Joshua A. Ridless
(415) 614-2600
http://www.ridlesslaw.com
RELATIONSHIP LAWYERING. My practice is built on the principles of “relationship lawyering” - providing cost-effective counsel to emerging growth companies while eliminating the perceived and actual abuses associated with legal services. Relationship lawyering means becoming an asset to your business, not an expense. As a relationship lawyer, I approach each client’s business with a sense of urgency, becoming involved in all legal issues from the most mundane regulatory matters to the most critical financial transactions.
SCOPE OF WORK. My practice is based on core areas of expertise: corporate law, mergers and acquisitions, securities law, intellectual property transactions and other related issues.
I have built a roster of clients spanning a broad range of industries such as software, e-commerce, bio-tech, web development, entertainment, consulting/professional services, transportation, hospitality, tourism, and retail.
My experience with publicly- and privately-held companies includes all aspects of SEC filings and proxy statements, entity formation, private placement memoranda and licensing agreements.
As a solicitor, I assist clients in identifying and interviewing specialists in non-corporate areas when necessary.
As a business attorney, I assist emerging growth companies with non-legal matters such as preparing and revising business plans and identifying potential funding sources, including venture capital funds, investment banks and individual investors.
FEES. I pride myself on being an innovator in legal cost reduction methods, applying flat fees to most projects and reasonable retainers for long-term relationships. In doing so, your legal counsel can be budgeted in advance.
For companies that require ongoing general counsel, but cannot afford or do not need this service full-time, I work on retainer, determining in advance the scope of work for a six or 12-month period. Although workflow may vary, monthly fees are constant, with surpluses or deficits reconciled when the retainer period ends. At that time, the scope of work is reevaluated, and monthly fees adjusted accordingly.
In addition, I do not charge for lawyer education, nor do I view administrative costs such as photocopying, word processing and travel time as profit centers.
CREATING A PARTNERSHIP. Every day emerging businesses are confronted with obstacles and impediments to growth. Legal counsel should not be one of these. By building my practice on the principles of relationship lawyering, I can provide legal services at a fair cost, while building a relationship that evolves with your changing needs.
Mr. Ridless was the recipient of the Bar Association of San Francisco's Outstanding Volunteer in Public Service Award in 2003 and 2004.
He was the recipient of the Bar Association of San Francisco's Outstanding Barrister Award in 2004, for his excellence in the practice of law, commitment to public service and reputation among colleagues.
Mr. Ridless also served on the board of the Bar Association of San Francisco and was the 2006 President of Barristers Club.
In the news:
Law Office Sets Copyright Compilation Precedent:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/lgs/621896100.html
http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/08/20/smallb3.html?b=1187582400%5e1506862&surround=etf/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/27/MN277966.DTL/
For more information contact:
Joshua Ridless
(415) 614-2600
http://www.ridlesslaw.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Josh Ridless - Recent accomplishments:
Court Sets 'Substantially Similar' Threshold at 70% in Web-Based Infringement Dispute September 12, 2007 To sustain an action for copyright infringement, the similarity between two web publications of a copyrighted compilation must exceed 70%, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California held Aug. 16. BensBargains.net, LLC v. XPBargains.com, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 2453 [SD Cal, 2007]. The court said that a discount list published by a web site was only "substantially similar" to that of a competitor when the two shared at least 70% of their content. The court held that the lists were eligible for copyright protections, but declined to find infringement where similarities fell short of the 70% threshold.
Allegedly Infringing Discount List. The plaintiff made a business of trolling the Internet for discounts on various merchandise, then creating lists of these deals and publishing them to his web site, www.BensBargains.net. The plaintiff suspected that a competing bargain site, XPBargains.com, was re-publishing his lists, and he began registering his lists for copyright protection. Eventually, he sued XPBargains for infringement. XPBargains moved to dismiss, arguing first that the lists were ineligible for copyright protection, then that lists, even if protected, lacked the "substantial similarity" required for success on an infringement action. The court granted the motion for all but three lists on the basis of similarity. Lists with a more than 70% similarity qualified as "substantially similar," but the rest, the court said, did not.
Substantial Similarity Required. A compilation enjoying copyright protections pursuant to the 1976 Copyright Act, 17 USC §101 et seq., can form the basis of an infringement action when three conditions are met: the plaintiff must prove (1) ownership of the work in question; (2) access to the work by the defendant; and (3) substantial similarity of both the general ideas and the expression of those ideas.
The court said that the plaintiff's discretion and creative selection in his lists qualified them for copyright protection. The only issue in dispute was how similar his lists were to those of the defendant.
The court assessed similarity by studying the relevant pool of information and analyzing how many unique items each list contained. Rather than serving as a complete directory of Internet deals, the plaintiff's lists were intentional selections from a "vast" pool, the court said. The court declined to narrow its consideration of the pool to those items which the plaintiff claimed as "exclusives."
On this reasoning, the court distinguished Schoolhouse, Inc. v. Anderson, 9 ILR (P&F) 742, 275 F3d 726 (8th Cir 2002), where the court held that even a 74% similarity between two lists was not enough when the list at issue was "comprehensive," listing nearly all potential selections.
"This case is distinguishable from Schoolhouse because the universe of deals from which Plaintiffs and Defendants can select is vast," the court said. "Under the facts of this case, Defendants' copying of 74% of Plaintiff's deals, without significant additional selections, would be sufficient to raise a triable issue as to infringement." The court looked also to Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F2d 700 (2d Cir 1990), which held that a 67% similarity between lists was likely not enough for infringement when the alleged infringer had added nearly as many items as he had allegedly copied. The court ultimately determined that 70% was a workable medium.
"[T]he court finds that there is insufficient similarity to survive summary judgment where either the percentage of Plaintiff's deals that were copied or the percentage of Defendants' deals that were derived from Plaintiff's website is less than 70%," the court concluded. Only three of the plaintiff's registered compilations met this requirement.
Jonathan Hangartner of La Jolla, Calif., represented XPBargains.com. Joshua A. Ridless of the Law Offices of Joshua A. Ridless, San Francisco, represented BensBargains.net, LLC.
For more information, contact the Joshua Ridless, (415) 614-2600
http://www.ridlesslaw.com
Post a Comment