Feed on
Posts
Comments

By: Adam Blaier (New-Media-Editor, ’16)

 

As you may know, California recently passed a law, which will allow cellphone users to have software/hardware on their phones allowing them to kill their phone if it is stolen. The kill switch option will be the default setting on the phone, and users will be able to switch it off. The bill states,

 This bill would require that any smartphone, as defined, that is manufactured on or after July 1, 2015, and sold in California after that date, include a technological solution at the time of sale, which may consist of software, hardware, or both software and hardware, that, once initiated and successfully communicated to the smartphone, can render inoperable the essential features, as defined, of the smartphone to an unauthori

zed user when the smartphone is not in the possession of an authorized user. The bill would require that the technological solution, when enabled, be able to withstand a hard reset, as defined, and prevent reactivation of the smartphone on a wireless network except by an authorized user.

Starting July 1st, 2015, retailers who knowingly sell phones without the

kill switch, will be fined between $500-$2500. The kill switch places the phone into an unbreakable coffin. It cannot be reset, have its memory wiped, or replaced in the event it is stolen. The backers of this law believe that having this setting on a phone will deter theft of cellphones. Apparently iPhone theft is so common, it has a nickname called “Apple Picking.”

My view of the law is different. I wonder what would happen if a 3rd party accessed the kill switch. I imagine one would be upset if their phone was killed without their knowledge, from an unknown source. I think it leaves the door open for the government to intrude a little more. We already know the NSA is spying on people, and the Patriot Act (while I believe is protecting people) gives the government free reign when it comes to protecting America. I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means, b

ut I do not like the idea of my phone being able to be killed by anyone who isn’t me.

Additionally, how will all of the manufacturers install this hardware/software on all the phones? I know Apple is equipped with this feature. I am not sure about Android, or other opera

ting systems. It makes things a little more difficult, since manufacturers will have to create their phones with the California law in mind, rather than be able to mass-produce phones for everyone. What will happen if more blue states enact the law, and the red ones don’t? Will cellphone manufacturers have to create separate phones for each state? Will they all have to conform to a law they may not agree with, in order to make sales quotas? All these questions are unanswered, but in my opinion, valid.

 

 

 

 

Suggested readings:

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22761 (2014)

Dave Johnson, How California’s Kill-Switch Law Could go Awry, Moneywatch  (Aug. 27, 2014, 3:39 PM), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-californias-kill-switch-law-could-go-awry/

David Lewis, California Passes Smartphone Kill Switch Law, Forbes Tech, (Aug. 29, 2014, 3:00AM ), http://www.forbes.com/sites/davelewis/2014/08/29/california-passes-smartphone-kill-switch-law/

The Editorial Board, California’s smart on phone ‘kill switch’: Our View, USA Today (Sept. 7, 2014, 6:57 p.m. EDT), http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/07/smartphone-kill-switches-iphone-california-ctia-editorials-debates/15257119/-

Declan McCullagh, NSA spying flap extends to contents of U.S. phone calls, CNET,(June 15th, 2013 @ 4:39 pm), http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u-s-phone-calls/

Ed Grabianowski, How the Patriot Act Works, How Stuff Works, (Sept. 19th, 2014), http://people.howstuffworks.com/patriot-act.htm

By: Samantha Lynn Garrison (’15), Pace Law School

Have you ever inserted a USB plug connector correctly on the first try? If you answered yes, you’re either lying or I should applaud you.  Almost everyone has experienced the attempted first try insertion of a USB and failed.  Whoops wrong way, flip it over, still the wrong way, flip it back …perfect. Well these five seconds of frustration may soon officially come to an end.  Back in February of 2014, Apple Inc. filed a patent application for a USB plug connector that can be inserted with either side up.  According to the application, published on August 24, 2014, the plug connector will be “compatible with any current or future electronic device that includes a standard USB receptacle connector”.   This is a plus.  Apple will not force you to purchase the newest computer models to utilize your reversible USB drive.

