A response to Bloomberg Law's Interveiw of Professor Scafidi: IDPPPA is better called the Destruciton of Affordable Fashion Act
I said it before and in response to Bloomberg Law's interview of Professor Susan Scafidi [Video] I will say it AGAIN:
Any argument that the "Heighten Pleading Standard" will prevent improper suits i.e. suits based on a designer's belief that their design is unique or original, is just nonsense, or a red herring as we lawyers call it. Ask any litigator, not just a fashion litigator like me, and I promise you they will tell you the same thing.
I am seriously disturbed by the Bloomberg Law interview and you should be too. Why?
- Professor Scafidi's comments - did she really say "elements" of Diane Von Furstenberg's wrap dress would get protection under IDPPPA or the Destruction of the Affordable Fashion Bill?;
- It was 15 minutes and only presented one side;
- IDPPPA will be very costly to fashion brands because litigation costs will have to be factored into the price of clothing, increasing the price;
- It will cause less choice in the market place. All designers need to do is "tweak" a garment compared to the original, says Scafidi. What does that mean?
- It will flood the courts with litigation - Americans, unlike the rest of the world are KNOWN to be litigious; and
- By the way Professor Scafidi laughed at the suggestion of addition of loser pays langauge into the bill.
The only good thing about the interview? Professor Scafidi looked great! Loved her necklace.
Repeating all the reasons why the Destruction of Affordable Fashion Bill is a really.bad.idea would take too long, but you can read more at the following related posts: