurt that someone had leveraged his douchebaggery into almost two hundred thousand dollars of donations to two worthy charities, sued the charities.
Just go read the whole thing, and get ready for your jaw to hit the floor. As I told Twitter, I have to believe that this guy is doing some kind of Andy Kaufman bit at this point, because there’s no possible way he is for real.
He won the Sex.com case. Clearly he thinks if he can win that, he can do anything on the Internet. Guys like Charles Carreon are why they invented tort reform.
As your client should know, the internet does not like censorship, and does not react kindly to it. Bringing a lawsuit against The Oatmeal is ill advised. Not only are FunnyJunk’s claims meritless, FunnyJunk will surely lose in the court of public opinion and cause itself reputational harm. We are also deeply skeptical that a nameless, faceless, business that hosts third party content will be able to demonstrate much if anything by way of damages as a result of The Oatmeal’s allegedly defamatory statements. At the end of the day, a lawsuit against The Oatmeal in this situation is just a really bad idea.The Oatmeal’s laywer, Venkat Balasubramani • In a legal response to FunnyJunk, which is different than their successful comic/charity push. You can read the full document over here. Meanwhile, the lawyer who filed the original document, Charles Carreon, isn’t backing down.
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
