Slashdot Mirror

any feature that risks

http://www.mofo.com/people/a/a...

being on the other side of the table in a lawsuit

SHOULD NOT BE CREATED

i think at MoFo the interns make more money than most of us here

2. The "editors" probably chose this submission for the sole reason that it says "MoFo" ... I have heard that Beavis & Butthead is back on the air so I guess the Slashdot editors are trying to get back to that level of discourse.

You can't exactly blame the editors for that one. The firm's domain is mofo.com, and their about page is titled "About MoFo". The firm fully embraces the name.

2. The "editors" probably chose this submission for the sole reason that it says "MoFo" ... I have heard that Beavis & Butthead is back on the air so I guess the Slashdot editors are trying to get back to that level of discourse.

You can't exactly blame the editors for that one. The firm's domain is mofo.com, and their about page is titled "About MoFo". The firm fully embraces the name.

Yes, it was BSF, but they also had hired the MoFos (and, no, that's not a joke domain, it's legit).

The MoFos trashed BSF in the SCO/Novell suit.

Now if there was a background check form that had him write in his education history anew and sign a "this is true to my knowledge" statement, and he still put the degree on there, perhaps there's some basis for termination just for the explicit lie. But it's not at all clear that that exists. Personally, I think it's just as likely that e-bay doctored the bio at some point to make itself feel better about him, and yahoo simply copied that without much thought.

Some business law history. Prior to about 2001, a public company CFO would submit a report to SEC which would become the public disclosure of data regarding the company to Investors. Then Enron happened and the CEO/CFO claimed that all the misreporting/misstatements in the filings were not due to their fault, but due to their underlings. Then the govt passed Sarbanes-Oxley and made it a requirement that the CEO sign the annual reports and that the CEO and CFO will be criminally liable for wilful mis-statements.

Now it so happens that Yahoo did file a report with SEC when Scott Thompson became the CEO, and that document happened to contain a resume of the CEO which included this statement that he got a CS degree. Scott Thompson also signed that document.

The hedge fund that pointed the issue out linked to the SEC filing. The hidden threat here is that if Yahoo does not act, then the disgruntled investors would go to SEC and complain and that then the CEO would be criminally prosecuted. Criminal prosecutions cannot be swept under the corporate veil unlike civil prosecutions.

It is unclear how Yahoo Board cannot act. If they act, they lose the CEO. If they don't, there will be a criminal suit later on and they will still lose the CEO.

Some even put it on their URL: http://www.mofo.com/

Brownstein Hyatt -- apparently a firm that does a lot of business with the gaming industry. The thought of big Italian lawyers in pinstriped suits comes to mind, but to be honest my first thought was of an obscure single practitioner in California and my second was of the enormous firm of Morrison Foerstner. And yes, if you follow the link, that really is what the firm call themselves. With some justice.

What kind of n00b do you think I am? Like I'm really going to click through a link to mofo.com.

Jesus.

I personally can't wait until the top entry in google on their names will be "got sued by Jane Doe for defamation", together with a link to their highly professional statements. I'm sure it will greatly enhance their careers in the fast food industry.

You may well change your mind about these women if you read the PDF referred to above http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/IravaniComplaint.pdf.

It is a filing by a Mr. Ciolli in which are described many actions taken by the women or their attorneys. They were trying to sue, as well as libel and slander, him while using him as a pawn to extract concessions from yet a third party. Among other things, they refused to serve process upon him while keeping him named in their lawsuit, thereby holding him in a legal limbo. They also used the well-worn SCO tactic of requiring him to remove alleged defamatory postings, all the while refusing to identify the postings in question.

As a result of their vicious game-playing, he had an employment offer rescinded. The offer would have resulted in his getting a $160K/year (plus bonuses) position. A second chance at a clerkship was refused when the potential employer googled his name and came up with the bitches' frivolous lawsuit.

Meanwhile, despite her denials and her assertions that she lost an employment opportunity due to the scandal, she was in fact employed by Morrison and Foerster http://www.mofo.com/ (yes, mofo is the name they proudly refer to themselves by), one of the most prestigious law outfits in the US -- at a salary of $3,080 per week. That works out to $160,160 per year as a fucking SUMMER ASSOCIATE.

After reading through the uncharacteristically informal language of the motion, I was not at all surprised to see that it was authored by Morrison and Foerster LLP. They're known for being rather...unconventional. After all, their web address is http://www.mofo.com/.