But does the world really need a new USB plug or is the reversible USB feeding into the fast-pace, microwave age of impatience? According to the application, “users may incorrectly insert a plug connector into a corresponding receptacle connector, which may potentially result in damage to the connectors and/or user frustration”.  It’s completely reasonable for a company to seek to protect its product from damage such as that which can be caused by forcing a USB into a port incorrectly, particularly since, damage is being caused by the customer. Not only does this force Apple to assign its technicians to fix this easily preventable problem, but it can also cost them money, as any product covered by the warranty will have the repair done for free. However, is the solution a new invention that needs to be purchased separately from the USB? Why not label the current USB with a bright color indicating the correct side of insertion?  Or perhaps users should take more time in determining the proper side up.

Although technology is constantly improving, and making the lives of its users easier, there are times that the additional cost and implementation of a new product is unnecessary. A label, or lack of user laziness, could easily garner the same result. Further, if a user is truly being frustrated by the insertion of a USB into a computer, then the technology itself may be more of an issue. Even at a young age, children play with toys that involve placing the right shaped piece into the correct hole. Unless an individual happens to be James Bond seeking to steal secrets from an evil mastermind, five seconds of flipping a USB should not cost an individual enough time to amount to any serious frustration. Either way, if granted, the patent would leave Apple with another genius moneymaker that will be flooding the shelves.

Suggested Reading:

By: Adam Blaier

The game-changing college sports court case (no pun intended) has been decided, and could change college sports forever. O’Bannon v. NCAA is a landmark case in sports and intellectual property. Edward O’Bannon was a college basketball player at UCLA who argued that the NCAA should pay him for using his image in video games and on TV. Mr. O’Bannon and 20 former football and basketball players went to court for an injunction against the NCAA rule that prevented players from collecting money for their likeness. The plaintiffs argued that players should get a share of the Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) and TV broadcast revenues.

The plaintiffs needed to show U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken (Northern District of California) that the NCAA violates anti-trust law, and a market is being harmed. Further, they needed to prove there was a contract or conspiracy to fix prices, the agreement unreasonably restrained trade under a rule of reason analysis, and the restraint affected interstate commerce.

Plaintiffs argued that the college education market & group licensing market were being harmed by the NCAA rules. They further argued that; the rules limit competition for collegiate athletes, athletes need to pay more money for school, the rules facilitate an early exit for some athletes, there is a limited consumer choice due to the limited number and quality of licensed products, and the rule spurs inefficient substitution of funds; such as excessive expenses on recruiting, salaries of coaches, and expensive facilities. It was noted that some NCAA coaches make over $ 1.5 million dollars per year.

The NCAA, in response, argued that; college athletes operate under the title of amateurs, there would be a competitive imbalance among schools, there would be damage to integration of athletics and academics, and it will have a participation impact. To the NCAA’s dismay, the ruling was a significant blow, and dismissed almost all of their defenses.

The judge made a few important rulings, which will have a major impact on college sports going forward. In an earlier ruling on a specific issue, Judge Wilken rejected O’Bannon’s argument that live TV broadcast of games and commercials are speech. Plaintiffs were trying to argue that every time a player gives a pre-game, post-game, in game, or other interview, it was protected speech, which they should be compensated for. This was rejected.

Judge Wilken’s injunction has two components: (1) NCAA couldn’t cap the amount of scholarship below the actual cost of attendance, and (2) the NCAA can’t ban schools from creating a trust fund to pay players equal shares for their use of their likeness. The judge created a number, (a minimum) $5,000 dollars per season of eligibility, for the trust fund. The schools are not allowed to collude on the price they set, thus creating competition. This would go into effect for the freshman class of 2016, if it were not overruled in the appeal.

This is an interesting ruling. During my sports law symposium tour this past year, this topic came up a lot. I came to the conclusion that a trust fund would be the best way to compensate athletes. I do not think it would be fair for athletes to be paid in college and receive compensation while attending school. However, a trust fund they could touch after school would be a fair way to compensate athletes, and could be used for medical expenses and bills accrued during college. Most schools (that can afford it) will provide more than $5,000 dollars per athlete. My biggest issue with paying players is that when a regular student graduates from college, they come out with over $100,000 in debt (or more). A student athlete on scholarship can graduate with $0 in debt (or a few thousand at most). I sympathize with athletes when it comes to the toll playing a sport has on one’s body (as a college boxer, I still feel some of the injuries I sustained while representing my school).

