You have to love the French government - a modern country frozen in dark-ages mentality. However the precedent the French are attempting to set with this case is dangerous. Since eBay is largely a community of buyers and sellers, holding the mechanism responsible is just beyond the reach of the rational.

Fake goods are a plague for brands; a boon for those who could care less. However eBay never takes posession of the goods in the marketplace. It is not an escrow service for buying and selling and has no business verifying authenticity of goods on the site. While some may disagree, the responsibility lies with the person who sold the merchandise to the buyer. Imagine if we held the government up to the same standard. Any illegal activity taking place on the street would logically be the government’s fault. If drugs are illegal and sold on the street, the government would then be the sole party responsible for the sale of illegal drugs.  If someone were to die from taking a fake drug, the dealer would essentially remain free and the government would be levied with the burden of carrying the debt.

While I am, by no means, privy to any information in the case (see ‘About’ for disclaimer),  I do question the logic of the French court system. There are generally two outcomes that will arise: eBay will most likely be sued in French courts by others who are attempting to “protect” their brands, and consumers will face a backlash as the goods (real or fake) begin to disappear.

How is this good for consumers? It helps to clamp down on fake goods. How is it bad? Since eBay has no real ability to validate whether goods are legitimate, it may force the removal of legitimate luxury goods. Forget selling that Louis Vuitton hand bag you bought from the retail store on eBay. If eBay is the one holding the liability for those goods, do you really think they want to face lawsuit after lawsuit from these brands?

Well, I’ve pushed the ball rolling again. Always late to the party, and after a lot of soul searching without the aid of alcoholic beverages, I will be taking the LSAT test in June.

I’ve been scratching my head for the past 6 months or so trying to come up with some idea of what I wanted to do after (finally) getting my degree (at a non-trad age). My love of economics and thoughts of a PhD from GMU have given way to the reality that my chances of attaining such a degree from my current academic position would require returning to school for several semesters of math (and nothing but math) to meet the minimum requirements for the program. This is not to say that I could not try my hand. Yet the reality is often far different than unrealized idealism. Even to enter a Master’s program, I’m not quite convinced of my math abilities.

I took some time to reflect over many of the great things I have learned from around the web, and most particularly Cafe Hayek - a site I have read daily for a couple of years now. I believe Don or Russ once noted that lovers of liberty and economics need not believe that a PhD in econ was the best way to push libertarian ideals forward. From memory, the professor had said something to the effect of the world needing libertarians throughout academia and the working world in general including lawyers and business people.

I could turn my passion for business into an MBA and push the envelope as an organizational leader. But I’m stymied on this choice as well. There are very few organizations open to the type of mindset that I’m drawn to and very few businesses with a penchant for risk of breaking the mold.  What I need is PayPal day one, not PayPal year 5. The basic life-cycle of a business is start, grow, plateau. The reality here is that I have an entrepreneurial style that would be best served navigating the more troubling waters in the beginning - only to jump overboard or take more risks than most would deem wise. If anything I have learned in the past couple of years, I’m no longer afraid of failure.

To a degree, while the stock market drives many decisions on increasing growth and profits, the life of a business turns to become more risk-averse and succumbs to the greater failing of total-quality-management. I can hear TQM apostles grinding their teeth already. TQM’s greatest failing is that it seeks to refine processes to the point that the room for new ideas slowly erodes to the point where you may be firing on all cylinders but you forget to look on how you add more cylinders or you eliminate possibilities simply for the fact that they do not fit the mold you’ve created.

I did turn an eye on myself. To be honest, I’m not happy doing what I’m doing any longer. I do love technology and I do like my employer and credit them for pushing me to better myself. But now that I finished school, I look at my forward momentum and the long-term possibilities within my organization and see many limitations I am not comfortable with. At first I started to look outside of my current company only to come to the realization that the vibrant technology job market is not where I want to be. Currently, I can look forward to a few more years of stepping up one or two places and eventually assume a management position where I will be for a few more years and hopefully progress from there. But there will always be a bit of internal conflict over such a decision if I choose to continue on my current path. Middle management is not the place I envision myself in; I tend to look at rules in the subjective sense rather than the objective and I’m not afraid to break the rules if I deem it necessary.  This isn’t to say I’ll do something illegal - on the contrary, I  speak of the bureaucratic quagmire that is corporate culture. If you tell me I can’t do it or I have to do it one way, I’ll probably do it a different way if it serves me better to do so.

Ever since I fell into political, social and economic awareness a few years ago, I’ve found my interests drawn less on technology. I was far more interested to know that my employer opened up a lobbying effort in Washington. I found that I was far more impassioned and vocal about Net Neutrality (and my distaste for it) from a social and economic standpoint. I often find that I have no voice in the larger society that I’ve contracted with; no platform on which to marry my work to my intellectual passions. And that is where I turned a skeptical eye at the law.

I say “skeptical” as I am painfully aware of the mundane reality of the legal profession. I’m skeptical of idealism in general in any area where a perceived soap box is given. I have no political ambitions, but I do have a vested interest in promoting the ideals of libertarianism to the greatest extent of my physical and mental ability. I do believe that the legal realm is a key profession in the shaping of the society in which we live. There is a greater probability that I will become just another lawyer; I, for once, will be making strides towards a profession that I choose rather than one that I have grown into out of necessity.

So after all this time, I’ve returned to seeking the profession I wanted to join when I was in 4th or 5th grade and running around with a Harvard sweatshirt on. I finally listen to what my mom and dad told me I should do 15 years ago. I can finally put all those afternoons of watching Perry Mason (b&w episodes) to use.

So I sit for the LSAT in June at UNO. I’ve already started studying various books and taking test questions until my eyeballs are crooked. I have a lot of worked yet to do. I am aiming for the top 5-25 schools meaning I’m going to have to come out with a whopper of a score. My GPA is still being matriculated by LSAC but I have a feeling it will be a bit lower when my first years in school are added in. This makes the LSAT even more important.

The only other positive attribute I will have is that I will be a “non trad” and on the upper end of the age curve. If all goes according to plan - I will be leaving law school as I’m nearing my mid-thirties. If anything, I feel this is more of a benefit. While it does shorten my career, I have a lot of experience many of my younger counterparts will not have.

But to get there… I guess I should get to studying.

 Hot off the wire, more issues for Gonzales:

FBI director contradicts Gonzales - Yahoo! News
The developments marked a troubling turn for Gonzales as well as the administration, which has been on the political defensive since congressional Democrats launched an investigation seven months ago into the firings of U.S. attorneys.

I’m not convinced that this was any type of “turn” at all. A downward spiral is still a downward spiral.

TheAgitator.com: More on Chicago PD: Comments

Normally I wouldn’t  double link a single blog in a subsequent post but Balko’s news feeds are serving him well. I believe police are generally accountable at a higher degree of ethics in terms of the power they wield. However when police and cities decide to use the Scarlet Letter method of shaming the accused (not necessarily found guilty in a court of law), why is it that police are suddenly above the law? Any public officer accountable to the larger population should carry the burden of having the bulk of their work records available to the general public at any time.

TheAgitator.com: Childhood Now a Sex Crime: Comments

Radley has a link to a story whereby a couple of juvenile males were arrested for a sex crime for patting girls on the ass in the hallway. It sounds like football coaches are safe for the time being.

Asbestos in Manhattan explosion debris: officials | U.S. | Reuters

We all know that any time the word asbestos leaks into the press, personal injury lawyers will start lining up.

Marginal Revolution: FDA Delay

Sad story of how the FDA logic works.