Shots, Unicorns and NFTs

I don’t know about you, but I feel cheated. I got my Covid vaccine when I was supposed to and I was pretty happy about it. But now a bunch of states — including California as of last week — are offering prizes for getting shots.

In California, the first 2 million people getting shots after May 27 get paid! You show up for a shot and you get a $50 gift card.

I understand why this is happening — we need to end the pandemic — but you have to realize that the people being rewarded are all the goofballs who avoided getting shots when they were supposed to.

Where are the rewards for the good behavior of all us goodie-two-shoe types?  (We’re still eligible for prize drawings, but the odds of winning aren’t great.)

At the very least, those of us who got shots before, say, the end of March should be awarded certificates of merit from our states.

Then we can be insufferable.

Spot the differences. Examine the two photos below and see if you can tell if they’re different.

Are they different? This isn’t one of those Internet optical illusion tricks. There’s also a blue version of the first photo.

The answer is: Of course they’re different! If you don’t believe me, we now have a federal court ruling to that effect: “There is one glaringly obvious difference between the Pink Sky Horse and the Blue Sky Horse copyrighted works, on the one hand, and Wei’s design, on the other hand: Wei’s design is not pink, nor is it blue. Wei’s design is … patterned with colors in a rainbow order.”

Case closed.

So why was the case opened in the first place? My guess is that someone was colorblind.

We also learn from this ruling that there are generic elements of a unicorn. Apparently, they’re not unique.

Sad but true.

Selling your soul? If judges can’t sell non-fungible tokens, that doesn’t mean you can’t.

In case you missed it, The Judicial Ethics Committee of the Administrative Office of the Courts in Tennessee issued an advisory opinion saying that judges should not let their likenesses be used by a for-profit company to make NFTs even though most of the money raised by selling them would go to charity.

It seems that a company called DASH4LAW Inc., run by an imaginative Nashville lawyer, had asked to use some judge images for NFTs to be auctioned off for charity. Among the pretty obvious problems with this was that DASH4LAW would get to keep part of the money for its efforts and the fact that someone would own a judge’s mug.

Picture the local drug cartel’s chief executive officer owning a judge’s NFT jumping up in court and screaming, “I own you!”

Yeah, that’s a bit extreme but I like to imagine stuff like that.

It turns out that DASH is a company that claims to be “the collaboration platform for the ecosystem of law.”

Don’t you just hate it when your firm’s ecosystem is out of whack? Office warming is real. It’s science.

DASH, as part of its environmental plan, offers NFTs for lawyers and law firms. On a website with some interesting typos, DASH offers NFT litigation funding as part of the “ecosystem.”

You can sell the rights to a picture of your injured client? A copy of the lawsuit?

What if the other side buys your lawsuit’s NFT? Would that be like a summary judgment or a settlement?

(Side note: My favorite typo on the website is “anticipated budget scope crep.” I think it’s supposed to be “crap.”)

I have my doubts as to how well a law firm’s NFTs would sell — but then stuff that is selling these days seems pretty doubtful too.

Since I’m nothing if not fashionable, I am now offering my first FFT (fully fungible token): a Catcoin.

Enjoy and copy this as often as you like.

%d bloggers like this: