Blog

One common question I get asked by clients is to look over a contract and tell them if it is “good” or “any good” or “works for me.” So here’s the thing… I don’t know. In many cases, I have no idea if a contract is a good thing for a client. It’s not really what I do. Whether or not a contract is "good" for a client is largely...

Read more »

Anyone who follows tech, startups, or privacy issues has probably seen, by now, the firestorm surrounding Uber this week. I will not go into extensive detail, but in brief, a senior executive at Uber apparently suggested that it might be acceptable to dig up dirt on individual journalists and their families if those journalists were critical of Uber. It seems generally understood that this was directed against one particular journalist (you can read her reaction here). Read more »

This week, the Huffington Post reported that sandwich maker Jimmy John’s requires even its lowest paid workers to sign oppressive non-compete agreements. The Jimmy John’s non-compete language is incredibly broad and is completely unjustified, especially when used with low-level employees. According to its terms, the non-compete prevents a low-level employee from taking a job at any business that get more than 10% of its revenue from selling “submarine, hero-type, deli-style, pita and/or wrapped or rolled sandwiches” for two years after leaving Jimmy John’s. It also says that the worker can’t take a job at this type of “competitor” if the new employer is located within 3 miles of the particular Jimmy John’s shop or within 3 miles of any other Jimmy John’s. Read more »

Sometimes interesting legal issues come from very unlikely sources. In this case, in 2011, a crested black macaque grabbed photographer David Slater‘s camera and snapped an awesome selfie. Although Mr. Slater apparently admitted that the animal was simply playing around with his camera and snapped the picture, Mr. Slater says he owns the copyright on the picture. Wikipedia posted the image on a page and has refused to remove the image claiming that no one owns the copyright. This is not a new story, but it has recently found new life as a result of the Wikipedia decision. Read more »