> To many people, MoFo means something offensive.

What's wrong with Morrison and Foerster? They're one of the more prestigious law firms in the country, and they're currently tearing SCO a new one on Novell's behalf. Seeing how aggressively they operate, and how differently from IBM's lawyers (Cravath grinds you slowly into the dust, MoFo goes straight for the jugular), they are damn sure earning that name ... rather unlike the milquetoast corporate clusterfuck that MozFound is turning into.

So yeah, perhaps the leadership of Mozilla doesn't deserve the name. For different reasons.

The one who will get first dibs on SCO will be Novell since that ~$36M is Novell's capital (not a debt/credit) which SCO is trying to convert (fraud) into its own... a detail which SCO apparently conveniently failed to mention to the bankruptcy judge in the first hearing.

And 5 lawyers from Novell's law firm (while I'm sure they will blandly insist that their domain name is merely a contraction of their corporate name, they probably are aware of other possible interpretations) will be there. One, in addition to her law degree, has a PhD in linguistics and wrote her thesis on people who lie under oath.

Remember Enron? WorldCom? Both had major telcom billing fraud components. You may be looking at a fraud.

If there's an internal audit department, they should know about this. They have Sarbanes-Oxley responsibilities to check that internal audit controls are sufficiently tight.

Sarbanes-Oxley has whistleblower protection: "Sarbanes-Oxley creates severe criminal penalties (including substantial fines, and up to 10 years in prison) for retaliation against whistleblowers who raise concerns about violation of any federal criminal statute, not simply laws limited to financial fraud." So if your boss threatens you, you can threaten back.

Also, "Congress required corporate Audit Committees to create mechanisms for receiving anonymous employee concerns about financial improprieties." Find out how that channel works and make a report.

The burden of proof is on the employer in these cases. This law has real teeth.

Here's a lawyer who specializes in Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower claims.

In related news: Morrison & Foerster : Legal Updates & News : Press Releases : MoFo One of 100 Best Companies for Working Mothers

With more than a thousand lawyers in nineteen offices around the world, Morrison & Foerster offers clients comprehensive, global legal services in business and litigation. The firm is distinguished by its unsurpassed expertise in finance, life sciences, and technology, legendary litigation skills, and an unrivaled reach across the Pacific Rim, particularly in Japan and China. We have one compelling mission: to deliver success for our clients.

The big law firm of Morrison & Foerster..."Over one thousand lawyers worldwide"

That's a lot of mo fos

Maybe I should start an IT consulting company. I'll call it the "Smart-Ass Group"! There's already one close: Smart Associates... which reminds me of this law firm. (Check the URL. :-)

Morrison and Foerster, a major law firm?

Or you could go with Morrison & Foerster

#13 of the top 250, they've been mentioned on /. before suing spammers, and they have a cool domain name!

What's next is a lawfirm called Mofo.

Here's a link that mentions that one-dish legislation:

http://www.mofo.com/news/bulletin.cfm?MCatID=9312& concentrationID=&ID=1219&Type=7#11

Please point me in the direction of these large organizations with lots of lawyers and a sense of humor. I would like to learn from them.

Here ya go. Not only a large company with lots of lawyers, but a large company of lots of lawyers. :o)

How, oh how, did you resist the temptation to link to Morrison & Foerster?

Best. Domain. Ever.

just so i could say these guys were representing me...

one of Infinium Labs, Morrison & Foerster, LLP has a very suitable domain name for lawyers.... www.mofo.com (aka mutha f*****). Make it plural and it's perfect.

Infinium's law firm is called MoFo. That just about sums everything up nicely.

Did anyone else notice that the Lawfirm's site is Mofo.com ?

I mean seriously, what self respecting law firm would take the doamin "mofo.com"? Are they really that stupid?

On the actual topic. This is really just a stunt to get thier name back into circulation. As they say, "no press is bad press".

They mention computers, a network, a bar code scanner and printer etc just to give it the air of not being only a business method

Uh-huh. So not only have you failed to read the patent (or, at the very least, failed to understand it), but you also suffer from the delusion that you can somehow read the minds of those who wrote it.

His addition to the state-of-the-art is that this auction is organized using a computer and website. That's all.

Yup. And it was bloody innovative. Sufficiently so that the inventor was granted a patent on the idea.

Remember the old quote? "It takes a special kind of genius to render the previously unheard of blindingly obvious. The cry of 'I could have thought of that!' is especially telling because the fact is, you didn't."

