Imagine that. The explosion of litigation costs and the massive volume of electronic information involved in today's court cases, has overwhelmed the market for affordable attorneys and paralegals, according to the Post. Instead, that electronic information can be shifted around the world and done overnight so when the $800/hour partner comes in the next morning, the task of analyzing, cataloging and researching is done for a pittance compared to what it would cost to pay experienced American paralegals to work overnight.GURGAON, India -- When Aashish Sharma graduated from law school two years ago, his father had visions of seeing him argue in an Indian court and eventually become an honorable judge.
Instead, Sharma, 25, now sits all day in front of a computer in a plush, air-conditioned suburban office doing litigation research and drafting legal contracts for U.S. companies and law firms. He is part of a booming, new outsourcing industry in India that employs thousands of English-speaking lawyers such as him to do legal work at a small fraction of the cost of hiring American lawyers.
"Ninety percent of a lawyer's work is legal research and drafting, and all this can now be offshored to India," said Russell Smith, who worked in a Manhattan law firm called SmithDehn before moving to India to set up an outsourcing company in 2006. "A large portion of our fees in the U.S. is because of office rent. It is often a big decision to hire one attorney in the U.S. In India, we can hire 10 at a time and train them all at once."
Smith's Indian company, SDD Global Solutions, handled much of the legal work for the film "Borat." Other clients include the Washington-based firm Appleton & Associates and U.S. movie studios and television networks.
"My people in India can do everything from here, except sign the opinion letter and appear in an American court," he said.
Smith's Indian office recently researched and drafted the motion papers for the dismissal of a libel case against the producers of HBO's "Da Ali G Show." Smith said that if it had not been for the cheaper option of outsourcing, the producers would have settled.
"Building a safe and trusted online experience has been part of Facebook from its outset," said Chris Kelly, Facebook's chief privacy officer. "The attorneys general have shown great leadership in helping to address the critical issue of Internet safety, and we commend them for continuing to set high standards for all players in the online arena."
MySpace, Facebook and other online networks have created a new venue for sexual predators, who often lie about their age to lure young victims to chat, share images and sometimes meet in person. It also has spawned cyberbullies, who have sent threatening and anonymous messages to other users, sometimes classmates and others they know.
Are these actual facts? Is that news, or opinion? Any new communications system can be considered a "new venue" once it reaches critical mass, and cyberbullying dates back to AOL's glory days. Perhaps CNN could have at least backed up these bold assertions with a call to the Pew Internet and American Life Project which has done several excellent studies on those subjects.
Here are some figures, from a CNN.com article by GameTap
It's official. Grand Theft Auto IV is a video game blockbuster, with gamers around the world buying up more than 6 million copies of the gritty, urban action title in its first week of sales.
...
Sales of the game generated more than half a billion dollars, the publisher, Take-Two Interactive, said.
That's 2% of the entire country. Grand Theft Auto, as a series, has been the focal point of every anti-video game organization and nut-ball who wants to get them banned. People like the lovely Jack Thompson wanted to take legal action to prevent sales of the game to minors. It's obvious that Jackie boy has too much time on his hands, because there are two major things that make such a suit unneccessary: the voluntary rating system and parental responsibility.
More after the jump...
]]> First, the ratings
- Games are rated just like movies. They go from E (everyone) to AO (Adults Only). Most games on par with GTA IV are rated M (mature) which is classified as 17+, on par with an R-rated movie. Also, like movie ratings, the system is voluntarily enforced. It's a little-known fact that, if a theatre wanted to, that they could let anyone they damned well please into an R-rated movie. Really. But to eliminate lawsuits and complaints filed by parents who are too lazy to keep track of their kids, theatre owners came up with a rating system designed to "protect" kids from unsavory content. The same is true of video games. While there is no law stating that you can't sell an M-rated game to a 10-year-old, 99.99999999% of retailers won't do it.
Second, parental responsibility
- As usual, I find it mind-boggling how little parents will do to parent their kids. They'll yell and scream at Congress and file lawsuits until ragnarok, but they won't jsut talk to their kids. If your kid is too young (in your opinion) to play a game like GTA, here are a few tips.
I would love to see a survey of how many underage kiddos have a copy of GTA IV. Of those kids I'd then like to see how they got it. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of their parents bought it for them without even asking what it was or just gave them the money, again, without asking for what.
People say that the government should protect their kids, and it should. From things like terrorism and ecological disaster. Video games and schoolyard bullies should be Mom and Dad's concern. I mean, if you really want the government to handle raising your kid for you, maybe adoption would be a good choice for you.
]]>NEW YORK (Reuters) - Sprint Nextel Corp is considering spinning off or selling its Nextel unit, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, quoting people familiar with the situation.Well, this would certainly be the easiest way for Sprint to abandon its iDEN network. It makes sense to sell of the Nextel part of Sprint Nextel as a quick(er) and (relatively) easy way to solve the concerns of trying to merge two incompatible networks. They could potentially give current iDEN users the option of getting into a CDMA device on the cheap or moving over to the new provider. Of course, that's if the new owner actually maintains the network for consumers. If one potential buyer gets his way (which is of course if Sprint decides to sell) the network could become a new haven for public safety organizations.
The report said Cyren Call, a company founded by Nextel founder Morgan O'Brien, is trying to assemble a consortium of investors to acquire Nextel.Cyren's mission is to provide better communication for the nation's First Responders so that they can better react and communicate.
Cox Communications is one cable company that is wasting no time and embracing wireless. Cox's wireless subsidiary, Cox Wireless, spent around $304 million and snatched up 14 Block A and eight Block B licenses as part of the recently concluded 700 spectrum auctions. Now, there is word that the company has given the contract to build the network to Chinese equipment maker, Huawei. UBS Research in a note to its clients notes that, Huawei is going to supply CDMA gear for a wireless network.
Fairly straightforward. Verizon can't allow "special access" for applications by their own customers while denying it to others. How clear could the plain meaning of the auction rules be? I thought it was pretty clear what the Commission wanted: an open platform.Verizon has taken the public position that it may exclude its handsets from the open access condition. Verizon believes it may force customers who want to access the open platform using a device not purchased from Verizon to go through "Door No. 1," while allowing customers who obtain their device from Verizon access through "Door No. 2." As Google previously made clear, Verizon's position would completely reverse the meaning of the rule such that the open access condition would apply to none of Verizon's customers, and thereby render the condition a nullity. Because this "two-door" position espoused by Verizon is contrary to the plain meaning of the rule, as well as the Commission's public interest findings and policy objectives set forth in the 700 MHz Second R&O, it must be rejected.
Reasonable Network Management? Hmm. Where have we heard that term before? Seeing as Comcast-Vuze is settled and the Commission yet had a chance to define Reasonable Network Management (despite their recent hearings), does anyone else see the importance of them using the exact same phrase that they use in the Internet Policy Statement?700 MHz Second R&O, at ¶206 ("Specifically, a C Block licensee may not block, degrade, or interfere with the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing on the licensee'sCBlocknetwork,subject to reasonable network management.").