Slashdot Mirror


Google In Battle With Its Own Lawyers

An anonymous reader writes "Google is at daggers end with a law firm it's been using since 2008, after discovering that lawyers in the law firm, named Pepper Hamilton LLP, were representing a patent licensing business that sued Google's Android partners last month. Google has claimed that Pepper Hamilton LLP never provided notice that it was hired by Digitude Innovations LLC, the firm that filed patent infringement complaints against Google's business allies."

80 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. So, by rotorbudd · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're talking lawyers here.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    1. Re:So, by Kohenkatz · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Pogo quote in your sig sums this up better than any other comment on the page.

    2. Re:So, by bbbaldie · · Score: 2

      If you can't trust a lawyer,. who CAN you trust??

    3. Re:So, by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 5, Informative

      I had a friend whose family was so ashamed of his uncle, he was barred from ever visiting. They used to tell people he was in prison for drug dealing. He was a lawyer. For the IRS.

      Another friend actually wanted to be a lawyer, and help people. When his lessons had him shadow a real lawyer, he found out his two goals were mutually exclusive. He said it was like dealing with the mafia. Do evil for pay, and leave it at the office while pretending to be a nice person to your kids and wife. And that was one of the more reputable law firms in town...

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
    4. Re:So, by Rubinstien · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seems that times have changed. My wife's grandfather was a lawyer and one of the first juvenile court judges in the country, among other claims to fame. He died in the 1950's, fairly young, following an accident. Among the memorabilia passed down in the family are cards and letters from concerned kids that had been through his courtroom. I even read an interview with a now famous author that credited him by name for turning his life around. By all accounts, he was a good man. Reminds me of an Abraham Lincoln quote:

      "Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. As a peacemaker the lawyer has superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough."

      ...greed seems to be the ingredient that ruins that recipe.

    5. Re:So, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IAAL. And that Lincoln quote is something I read to my clients, every time, when they're thinking about filing a lawsuit.

    6. Re:So, by jdgeorge · · Score: 2

      The answer SHOULD be you can trust YOUR lawyer. This is a big problem when your lawyer represents your legal opponent, which is a straightforward conflict of interest. When your law firm represents your legal opponent (as in this case) this is a still a conflict of interest.

      Generally, lawyers/firms know better than to allow this sort of problem to arise, because it can result in loss of clients/revenue (among other things).

    7. Re:So, by plopez · · Score: 2

      But they failed to disclose. That's a no-no.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  2. Lesson of the day: by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Never, never trust a lawyer.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    1. Re:Lesson of the day: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I really don't get the irrational hatred for lawyers on Slashdot. It's possible that the facts here will show that the law firm has broken a professional code of conduct, which if their jurisdiction is like mine carries penalties under the law. You might as well say "never, never trust a black man" after the hundredth item of news about a black man committing a violent crime, conveniently ignoring the other x million non-violent black men.

      Let me summarise as simply as possible: lawyers provide advice and speak on your behalf in defending your rights under the law. That's all they do. They don't get to make law and they'll face worse consequences than a layperson if they break it. If you don't like the law - and there are lots of laws not to like - then by attacking the lawyers you are essentially saying, "I believe the problem is not some particular law but that we even have the rule of law." You are annoyed because some legislative process exists which gives rights and duties and there are remedies for enforcing those rights and duties. But ubi remedium ibi ius: there is no law/justice without a means of enforcing it.

      Your problem is with your legislature, a corrupt shower of bastards voted in by an ignorant population. We have a similar problem on the other side of the pond, although in our case it's more apathetic cynicism than mindless patriotism. Deal with them and let your judiciary enforce the laws you want. Common law systems are really top of their class, as far as this planet goes.

    2. Re:Lesson of the day: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That sounds like lawyer talk. GET A ROPE!

    3. Re:Lesson of the day: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      lawyers provide advice and speak on your behalf in defending your rights under the law

      In this case, those lawyers both defend Google's rights and the rights of their direct competitors. Could be fun in court, one lawyer defending *both* parties. I don't think any judge would accept that.

      Now admittedly, what's going on here is probably a slight bit more subtle: different (I might hope!!) lawyers working for the same company, defending both Google and their competitors. Still it's a pretty clear-cut case of conflicting interests there. If they're ethical, they can be professional about it and not talk about their clients to each other. The problem is, how do you know? At least if those lawyers work for different entities, it's less likely they'll leak information to each other around the water cooler.

    4. Re:Lesson of the day: by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me summarise as simply as possible: lawyers provide advice and speak on your behalf in defending your rights under the law. That's all they do.

      No, they do one other thing, which is the thing people hate them for: They self-replicate. If you encounter a lawyer, you need to get your own lawyer to deal with them. When it turns out that your lawyer has a conflict of interest, you need another lawyer to take on the work the first lawyer had, the lawyer's other client that created the conflict needs another lawyer for the same reason, you then need a different kind of lawyer to consider going after the first lawyer for malpractice for not disclosing the conflict, your old lawyer needs his own lawyer to defend against the possible malpractice claim, on and on. By the time you're the size of Google you're drowning in a sea of lawyers.

      While it's true that the legislature is in part responsible for the laws that result in anyone attempting to do business in this country needing to hire an entire division of attorneys, the attorneys themselves are the ones who lobby to keep it that way.

      I'll give you an example: Software patents. The strongest lobby preventing software patents from being eliminated is the software patent lawyers. Larger software companies hate them (because of patent trolls), smaller software companies hate them (because it allows larger companies to crush them), individual software engineers hate them (because it's all a giant waste of time). The only people who want them are patent lawyers and patent trolling companies that are full of patent lawyers.

    5. Re:Lesson of the day: by bobstreo · · Score: 2

      In my experience lawyers exist to extract money from clients. It is either in the form
      of retainer fees, hourly charges or percentages of court winnings. In the case of a "bad" lawyer it is
      probably all three.

      Representing both sides is just an opportunity to get the most money from the most people.

    6. Re:Lesson of the day: by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In an ideal world you would be correct, but in the real world lawyers give so many reasons to be hated that it is very, very difficult to speak well of them.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    7. Re:Lesson of the day: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone hates lawyers until they need one

      ... and then they continue to hate them, with a passion that only increases every time they open their mailbox and find a bill from their lawyer. Justice has become so expensive that normal citizens can't afford it. Greedy lawyers are a big reason for why we find ourselves in that position.

    8. Re:Lesson of the day: by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You miss the fact that most of those laws you need lawyers to deal with were written by lawyers. To quote the GP, "Your problem is with your legislature, a corrupt shower of bastards voted in by an ignorant population." And most of those people in the legislature are lawyers.
      This brings up my second law of voting, "Vote against the lawyer." When voting, if one of the candidates is not a lawyer, unless there is an overwhelmingly convincing reason to do otherwise, that is the candidate you should vote for.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:Lesson of the day: by oiron · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not how it works... Obviously, Google would be using ANOTHER FIRM to sue this one...

      The whole problem is that these guys are representing Google while working against them. When Google makes this allegation, they're pretty much automatically fired as Google's lawyers...

    10. Re:Lesson of the day: by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well put.

      Personally, I've found my opinion of lawyers is concisely stated in this quote from Henry Peter Brougham, a British Lord, statesman, and, yes, lawyer:
      "A lawyer is a learned gentleman who rescues your estate from your enemies and keeps it himself."

      Or paraphrasing a friend going through a divorce:
      Seeing my lawyer has all the all the discomfort of a dental procedure, all the frustration of a visit to the DMV, and all the aggrivation of a cell phone bill. Except I don't get anything as useful as a root canal, a drivers licence, or a cell phone. I just get the promise of another visit in a month.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    11. Re:Lesson of the day: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Knowing the law is kinda advantageous both to reach and to work in a position where you're making it. Lawyers are a good example of people who know and understand the law. Now it's not necessary to have as much understanding as a lawyer to work in the legislature, nor is it sufficient. How about having a word with your fellow voter about this? Your representatives don't vote themselves in, no matter how cynically you want to try to paint it.

      Or look at it another way. Choose a random lawyer then choose a random engineer. The random lawyer is very unlikely to have anything whatever to do with choosing your laws. The random engineer is fairly unlikely to be involved in [some field of which you disapprove], but much more likely to be so. Do you hate on all scientists?

      Now the wording of bills is doubtless going to be prepared by lawyers, but this is only on behalf of whoever's proposing the bill. Hopefully you can see the advantage of laws written in a language suitable for application by the judiciary and executive, as opposed to laws written by a layman which become fairly loosely interpretable according to the whims of the reader. They laws may still be too broadly or vaguely written, and whose fault is that? Tell your legislature to stop accepting vague laws.

      The purposive approach makes this worse or better, depending on how you look at it - it's increasingly popular in the UK and already at the top of the methods of interpretation for EU law.

    12. Re:Lesson of the day: by HiThere · · Score: 2

      It's not that most lawyers are politicians. Very few are. It's that most politicians are lawyers. Almost all are.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re:Lesson of the day: by ilguido · · Score: 4, Funny
      Exactly, that's what I learned attending the Operating Systems course at the university:

      A lawyer does not work for only one client at time. While one case is waiting to go to trial or have papers typed, the lawyer can work on another case. If she has enough clients, the lawyer will never be idle for lack of work. (Idle lawyers tend to become politicians, so there is a certain social value in keeping lawyers busy.)

      Silberschatz, Galvin & Gagne, Operating System Concepts

    14. Re:Lesson of the day: by richwa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lawyers are nothing but hired guns to fight battles. An attorney is required to provide the best defense or offense for their client regardless of what they think of their client. If attorneys started refusing to provide legal defenses for the worst of the worst then how would we really know who they are; the government would be free jail most anyone by claiming them "the worst of the worst."

      The biggest source of lobbying for software patents are companies like MS and groups like the Business Software Alliance not patent attorneys (unless they are paid for doing the lobbying.) This are the same people that have pushed for SOPA and ProtectIP. (MS and BSA rescinded their support, I think, after all our hue and cry.)

      Your example of software patents falls flat. You are absolutely right about software patents; they should not exist. But, it's not the patent lawyers that are creating the problems, it's the people that hire the lawyers that are the root problem. (In most cases these people are not attorneys but usually Wall Street, vulture capital types.)

      The real reason that lawyers have a bad rap is that they can win big $$$ for their clients from corporations thus cutting into their profits ergo a long-term on-going swiftboat of them. What people forget is that is people like them -- people like us -- that are sitting on those juries and making these awards in the name of justice and in attempting to prevent future damages to the common good. As long as an attorney can get $100 million from a company like Exxon when they purposely give someone cancer, attorneys will be vilified by those who care more about their profits than our well-being; it's called negative advertising and it works.

    15. Re:Lesson of the day: by JonySuede · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You need a Java developer. And an Oracle DBA. And a Linux admin. And a Windows server admin. And someone to babysit your NetApp. And a network admin. And a .NET person. And on, and on, and on.

      And then they still tell you that you need consultants because upgrading a critical part of infrastructure is very complicated.

      This is what I hate about building software systems.
      When a company outgrows its office, they have an architect design another more adapted building, they usually sell the first and they have a professional construction company built the building according to the plan. However, when software is involved, the current system are kept, digital duck-tape is used and the new system is somehow working with the old one at the price of an incredible maintenance cost.

