Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LSU Law School Sues Student Over Website

Posted by timothy on from the don't-mention-any-names dept.

hij writes: "The NY Times has an article that gives details about how the LSU Law School is suing one of its own students for a web site he maintains. The web site contains information about the Law School and also includes articles that are critical of the Law School."

3 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. School values First amendment - laughable??? by mcwop · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The article states: "Mr. Costonis did say that Mr. Dorhauer remained a student in good standing. "We are a law school, for goodness' sake, and understand and teach the values of the First Amendment," he said."

    They value the first amendment so long as what you say does not confuse anybody. Lawyers and lawyers to be are easily confused.

    --

    "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

  2. Other students should sue..... The school! by Papa+Legba · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Claiming that they are not getting the same value for their tuition dollars.

    This guy , due only to the fact that he has put up a website, is getting a free crash course in internet domain disputes and copywrite law. If the opinions in the article are correct, then he is also getting an easy one tossed across the plate so that he can win. The school is basically handing him free on hands training in how a real case works coupled with a high profile case he can win before he graduates. This means he is getting more value from his time at LSU. If I was a student at LSU I would be demanding that the school sue me also!

    --
    Papa Legba come and open the gate
  3. Non-commercial is a near-total defense by Froomkin · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If your site is *totally* non-commercial, almost none of the trademark laws in the US apply to you. The major exception is "tarnishment," which these days means associating the mark with kiddie pr0n or the like. With that exception, trademark laws protect marks from **COMMERCIAL** confusion, not from criticism or parody.

    The NYT article is in error, I believe, when it quotes a lawyer as saying the use of the school's colors is relevant to the outcome of this case. It is not. What is relevant is whether the use is commercial or non-commercial. The test for "commercial" is perhaps more hair-trigger than it ought to be: some cases have found asking for donations, selling a t-shirt, or running banner ads to be 'commercial' although it's unlikely we'd treat at least the donations as 'commercial' activity in any other context.

    --

    I have a blog.