This decision is favorable for athletes who play in revenue-generating sports (football and basketball). I am unsure how it will affect non-rev sports, such as wrestling, volleyball, intramural, and others. Penn State football revenue pays for every sports program except basketball. If the revenue is reduced, will other sports suffer or not be allowed to run at all? This decision will change the landscape and rules of college sports forever (if it is not overturned). The fact that there will never be an NCAA football or basketball game ever again saddens me. NCAA schools will have to adjust, as will the fans. This case comes right after an announcement by the NCAA allowing the power 5 conferences more autonomy. The shift is in the student-athlete’s favor. There are several more lawsuits against the NCAA, and this ruling is just one of many to come.

 

Some suggested reading

  1. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24582226/ed-obannon-vs-ncaa-a-cheat-sheet-for-college-sports-on-trial – for context about the trial
  2. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/08/08/ed-obannon-antitrust-lawsuit-vs-ncaa/13801277/ – for the decision
  3. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24654805/qa-what-the-obannon-ruling-means-for-the-ncaa-schools-and-athletes – for some quick facts

Post Written By: Rikki Bahar

Hulu, Roku, Amazon TV, Netflix – we all thought that this was the new way to watch television. But Aereo took free TV to a whole new level. And now SCOTUS is finally putting its foot down.

Aereo provided customers with the ability to stream broadcast television programs, only a few seconds behind the live program, by connecting to small antennas housed in a centralized warehouse. SCOTUS found that this equated to “performing” copyrighted works and performing them in “public” within the meaning of the Copyright Act.1

Petitioner American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (ABC), and television producers, marketers, distributors, and other broadcasters alike, who own the copyright to these programs, are angry. While they license their programs to cable networks to air live, Aereo comes along and circumvents the system giving viewers the option to opt out of their cable packages all together and still enjoy their regularly broadcast programs. For the mere price of $8 to $12 a month and few-second delay.

Others are grateful for the decision and the opportunity to capitalize on Aereo’s former subscribers. Only a few days after the decision, Simple.TV tweeted, “Former Aereo customer? Join the Simple.TV Family.” Simple.TV sells hardware that allows viewers to stream television to digital devices or watch web video on television sets. They provide users with their own antenna and box to record programs on a hard drive, which they can then connect to the device. So, what’s the difference? Aereo owned the antennas and captured the signal for users in a remote location. “Where you capture the signal makes all the difference,” said Simple.TV’s owner, Mark Ely. His company, on the other hand, “fits squarely in fair use.”2

Consumers seem to side with Mr. Ely and creators of companies like Aereo. Cable subscriptions are down by seven percent in the U.S., while use of streaming services has increased by about thirty percent.3 But what does this downfall really mean for the advancement of technology? Well, if there is no more cable, then no more ABC. Eventually, this could stop the number of televisions shows being produced and Aereo-type companies would have to create their own shows (a la Netflix). Some think the decision will halt new technology, but sometimes you have to play the game to create fair competition and keep the incentive to continue producing shows.

The better way to keep innovation alive, while incentivizing broadcasters and producers to create new content is best summed up by Leslie Moonves, the chief executive of CBS. “We are not against people moving forward and offering our content online and all sorts of places, as long as it is appropriately licensed. Innovation is still alive and well and thriving.”4 So to all those innovators out there: when in doubt…get a license.