      If we had a professional software architect title, much like the professional engineer title, we could have something that resemble the building/electrical/gmp codes. We would have software architecture cabinet that design and supervise the execution and we would have software construction companies... The assorted set of workers that are needed in software construction could form theirs own professional associations. And peoples and companies would be accountable for failure.

      Everyone, who's professional enough to remain a member of his professional association, salary would raise up as it is usually the case when a title gets reserved. We could then refuse to support those crap assortment of systems as they would not be up to the software construction code.

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    16. Re:Lesson of the day: by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 2

      OMG, I can't believe I actually remember that passage :-/

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    17. Re:Lesson of the day: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, they're not. For example, less than 35% of the US House of Representatives are lawyers.

      Laws are written by lobbyists and rich business executives.

    18. Re:Lesson of the day: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ya, that's why Donald Knuth is in such huge proponent of pate... OH WAIT, NO! What a stupid point you made.

    19. Re:Lesson of the day: by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You think the hatred of lawyers is "irrational"? This site is FULL of rational people, and most all of them either hate lawyers, or have had little to do with them. So guess which group you sound like...

      You then blame the executive branch of government, which is mostly lawyers, and seem to be saying "hate the game, not the players". But the players are the one's running the game...

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
    20. Re:Lesson of the day: by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another reason why people hate lawyers as individuals:

      Lawyers appear to have no morality. This is not really the fault of the lawyer - in fact, one could say it is the job of a lawyer to check his/her sense of morality at the door so he/she can properly represent their client. That makes it incredibly difficult to separate out those lawyers who are decent people only doing their job and those lawyers who really have no morals. The obvious, emotional/knee-jerk response is to assume that they are all sociopaths.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    21. Re:Lesson of the day: by Sabriel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The root issue I have with patents - software or otherwise - is that anyone and everyone who independently arrives at the same solution are all screwed, solely because one entity has paid the government to prevent anyone else from using that solution without paying up.

      It's a protection racket under colour of authority. "Pay me for having the same idea I had, or I'll send the boys^Wgovernment around to ruin you." That's the patent system. That's "gimme gimme gimme."

      Until you change that fundamental aspect of the system, until patents allow for independent invention, that's the system you're defending.

      As with Free Software, if you don't like it, go develop an alternative yourself, and release it for free. On2 & Google did exactly that.

      And how far do you think On2/Google would've gotten if they hadn't had their own army of mercenaries^W laywers to deter the existing codec patent holders from attacking them?

    22. Re:Lesson of the day: by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "I really don't get the irrational hatred for lawyers on Slashdot."

      Who said it's irrational? A lawyer?

      "lawyers provide advice and speak on your behalf in defending your rights under the law."

      If only so it were.

      "They don't get to make law"

      Please go and see which are the most common studies among those that do get to make law.

      "and they'll face worse consequences than a layperson if they break it."

      No. They face bad consequences *if* they get caugth. Which is exactly what they are best tooled not to happen.

      "by attacking the lawyers you are essentially saying, "I believe the problem is not some particular law but that we even have the rule of law.""

      I don't think anyone supports that. I myself, by attacking lawyers I'm essentially saying "I don't believe the problem is some particular law but that we even have the rule of *lawyers*."

      "Your problem is with your legislature"

      Which is basically built by lawyers and the current legal system is basically an always growing arms race built and sustained by lawyers themselves.

      "Common law systems are really top of their class"

      Whatever sentenced an unknown judge two centuries ago on a world that hardly resembles ours is to be considered "top of their class"?

      Yes, this post was written with a substantial dosis of tongue-in-cheek.

    23. Re:Lesson of the day: by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "No, they're not. For example, less than 35% of the US House of Representatives are lawyers."

      In other words: no less than 1/3 of the US House of Representatives are lawyers. Which is the most represented single profession.

    24. Re:Lesson of the day: by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You need a Java developer. And an Oracle DBA. And a Linux admin. And a Windows server admin. And someone to babysit your NetApp. And a network admin. And a .NET person. And on, and on, and on.

