Attorney disputes facts in article on Law Bulletin v. LRP.In response to an article in the May 15, 2001 Newsletter on Newsletters, "Appellate court A court having jurisdiction to review decisions of a trial-level or other lower court. An unsuccessful party in a lawsuit must file an appeal with an appellate court in order to have the decision reviewed. to rule on possible copyright protection for publishers of 'public information,'" we received the following letter from Joseph D. Wargo of Kritzer & Levick P.C., the law firm representing LRP LRP Lipoprotein Receptor-Related Protein LRP Low Density Lipoprotein Receptor-Related Protein LRP Loan Repayment Program LRP Linux Router Project LRP Livestock Risk Protection LRP Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Lrp Leucine-responsive Regulatory Protein Publications Inc. "First, the litigation An action brought in court to enforce a particular right. The act or process of bringing a lawsuit in and of itself; a judicial contest; any dispute. When a person begins a civil lawsuit, the person enters into a process called litigation. between LRP and Law Bulletin has nothing to do with whether 'there is a line where enough additional editorial effort has been applied to the underlying information to make the final product eligible for copyright protection.' While this is an interesting legal issue, it is not present in the referenced litigation. "Second, there is nothing in the litigation pertaining per·tain intr.v. per·tained, per·tain·ing, per·tains 1. To have reference; relate: evidence that pertains to the accident. 2. to proper 'ethics' in the industry. This is a legal matter; courts do not adjudicate adjudicate (  jōō´dikāt´),v industry ethics. "Third, the quote to 'one document' set forth on page 2 of your newsletter does not come from this case. The quotation, indeed, has nothing to do with the litigation between LRP and Law Bulletin. "Fourth, your statement that the court held 'LRP had engaged in "deceptive acts"' is both false and defamatory. While Law Bulletin sued LRP for engaging in alleged 'deceptive acts' such acts were dismissed as a matter of law and never ruled upon factually by either a jury or judge. Your further statement that 'the judge imposed a fine of $1.00' is also false and defamatory. The $1.00 award was required under Florida law The jurisprudence of this state offers major differences from doctrines prevailing in the United States at either the federal level or that of the various states. Homestead exemption from forced sale, the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, the right to privacy, and the Williams as nominal damages Minimal money damages awarded to an individual in an action where the person has not suffered any substantial injury or loss for which he or she must be compensated. arising from a breach of contract claim. This award of $1.00 is hardly a 'fine,' and pales in comparison to the millions of dollars sought by Law Bulletin in the litigation. "Finally, your article presents LRP's conduct in a false light. Indeed, LRP's conduct has been substantially vindicated by the legal process in that after years of litigation, Law Bulletin was awarded $1.00 and currently faces LRP's claims for attorney's fees. "We are writing this letter in an immediate effort to provide you with facts that contradict the inaccurate facts set forth in your May 15 publication. LRP reserves the right to raise additional issues with you at a later time should that become appropriate." |
|
||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion