[brianstl]

billiken_roy, on Jul 7 2008, 03:20 PM, said:

but doesnt journalism integrity make this normal workplace practice entirely different in the media industry? i mean i would think that a journalist has to be given the freedom to speak and write the truth or even what they believe to be the truth or else what kind of media would be left for us to read, watch or listen to?

Roy you have a right to say what you want. That does not mean people have to provide you the platform to say it. The students are free to create their own platform. Any of them can go a start a website, a paper, or a magizine. Biondi won't come after them and shut them down.

I am suprised the BRoy of rules and consequences for your actions is falling as hard as he is on the otherside of this issue. I believe the Hill brothers deserve this kind of sympathy for their situation far more than Avis does for his.

[brianstl]

Pistol, on Jul 7 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

BEGIN SARCASM:
Instead of seeing an injustice and working to change it, just accept it for what it is. A lot gets done that way, and I trust that those in power will always make the best decisions for everyone.
END SARCASM.

To me, this is exactly kind of thinking that prevents anything from getting done, a more dangerous kind of thinking than it gets credit for- complacency. This is why shareholders are elevated above employees and consumers, this is why governments are ineffective layers upon layers of bureaucracy, this is why people contribute to the same systems that oppress them. How about this- if you see the wrongs done by your current bosses and have the integrity enough to realize that you don't agree with them and therefore will leave anyway, why don't you go ahead and challenge them? If you lose, oh well, you were leaving anyway and you make a statement and if you win, then the wrong has been righted and you can keep working there in good conscience.

You have a right to challenge your government, you do not have a right to challenge your employer unless they are breaking the law or committing ethical violations. You are not a slave and you are free to leave at any time if you do not approve of your employer. If you don't own it.............you don't run it. Life is full of risk vs. reward situations. You have to make those judgements for yourself and be prepared to pay the price if it doesn't work out in your favor.

[moytoy12]

brianstl, on Jul 7 2008, 03:40 PM, said:

You have a right to challenge your government, you do not have a right to challenge your employer unless they are breaking the law or committing ethical violations. You are not a slave and you are free to leave at any time if you do not approve of your employer. If you don't own it.............you don't run it. Life is full of risk vs. reward situations. You have to make those judgements for yourself and be prepared to pay the price if it doesn't work out in your favor.

Some employers are 75% good and 25% bad. Why not try to effect change for the part that is 25% bad?

Everyone has a right to challenge their employer regardless of what the employer is doing. It might result in negative consequences, but everyone has that right.

I feel Biondi would go after an independently student run newspaper (limit distribution, look for ways to silence the paper through indirect acts, etc.) if it was honestly critical of biondi.

[brianstl]

moytoy12, on Jul 7 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

Some employers are 75% good and 25% bad. Why not try to effect change for the part that is 25% bad?

Everyone has a right to challenge their employer regardless of what the employer is doing. It might result in negative consequences, but everyone has that right.

I feel Biondi would go after an independently student run newspaper (limit distribution, look for ways to silence the paper through indirect acts, etc.) if it was honestly critical of biondi.

You are right and that was the point I should have made.

[bonwich]

Quote

5. Justice in communication. Communication is a powerful tool which must be
used in the promotion of justice in our world. But we must also look critically at the
authoritarian methods and unjust structures of communication and information organizations
themselves. The promotion of justice within communication calls for the coordinated action
of Christians and other people of good will in several areas. Freedom of the press and
information must be promoted in countries where they are non—existent or threatened by
state control or ideological manipulation. An equitable flow of communication between
industrialized and developing countries needs to be established. At present, the rich countries
dominate the world with their information, films and television programmes. The voices and
images of less powerful nations and cultures are largely absent from the global village. All
Jesuits, especially philosophers, theologians, social scientists, those directly involved in the
promotion of justice, as well as those involved in the production of creative works, should be
conversant in communication ethics.

Jesuit General Council 34, Document No. 15.

You spose any of the SLU Jebbies actually read this document?

[Tonka]

billikendave, on Jul 7 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

I agree he went to far. But what is the point of the lawsuit -- what is SLU seeking other than a pound of flesh? (sorry brian -- another lazy metaphor/allusion to Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice) Okay, from what i've seen he's relented and withdrew the corporation that he set up. Should he be out as an "unofficial advisor" and not allowed to voluntarily help students? I guess but how do you effectively do that. Security to keep him out? Have Biondi follow him around on his golf cart to make sure he stays out of newspaper office?

SLU chose a federal lawsuit. In my opinion, the worst of all possible options because it makes a bad situation worse. It creates headlines, blogs such as this and bad will.

Tonka -- I agree Ego is driving this whole issue. But takes two stubborn and ego driven people to get where we are. Toss in a mess of bad decisions on both sides and here you go. At the end of the day, all of this could probably be handled internally but SLU (and their lawyers) felt that bullying with a federal lawsuit was the way to go.

Billiken Dave,

All good points to consider!

[kevinfootes]

This is just typical Biondi. Ultimately, the school will be better off for having him. He's certainly stepped on plenty of toes along the way...whether it's working with shady politicians to steal property from business owners, firing student advocates for doing there job, the Meyer situation, etc.

Biondi is certainly a more effective president than, say, Fr. Reinert. However, Reinert is certainly a better man.

[bonwich]

kevinfootes, on Jul 7 2008, 10:27 PM, said:

Biondi is certainly a more effective president than, say, Fr. Reinert. However, Reinert is certainly a better man.

No, he's not. Certainly more effective than O'Connell, Fitz and the others in between Reinert and Biondi, but Reinert led the U through a much different time, oversaw great strides and still managed to draw his main managerial inspiration from the Bible and the Spiritual Exercises instead of "The Prince" and "The Art of War."

[davidnark]

I don't know Avis or any of the details regarding this article, but I have a few legal clarifications to the comments raised:

First, the name "University News" is probably a trademark of the university. The essential function of a trademark is to exclusively identify the source or origin of products or services, such that a trademark indicates the source. Trademark protection is historically obtained through consistent and historical use; formal registration is not required (although there are legal benefits available through formal registration). If the name "University News" is a phrase associated with the Saint Louis University student newspaper (and I believe it is), then the university likely has defendable legal rights to such intellectual property. In fact, if the university were to allow a third party to use the mark in a confusing manner, it good lose its rights because it has a legal obligation to fight such use or risk having its rights legally abandoned.

Second, whether the suit was filed in state or federal court has little to do with a desire for publicity or vindictiveness. The decision whether to file in state or federal court is made based upon a combination of the nature of the substantive claims, the domicile of the parties, and the dollar amount of the alleged claim.

Third, Professor Meyer is an employee of the University in regards to his actions affecting the university and its publications. While our government does not prohibit him from expressing his views, his employer has every right to do so to the extent it affects the employer. If I were to publicly criticize my management or were to form a corporation that would compete with my employer or infringe upon its intellectual property, I would expect to be fired and sued. I don't think it is unreasonable for that employer to request a consent order and to make a claim for its attorneys' fees in such circumstance (which is what the university is claiming).

Again, without knowing any of the facts first-hand, it appears as though Professor Meyer has largely succeeded in his goal--he has obtained "martyr" status in the eyes of much of the university community for his willingness to take on "the man." (I think I have seen Robin Williams as the lead actor in this movie a few times before.) I don't fault Professor Meyer for his approach, but I also cannot fault the university for protecting its own intellectual property and image. I also fail to see how the fact that the professor and his wife are nice people makes his insubordinate actions justifiable.

[billikendave]

davidnark, on Jul 8 2008, 03:18 PM, said:

I don't know Avis or any of the details regarding this article, but I have a few legal clarifications to the comments raised:

First, the name "University News" is probably a trademark of the university. The essential function of a trademark is to exclusively identify the source or origin of products or services, such that a trademark indicates the source. Trademark protection is historically obtained through consistent and historical use; formal registration is not required (although there are legal benefits available through formal registration). If the name "University News" is a phrase associated with the Saint Louis University student newspaper (and I believe it is), then the university likely has defendable legal rights to such intellectual property. In fact, if the university were to allow a third party to use the mark in a confusing manner, it good lose its rights because it has a legal obligation to fight such use or risk having its rights legally abandoned.

Second, whether the suit was filed in state or federal court has little to do with a desire for publicity or vindictiveness. The decision whether to file in state or federal court is made based upon a combination of the nature of the substantive claims, the domicile of the parties, and the dollar amount of the alleged claim.

Third, Professor Meyer is an employee of the University in regards to his actions affecting the university and its publications. While our government does not prohibit him from expressing his views, his employer has every right to do so to the extent it affects the employer. If I were to publicly criticize my management or were to form a corporation that would compete with my employer or infringe upon its intellectual property, I would expect to be fired and sued. I don't think it is unreasonable for that employer to request a consent order and to make a claim for its attorneys' fees in such circumstance (which is what the university is claiming).

Again, without knowing any of the facts first-hand, it appears as though Professor Meyer has largely succeeded in his goal--he has obtained "martyr" status in the eyes of much of the university community for his willingness to take on "the man." (I think I have seen Robin Williams as the lead actor in this movie a few times before.) I don't fault Professor Meyer for his approach, but I also cannot fault the university for protecting its own intellectual property and image. I also fail to see how the fact that the professor and his wife are nice people makes his insubordinate actions justifiable.

I would strongly disagree that SLU would have a recognizable legal interest in a generic and commonly used phrase such as "university news." If SLU were really interested in protecting its property, they would be suing every college across the country who uses similar type "marks." The fact that they haven't would suggest that they don't have one to begin with or have abandoned it by selective enforcement.

you are correct about state vs. federal court. However, if he relented after a cease and desist letter, why file a lawsuit? what's the best remedy for SLU? A permanent injuction to keep Meyer out of the newspaper? getting attorneys fees from a tenured professor? At what cost to PR, good will with faculty, alumni, area?

[brianstl]

billikendave, on Jul 8 2008, 05:29 PM, said:

I would strongly disagree that SLU would have a recognizable legal interest in a generic and commonly used phrase such as "university news." If SLU were really interested in protecting its property, they would be suing every college across the country who uses similar type "marks." The fact that they haven't would suggest that they don't have one to begin with or have abandoned it by selective enforcement.
you are correct about state vs. federal court. However, if he relented after a cease and desist letter, why file a lawsuit? what's the best remedy for SLU? A permanent injuction to keep Meyer out of the newspaper? getting attorneys fees from a tenured professor? At what cost to PR, good will with faculty, alumni, area?

I think the problem is that, according to the article, is he tried to grab the SLU initials, too. I understand you want to overlook that fact.

[davidnark]

billikendave, on Jul 8 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

I would strongly disagree that SLU would have a recognizable legal interest in a generic and commonly used phrase such as "university news."

We will have to agree to disagree. In the past 10 years, I have seen companies succeed in trademark challenges with a lot less than the 30+ years of public usage the university has maintained. (Although I agree that the university should have used the TM notice and policed the mark.) It is very possible that co-existance agreements would be required, but that wouldn't be the case with Meyer's bad faith infringement of the mark.

[billikendave]

brianstl, on Jul 8 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

I think the problem is that, according to the article, is he tried to grab the SLU initials, too. I understand you want to overlook that fact.

I noted in an earlier post that according to the actual court papers which i read. he registered a non profit company called "The University News, a student voice servicing Saint Louis University since 1921." That is the allegation. By saying "servicing Saint Louis University," SLU claims that it gives the impression that SLU sanctioned it. Regardless, he withdrew it three months later after being threatened with a lawsuit by SLU.

was it wrong? Yes. I have said it repeatedly. However, SLU doesn't feel it is such an affront as to fire him and face the consequences of fighting the tenure system. I would assume there would be exceptions to the tenure system if there is really "theft deliberate misuse of school property."

As a lawyer who has handled these type claims as part of my practice, it seems extraordinary measures for very little real gain. So I ask: What is really the objective of this lawsuit? I can guarantee you Meyer doesn't have the $ on hand. Is SLU going to garnish his wages? place a lien on his home or retirement fund? Most everyone doesn't have insurance to cover this type of loss. This case isn't about money or infringement. Its about whose "member" is bigger.

[billikendave]

davidnark, on Jul 8 2008, 08:24 PM, said:

We will have to agree to disagree. In the past 10 years, I have seen companies succeed in trademark challenges with a lot less than the 30+ years of public usage the university has maintained. (Although I agree that the university should have used the TM notice and policed the mark.) It is very possible that co-existance agreements would be required, but that wouldn't be the case with Meyer's bad faith infringement of the mark.

fair enough. As they say, that's why we have judges and juries!

[kevinfootes]

bonwich, on Jul 8 2008, 10:14 AM, said:

No, he's not. Certainly more effective than O'Connell, Fitz and the others in between Reinert and Biondi, but Reinert led the U through a much different time, oversaw great strides and still managed to draw his main managerial inspiration from the Bible and the Spiritual Exercises instead of "The Prince" and "The Art of War."

I'm talking about the campus, the endowment, etc. Even adjusting for inflation, what Biondi has done blows Reinert out of the water. That said, I think Reinert is the better man, better priest. You try to point out that I'm wrong and then essentially agree with me.

[brianstl]

billikendave, on Jul 8 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

I noted in an earlier post that according to the actual court papers which i read. he registered a non profit company called "The University News, a student voice servicing Saint Louis University since 1921." That is the allegation. By saying "servicing Saint Louis University," SLU claims that it gives the impression that SLU sanctioned it. Regardless, he withdrew it three months later after being threatened with a lawsuit by SLU.

was it wrong? Yes. I have said it repeatedly. However, SLU doesn't feel it is such an affront as to fire him and face the consequences of fighting the tenure system. I would assume there would be exceptions to the tenure system if there is really "theft deliberate misuse of school property."

As a lawyer who has handled these type claims as part of my practice, it seems extraordinary measures for very little real gain. So I ask: What is really the objective of this lawsuit? I can guarantee you Meyer doesn't have the $ on hand. Is SLU going to garnish his wages? place a lien on his home or retirement fund? Most everyone doesn't have insurance to cover this type of loss. This case isn't about money or infringement. Its about whose "member" is bigger.

I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.

My guess is they will win a judgement and never make an attempt to collect on it. They want Avis to stay away from the paper and he refuses to do so. That is why they are still prusuing the case. The suits are an attempt to force Avis away from the paper and probably an attempt to gain a pound of his flesh for the trouble he has put them through. SLU wants to send a message to its staff about who is the boss. I have no problem with that. Avis doesn't have a right to be involved with the paper from the inside. He seems unable because of his ego to accept this fact.

[NashvilleBilliken]

brianstl, on Jul 9 2008, 09:10 AM, said:

I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.

My guess is they will win a judgement and never make an attempt to collect on it. They want Avis to stay away from the paper and he refuses to do so. That is why they are still prusuing the case. The suits are an attempt to force Avis away from the paper and probably an attempt to gain a pound of his flesh for the trouble he has put them through. SLU wants to send a message to its staff about who is the boss. I have no problem with that. Avis doesn't have a right to be involved with the paper from the inside. He seems unable because of his ego to accept this fact.

I think one thing you need to consider is that a university is VASTLY different from corporate America. I know this first hand. They keep the medical center (which I work for) and the university here at Vanderbilt pretty separate. We are liberal in the medical center, but it's nothing compared to the University. A University's mission is not to make as much money as it can. It's to educate students, encourage free thinkers, recruit the best scholars in the country, promote diversity and diversity of opinions, etc. It's not to make as much money as humanly possible. We are talking about one of the best professors at the University (based on what seems to be popular opinion) and the school newspaper. What kind of message does this send current students or prospective students about the University? How does SLU recruit top notch journalism students when the best teacher they have is being sued for disagreeing with the president. Sure, the original suit was about the name "University News" but that problem has long disappeared. And why did it have to come to that point in the first place?

Bottom line is that Biondi should keeps his hands off the paper. Leave it in the hands of the experts and let it thrive. They got to keep the name, drop the case and swallow the court costs. This is not the stuff a university is made of and CERTAINLY not a jesuit school. I have lost respect for the school and the president, as an educator, due to this unnecessary lawsuit.

[billiken_roy]

brianstl, on Jul 9 2008, 09:10 AM, said:

I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.

My guess is they will win a judgement and never make an attempt to collect on it. They want Avis to stay away from the paper and he refuses to do so. That is why they are still prusuing the case. The suits are an attempt to force Avis away from the paper and probably an attempt to gain a pound of his flesh for the trouble he has put them through. SLU wants to send a message to its staff about who is the boss. I have no problem with that. Avis doesn't have a right to be involved with the paper from the inside. He seems unable because of his ego to accept this fact.

or more likely, the students continue to come to him for guideance. and as great teacher do, he is hard pressed to turn them away.

[brianstl]

billikendave, on Jul 8 2008, 09:43 PM, said:

I noted in an earlier post that according to the actual court papers which i read. he registered a non profit company called "The University News, a student voice servicing Saint Louis University since 1921." That is the allegation. By saying "servicing Saint Louis University," SLU claims that it gives the impression that SLU sanctioned it. Regardless, he withdrew it three months later after being threatened with a lawsuit by SLU.

was it wrong? Yes. I have said it repeatedly. However, SLU doesn't feel it is such an affront as to fire him and face the consequences of fighting the tenure system. I would assume there would be exceptions to the tenure system if there is really "theft deliberate misuse of school property."

As a lawyer who has handled these type claims as part of my practice, it seems extraordinary measures for very little real gain. So I ask: What is really the objective of this lawsuit? I can guarantee you Meyer doesn't have the $ on hand. Is SLU going to garnish his wages? place a lien on his home or retirement fund? Most everyone doesn't have insurance to cover this type of loss. This case isn't about money or infringement. Its about whose "member" is bigger.

Acording to this email response form Provost Weixlmann, Dr. Meyer has refused to commit to not pulling the same stunt again.

http://colleenjaycox.wordpress.com/2008/06...o-see-a-person/

Quote

DR. MEYER SOUGHT TO TAKE FOR HIS OWN A TRADEMARK OF THE UNIVERSITY’S. HE WAS ASKED, EARLY ON, TO RELEASE HIS CLAIM AND COMMIT NEVER AGAIN TO DOING THAT. INSTEAD, HE REFUSED, AND SO LITIGATION HAS CONTINUED. SHOULD THE UNIVERSITY HAVE IGNORED THIS THREAT? WHILE SOME MIGHT ANSWER NO AND OTHERS YES, I TRUST MOST ORGANIZATIONS WOULD WISH TO DEFEND WHAT IS THEIRS THROUGH REASONABLE MEANS. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE DOING

billiken_roy, on Jul 9 2008, 09:45 AM, said:

or more likely, the students continue to come to him for guideance. and as great teacher do, he is hard pressed to turn them away.

Barring him from the newsroom does not prohibit students from seeking his advice.

[billikendave]

brianstl, on Jul 9 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

Acording to this email response form Provost Weixlmann, Dr. Meyer has refused to commit to not pulling the same stunt again.

http://colleenjaycox.wordpress.com/2008/06...o-see-a-person/




Barring him from the newsroom does not prohibit students from seeking his advice.

I'm really done with this. I don't know the guy from Adam.

If he did it again, throw the guy under the bus and he deserves what he got. I have never said he's blameless. SLU wants contrition.