  1. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 13-461, 2014 WL 2864485 (U.S. June 25, 2014) (“In 1976, Congress amended the Copyright Act to clarify that to “perform” an audiovisual work means “to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.” § 101. Thus, both the broadcaster and the viewer “perform,” because they both show a television program’s images and make audible the program’s sounds. Congress also enacted the Transmit Clause, which specifies that an entity performs when it “transmits … a performance … to the public.” Ibid. The Clause makes clear that an entity that acts like a CATV system itself performs, even when it simply enhances viewers’ ability to receive broadcast television signals. Congress further created a complex licensing scheme that sets out the conditions, including the payment of compulsory fees, under which cable systems may retransmit broadcasts to the public. § 111. Congress made all three of these changes to bring cable system activities within the Copyright Act’s scope…Aereo also performs petitioners’ works “publicly.” Under the Clause, an entity performs a work publicly when it “transmits … a performance … of the work … to the public.” § 101. What performance, if any, does Aereo transmit? Petitioners say Aereo transmits a prior performance of their works, whereas Aereo says the performance it transmits is the new performance created by its act of transmitting. This Court assumes arguendo that Aereo is correct and thus assumes, for present purposes, that to transmit a performance of an audiovisual work means to communicate contemporaneously visible images and contemporaneously audible sounds of the work. Under the Court’s assumed definition, Aereo transmits a performance whenever its subscribers watch a program
  2. Emilly Steel, After Supreme Court Ruling, Aereo’s Rivals in TV Streaming Seize Opening, N.Y. Times (June 29, 2014), http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/business/media/after-supreme-court-ruling-aereos-rivals-in-tv-streaming-seize-opening.html?_r=0
  3. Id
  4. Id

By: ADAM BLAIER

redskins

After eight years, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has finally handed down a decision in a case against the Washington Redskins known as Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc. The petitioners in cancellation No. 92046185, Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs-Cloud, Phillip Cover, Jillian Pappan, and Courtney Tsotigh received a decision in their favor when the USPTO canceled several trademarks with the Redskins name. After the ruling, Amanda Blackhorse stated “We filed our petition eight years ago, and it has been a tough battle ever since… I hope this ruling brings us a step closer to that inevitable day when the name of the Washington football team will be changed.” The decision comes as a surprise to some, and the potential impact is still unknown. The USPTO came to the conclusion that since roughly one third of the Native American Population was offended by the term “Redskin,” the term could be deemed offensive by a substantial composite of Native Americans. The following is an excerpt from the decision.

 The record establishes that, at a minimum, approximately thirty percent of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS used in connection with respondent’s services to be disparaging at all times including 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 1990. Section 2(a) prohibits registration of matter that disparages a substantial composite, which need not be a majority, of the referenced group. Thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite. To determine otherwise means it is acceptable to subject to disparagement 1 out of every 3 individuals, or as in this case approximately 626,095 out of 1,878,285 in 1990.215 There is nothing in the Trademark Act, which expressly prohibits registration of disparaging terms, or in its legislative history, to permit that level of disparagement of a group and, therefore, we find this showing of thirty percent to be more than substantial.1

So what does all this mean for teams such as the Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, Chicago Blackhawks, Florida State Seminoles, and the thousands of high schools, and youth leagues? There are a few answers to that question. First, it could mean nothing at all. The other team names that are not considered ethnic slurs might not offend the Native American Population. If a substantial composite of Native Americans are not offended, then the licenses and trademarks are fine. Bud Elliott of Tomahawk Nation, wrote,the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the Tribe originating in the state where FSU exists, supports the name in a public way.”2 If this was the case for most of the other team names, I do not foresee any issues arising in the same way. However, he also pointed out that “[e]ven if other Seminole tribes, like the Tribe of Oklahoma were to object, it seems like a far smaller connection and objection, though the language that it “need not be a majority” of the referenced group is perhaps a bit unsettling.”3

The next scenario would be that which Bud points out in the second quote above. If different Native American tribes across the US state they are offended by the team names, what will a court determine as a composite? Will the court look for a composite of that community which states they are offended, such as the Seminole tribe in Oklahoma? Will they take the composite of the whole Native American community as they did with the Redskins? Across the country, smaller communities are agreeing to change their names if they are deemed offensive. In an article written by Ken Belson and Edward Wyatt of the New York Times they noted that “Outside of the courts, Native American groups have successfully persuaded hundreds of high schools and colleges, including Syracuse, Miami of Ohio and St. John’s, to change their team names over the years by appealing to alumni, students and benefactors.”4 On a small scale an impact can be made pretty swiftly.

