Naked Justice
Beds is back, writing this month about civic beautification: "If someone with no money is 'judgment-proof,' I think it can be safely said that someone who constructs sculptures of dancing neon penises in top hats is 'emotional distress-proof.'"

Look Before You SLAPP
In another SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) case in California this week, the anti-SLAPP statute was applied to give litigants and lawyers protection against malicious prosecution claims. In Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (B146708, 3/25/02), Sandra LaMarche, a graphic artist, had a dispute with her client, a vitamin manufacturer, over the ownership of artwork created by LaMarche for the company. According to declarations filed in the case, the owner of Jarrow behaved outrageously, attempting to sabotage LaMarche's relationships with other clients and hurling profanities like rice at a spring wedding. Jarrow sued LaMarche about the artwork ownership issue, and LaMarche ultimately won. During the case, however, LaMarche and her attorney filed a cross-complaint against Jarrow for interfering in her other business relationships, which she lost. Jarrow then sued LaMarche and her attorney for malicious prosecution, arising from the unsuccessful cross-complaint.

The Court of Appeal found the malicious prosecution case was barred by California's anti-SLAPP statute, and reversed the trial court on this point. All actions in filing and advocating the cross-complaint were found to be protected exercises of First Amendment rights, and the malicious prosecution claim was found to be a prohibited attempt to chill those rights. LaMarche's cross-complaint was an exercise of her right to petition, and her lawyer's written and oral advocacy were protected speech. The malicious prosecution claim thus was stricken, and LaMarche and her attorney awarded their costs and attorneys' fees.

Answering Will (resurrected from 3/29)
I owe Will Cox of the Peanut Gallery an answer to a question about the gene patent issues I blogged awhile back. Will asked if the patent is on the gene itself (the gene qua gene), or on the process of isolating the gene. The answer is, both things are uniquely patentable in their own right. "Utility patents" may be granted to someone who invents a new and useful process or discovers new and useful "compositions of matters" (or both). Thus, according to the USPTO's guidelines, a gene patent is possible once you identify "the compound" - the gene itself - and a use for the compound. If someone then develops "new an non-obvious methods of using the patented compound" - the gene - they can apply for a separate process patent for that use, notwithstanding that someone already holds the patent for the gene.

Blogger weirdness
Don't know why my 3/28 and 3/30 posts below just got combined, but... they seem to want to stay that way. Anyway, I was trying to point out Gary's due diligence about Thomas Pacheco, and concur that it would be nice if he beat out breakfast-cereal quizzes on Daypop (I think Jeneane might think so too). Guess I'll have to re-post my item from yesterday, which seems to have been eaten by Blogger.

Good Linkage
Thanks, Kevin, for blogging Thomas Pacheco on RGE. Proceeds from Thomas's art sales go to help him and potentially many others fight cancer, and his pieces make excellent "Blogstickers."

-Later: thanks for the Share Post Email Post