Behold your epic lack of understanding of how patents work. Patents are not broad.

They are specific. That's why they're very long, with lots of fiddly language. You can't read a patent and then generalize it. That's the opposite of the way patents work.

It's the same rhetoric and fake limits they're using in Europe to try to get software and business method patents into the system.

Again, your ability to read minds is shocking.

The only law firm in the world that has apparently retained (ha ha) their sense of humor is Morrison & Foerster. Read that url.

Nice to know that they're going after a California Corporation. California Anti-Spam Laws are based on the fax spam laws. Doesn't seem that MoFo is trying to set precedence. Just make some dough...

That name is great on so many levels. According to their site, they seek $50 in damages per email! Where does that figure come from? Also, they stated that at $50 per day, their spam suit would be valued at $25000 per day. A bit of math shows that's 500 pieces of spam. I get nearly 100 pieces per day (which I consider pretty low). So does it "cost" me $5000 to click "delete" 100 times? If so, does anyone want to hire me to click "delete" for them? $50 per click.

Morrison & Foerster (MoFo, www.mofo.com) said, "We're Gonna Get These Mofos! Err, not us, MoFo, but those Mofo Spammers..."

Yes, they really call themselves MoFo!

Morrison & Foerster (MoFo, www.mofo.com) said, "We're Gonna Get These Mofos! Err, not us, MoFo, but those Mofo Spammers..."

Yes, they really call themselves MoFo!

Ebay is a business. It's not financially sound for them to do anything besides what they are doing.

I also don't get precisely the legal basis of the complaints from Microsoft. Are they using DMCA? It sounds like that. It seems like nobody has a clue what basis this is on.

If it's DMCA, then you can just counternotify and eBay puts it back up or is in breach of contract. Further, DMCA specifically authorizes civil penalties for misrepresentation in DMCA notifications.

Misrepresentations. The Act provides that anyone who knowingly materially misrepresents under the Act that material is infringing is liable for any damages incurred by an OSP or a User as a result of the OSP relying on such misrepresentation in removing or blocking material.48

48 17 U.S.C. 512(f) (1998).

[Quoted from the Mighty Mofo's memo on DMCA.

Under the DMCA, you are not allowed to own devices that can circumvent copy protection. It doesn't matter how many uses there are for your decoder, the mere possibility that it could be used to circumvent copy protection renders it illegal.

NOT true, according to a lawyer from Morrison and Foerster, a genuinely kickass intellectual property firm that likes to be called MoFo. I love that!

"To facilitate enforcement of the copyright owner's right to control access to his copyrighted work, the DMCA also prohibits manufacturing or making available technologies, products and services used to defeat technological measures controlling access. Similarly, the DMCA prohibits the manufacture and distribution of the means of circumventing technological measures protecting the rights of a copyright owner, e.g., measures which prevent reproduction. But to ensure that legitimate multipurpose devices can continue to be made and sold, the prohibition applies only to those devices that:

• are primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing;
• have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent; or
• are marketed for use in circumventing. Id."

Quoted from THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT, Jonathan Band, Morrision & Foerster LLP Washington, D.C. jband@mofo.com

Full article here.

Incidentally, the Mighty MoFo were the pro bono defense lawyers for Dennis Erlich in his litigation with Scientology.

Under the DMCA, you are not allowed to own devices that can circumvent copy protection. It doesn't matter how many uses there are for your decoder, the mere possibility that it could be used to circumvent copy protection renders it illegal.

NOT true, according to a lawyer from Morrison and Foerster, a genuinely kickass intellectual property firm that likes to be called MoFo. I love that!

"To facilitate enforcement of the copyright owner's right to control access to his copyrighted work, the DMCA also prohibits manufacturing or making available technologies, products and services used to defeat technological measures controlling access. Similarly, the DMCA prohibits the manufacture and distribution of the means of circumventing technological measures protecting the rights of a copyright owner, e.g., measures which prevent reproduction. But to ensure that legitimate multipurpose devices can continue to be made and sold, the prohibition applies only to those devices that:

• are primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing;
• have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent; or
• are marketed for use in circumventing. Id."

Quoted from THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT, Jonathan Band, Morrision & Foerster LLP Washington, D.C. jband@mofo.com

Full article here.

Incidentally, the Mighty MoFo were the pro bono defense lawyers for Dennis Erlich in his litigation with Scientology.