Law Pundit cited at FindLaw’s Modern Practice

Law Pundit at FindLaw’s Modern Practice

Modern Practice, FindLaw’s Law Practice and Technology Magazine in the December, 2003 Editor’s Corner in an article entitled, “The Blogbook: Open Source Lawyering” writes:

“Currently there are hundreds of legal blogs, written and operated by attorneys, law librarians, professors, legal pundits, former judges and almost anyone with an opinion. Topics range from general legal perspectives on current events, to very specific areas of jurisprudence. For every niche area of the law, there seems to be a legal blog that covers it. Some of the more popular legal blogs include Denise Howell’s Bag and Baggage, Andis Kaulins’s LawPundit, Rick Hasen’s Election Law, and Howard Bashman’s How Appealing.”

We are thankful for the kudos, but there is still a lot to do. Once a good share of the public as well as the mainstream of the legal community discover that legal blogs especially are extremely useful sources of information – a discovery which has not yet taken place – blawgs will become far more popular than they are. We are working on it.

Nine Questions for Eolas – sent to Eolas by e-Mail today

Nine Questions for Eolas – sent to Eolas by e-Mail today

Dear Eolas Management,

We are posting this e-mail to the LawPundit blog at

1. We are interested to know – just exactly what has Eolas patented? A short sentence will suffice.

2. Does Eolas claim an exclusive patent on ANY software that “embeds” software in any other software?

3. Does Eolas claim an exclusive patent on ANY software that “embeds” software in a browser?

4. Does Eolas claim an exclusive patent on ANY software that “embeds” an executable program in a browser?

5. To our understanding, all software code is written to be ultimately executed by machines. Why is the Eolas software embedding any different than placing a software code module within another software code module, which is standard practice in programming?

5. What does Eolas claim as the patent infringement in the Microsoft case? – just a short abstracted paragraph would be suitable to our readership, thank you.

6. Under what provisions, rules and regulations of the University of California Charter did Eolas obtain its patent rights?

7. Were the persons who assigned Eolas the patent right in issue acting under proper authorization and within their legal fiduciary responsibilities to the University of California under California state law?

8. Was the assignment of the Eolas patent contractual? If so, what was the consideration? If we correctly understand the limited facts available to us – the Eolas Patent was apparently “invented” during a time that the “inventors” were public servants at that University being paid by taxpayers’ money. Please correct us if we are wrong on these matters.

9. According to a posting at, Eolas would get 75% of the verdict in the Microsoft case and the University of California only 25%. Is that correct? How does Eolas or the University of California account for this strange distribution? Was consideration paid by Eolas in order to obtain the lion’s share of this patent?

We thank you for your attention to these questions, which are of interest to the entire internet community.

Andis Kaulins, owner of LawPundit