Slashdot Mirror
Fired from an IP Law Firm for Anti-DRM Views?
dchallender writes to tell us that Inga Chernyak, recently featured in a VillageVoice piece entitled "Code Warriors", has been fired from an IP firm in NYC for having "incompatible views". From the article: "I was, and still am, a student interested in the scope of copyright law, and determined to pursue a career in the field. I wanted to gain an understanding both of the theory of copyright, which my work with FC provided, and its practice. The firm exposed me to the day to day operations of an IP lawyer, and I was nothing if not receptive to these lessons. I was baffled that someone saw fit to fire me over an expression of dissenting views. Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?"
What does DRM have to do with IP lawyers? It seems to me that IP lawyers should be most interested in seeing infringement so they have more work to do, not supporting something that prevents infringement. It's like how some day all dentists will be out of business because of the increasing technology in dental care, such as fluoride. Why support something that will put you out of business?
Non-competes are also non-enforcable. Once you stop working for a firm, you are no longer subject to any of their rules. If they want to give you "gardening leave" (ie. pay you for 18 months but have you not come into work) so that you remain officially employed and subject to the contract, that's something else entirely.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Key part of that is "fair trial".
Let me give you an example that happened in my state. A politically connected person was arrested for drunk driving, and essentially, the case was easily made. A blood test was done, at a hospital, by a nurse, some time after the accident, and still showed the man was above the legal limit. Between the accident and the test, there was no opportunity for the man to drink anything.
The man, however, was not found guilty of drunk driving. During preperation, the nurse used an alcohol swab on the skin prior to taking the blood. Now, numerous studies have found that does not, and cannot, contaminate the test. A local newspaper tested that, even using Everclear as a prep, and found the same result. The law, however, clearly required that the skin be prepared with a non-alcohol swab prior to the blood being drawn. This law has been on the books for quite some time (at least 10 years).
So who's correct here? The man was pretty clearly drunk, but the law on blood tests was not followed.
-- Ravensfire
"But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"