In some places however, the debate is not so easy. Neshaminy high school in Langhorne, Pennsylvania has this debate on their hands. Queen Muse of NBC Philadelphia noted “members of the editorial board of the school’s student newspaper, the Playwickian, have been battling school officials over use of the term in articles and ads in the paper since late 2013.”5 The school’s editors have declared the word Playwickian as a racial slur, and stopped using it in the newspaper on several occasions. “The student’s push to ban the word as a racial slur mirrors the efforts of U.S. senators and some minority advocacy groups who are calling for the National Football League to give the Washington Redskins team a new name.”6  (This is referring to Washington Democrat Maria Cantwell’s letter that was signed by fifty senators, asking the Redskins to change their name.) Even in small town America, this debate is passionate.

The issue is more controversial, where large amounts of money are involved like in professional sports. “Professional sports teams have been more resistant to calls to change their names, although some, including the Washington Wizards, who used to be known as the Bullets, have acted in the face of public pressure. Other teams, including the Cleveland Indians and the Kansas City Chiefs, have also been criticized for not changing their names.”7 The trademarks and logos of these teams are a huge part in their revenue stream.

The NFL as a whole could feel a slight impact with regard to this ruling. The Redskins are a valuable franchise. The NFL structured their system to be a pot for every team to put their money into, and then to be divided between everyone.  Maury Brown noted, “The ruling has other effects that impact the Washington Redskins. It limits the revenue the club and the NFL can earn from selling jerseys and other merchandise with the name and logo. It removes the team of the rights to the term “Redskinettes,” the nickname for its cheerleaders. And, the team of use of the logo on their helmets.”8 However, Bob Raskopf the Redskins attorney is confident they Redskins will win the appeal.  Most analysts believe the ruling “is unlikely to have an immediate financial impact while the team appeals the ruling. Even if the decision is not overturned, the Redskins can use the name and enforce its trademarks using common-law rights.”9

The issue will not be settled for a long time, and only time will tell if there will be an impact on teams whose names are associated with Native Americans or other ethnic or cultural groups. It is a fascinating case for lawyers who are interested in intellectual property and sports.

  1. Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., Cancellation No. 92046185, (T.T.A.B. 2014)
  2. Bud Elliot,  Impact of Washington Redskins Trademark Ruling on Florida State Seminoles, Tomahawk Nation (Jun 18 2014, 10:41am)http://www.tomahawknation.com/2014/6/18/5820794/washington-redskins-trademark-ruling-florida-state-seminoles-fsu
  3. Id.
  4. Ken Belson & Edward Wyatt, Redskins Lose Ruling on Trademarks, but Fight Isn’t Over, N.Y. Times (June 18, 2014),http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/sports/football/us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark-registration.html?_r=1.
  5. Queen Muse, Redskins Patent Ruling Impacts Local High School Team, NBC (Philadelphia), (Thursday, Jun 19, 2014),http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/Redskins-Patent-Ruling–263711371.html
  6. Id.
  7. Belson & Wyatt, supra note 4
  8. Maury Brown, In Landmark Decision, U.S. Patent Office Cancels Washington Redskins Trademark RegistrationForbes (6/18/2014 @ 11:59AM),http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2014/06/18/in-landmark-decision-u-s-patent-office-cancels-washington-redskins-trademark-registration/
  9. Belson & Wyatt, supra note 3.

By: APRIL BOOKER

On June 18, 2014, The Trademark Trial and Appeals Board voted 2-1 to revoke trademark status from six trademarks involving the word “Redskins” (and often a correlating image of or relating to Native Americans).1 While Petitioners won, the victory is largely metaphorical. The decision does not force the team to change their name or to stop using any of the six cancelled marks. It simply revokes federal protection, though the team retains common law rights. The decision explained that “[t]here is nothing in the record to indicate that respondent’s business decisions regarding investment in its brand and marks has been influenced in any way by the pendency of this cancellation proceeding.”[2. Id. at 81.] So the question remains, is there any legal alternative left to force the team to change their name?

It doesn’t appear so, although the Government has certainly tried. On May 21st 2014, 50 Senators2 sent a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, urging him to “push for a name change for the Washington football team”3 The letter cited the NBA’s Sterling debacle as sparking a movement to remove racism from sports.4 In the past, Sen. Cantwell has threatened the NFL’s tax-exempt status as a means of pressuring the league to force a name change.5. The Federal Communications Commission has even threatened to bring criminal charges of “Indecency” against the team, and President Obama has said that he would consider changing the name of the team.[7. Id.]

Despite significant Government entanglement with the Redskins, owner Dan Snyder insists he is not changing the name. And for now, there doesn’t seem to be anything anyone can do to make him.

  1. Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., Cancellation No. 92046185, (T.T.A.B. 2014)
  2. The letter was circulated by Maria Cantwell and endorsed by Harry Reid. It was not circulated among Republicans.
  3. Letter from Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-WA, former Chairwoman of the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, to Roger Goodell, Comm’r of the National Football League (May 21, 2014) (available online)
  4. Igor Bobic, ‘Racial Slur’: 50 Senators Urge NFL To Change Washington Redskins’ Name, The Huffington Post,  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/22/washington-redskins-senators_n_5371908.html  (last updated May 22, 2014, 2:59PM)
  5. Emmarie Huetteman, Senator Urges N.F.L. to Change Name of Redskins, The New York Times (Apr. 30, 2014), http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/01/sports/football/reid-urges-nfl-to-change-name-of-redskins.html?_r=0

BY: SETH COTLER

Shakespeare, in Romeo and Juliet wrote, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet….” While Shakespeare may have a point that a name does not denote the quality or character of that thing, a name is important in conveying important information to another in a quick fashion. This is why intellectual property is an increasingly valuable asset in this day and age.

Continue Reading »

Optimized-Biblefacepage

Three weeks ago, Kelly Taylor of Gulport, MS attempted to print a few pictures at her local Walgreens featuring quotes from the Bible and “an artist’s graphic design featuring images of the sky, clouds, and stars.”1   Taylor was shut down by Walgreens staff, citing that her attempted order may be in violation of copyright, so it could not be processed.2

Continue Reading »

  1. Jana Winter, Chain Cites ‘Copyright Law’ in Refusing to Print Images of Bible Verses, Woman Says, FoxNews.com (Feb. 26, 2014), http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/26/chain-cites-copyright-law-in-refusing-to-print-images-bible-verses-claims-woman/ (internal quotations omitted).
  2. Id.

BY: ALEXIA MICKLES

Whether you loved the 2012 smash “Starships,” absolutely loathed it, found yourself singing or dancing to it at the bar, or wanted it to die with the rest of modern pop music, the fact remains, Nicki Minaj’s hit set a Billboard record when it sat in the “Top 10” for twenty-one straight weeks after its release last year.1 But recently, the song has gotten even more attention – from Clive Tanaka (…who?), claiming to be the original author of the musical composition.2  Continue Reading »

  1. Haley Blum, Nicki Minaj Sued by Musician Over “Starships”, USA Today (Sept. 12, 2013, 6:09 PM), http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2013/09/12/nicki-minaj-sued-over-starships/2806617/.
  2. Jason Meisner, Reclusive Musician Sues Pop Star Nicki Minaj, Chicago Tribune (Sept. 11, 2013), http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-09-11/entertainment/chi-nicki-minaj-lawsuit-20130910_1_robin-thicke-redone-nadir-khayat.

DY: DAN NASTASI

In late August the NFL and 4,500 former players avoided going to trial , by settling for $766. 1 Approximately $675 million from the total settlement will be used to set up a fund to compensate players who have suffered concussion related injuries, or their families; a maximum of $75 million for retired players’ medical exams, which could be used to diagnose future neurodegenerative disease; and $10 million devoted to research and education. 2 The rest of the settlement will be devoted to legal fees and the cost of administering funds to plaintiffs. The funds will be doled out over the next 20 years.[3.Engber.]

Continue Reading »

  1.  Daniel Engber, The NFL Concussion Settlement Is Bad News For Football Fans, Slate (Aug. 29, 2013). http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/08/nfl_concussion_settlement_how_the_deal_will_thwart_research_into_the_dangers.html.
  2. Michael David Smith, NFL Reaches $765 Million Settlement in Concussion Lawsuit, Pro Football Talk (Aug. 29, 2013, 12:43 PM) http://profootbaltalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/29/nfl-reaches-765-million-settlement-in-concussion-lawsuit/related/.

Older Posts »