      I don't understand what a list of job titles has anything to do with it? Obviously some companies hire a lot of techs, but it's not at all for the same reason that they have to hire a bunch of lawyers. The techs each do something productive. The lawyers only exist to cancel out the other side's lawyers: You don't have to hire another Java developer just because one of your competitors hired another Java developer. You do generally have to hire more patent lawyers if one of your competitors hires more patent lawyers.

    25. Re:Lesson of the day: by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The biggest source of lobbying for software patents are companies like MS and groups like the Business Software Alliance

      What makes you think they want software patents? They're the ones having to pay record damage awards to patent trolls. At best they're agnostic.

      Granted Microsoft has been getting into the patent trolling business with Android to some extent, but that isn't evidence of software companies wanting software patents, it's evidence of patent trolls wanting them: Any company that collects more revenue from patent licensing than they do from selling their own software is no longer a software company.

    26. Re:Lesson of the day: by Richy_T · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not so much a profession as as a psychological disorder

    27. Re:Lesson of the day: by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We make lots of real hardware, and lots of real software... we are not a patent troll. However, the top executives love software patents, because they are about 90% profit.

      It sounds to me like you are a patent troll. If you actually made products then you would be the ones paying the license fees rather than collecting them, which leaves you in an approximate break even situation. Certainly that is inherently the situation industry wide: The average software company has a negative ROI from the existence of software patents, because every license fee collected by anyone is paid by someone else, and some of the recipients are patent trolls, which means that the system is necessarily a net negative for the companies that actually make software: The payments between software companies are breakeven on an industry level and the payments to trolls are deadweight losses.

      We're somehow fine with the extensive R&D that has gone into mechanical engineering being patentable, but as soon as you can replace these with digital systems, the same R&D effort is no longer protected in many countries. It makes no sense

      It makes perfect sense. Hardware has physical constraints, software is pure abstract math. You can't patent math -- and for good reason. I'm sure Einstein worked very hard on E=mc^2, but explaining how fusion works doesn't give you any right to exclude people from using sunlight.

      it's just going to drive us back to a proprietary world, where everything is fiercly protected as trade secrets, and anything open is a thing of the past.

      How do you expect trade secrets to be maintained within software that is distributed to the general public?

      The most "pure" use case for software patents is MPEG. They wouldn't represent the best technology companies around the world have to offer, if software implementations could not be capitalized upon. And don't tell me about free software... Theora and WebM were both developed by On2, which made its money with proprietary codecs which could be licensed for less than patent licenses for the MPEG technologies. If not for software patents, we probably wouldn't have made it past Cinepak, or MPEG-1 at best, before falling back into proprietary-only solutions.

      What are you talking about? You can't have a "proprietary" video codec without software patents. It would get reverse engineered inside of two weeks. On top of that, most of the codec research is done by universities rather than private companies.

      But never mind that, let's talk about On2. If Google found it cost effective to pay the money (in the form of buying the company) to develop a new codec so that it would be available for everyone to use for free, what makes you think they wouldn't have done the same thing without software patents? If anything the free codec would have been better, because it wouldn't have had to make intentionally inefficient choices specifically to avoid the MPEG patent pool.

    28. Re:Lesson of the day: by lcam · · Score: 2

      There is absolutely no evidence that your heretic here is not idealistic to the point of declenching the real issue of why people don't like or trust lawyers. There is absolutely no evidence at all, and I challenge you to produce such evidence you may have, if you may, that comparing racist type attitudes such as "never, never trust a black man" in relation with the common stereotypes of impoverished African Americans who turn to violence in face of millions is who do not, is not the same as claiming that lawyers like yourself are victims of some social or systemic process that's been imposed on them. Much to the contrary, there is absolutely no evidence at all that you and other lawyers like yourself have not directly benefited from the system as it is.

      I enjoy the maxim you presented, ubi remedium ibi ius, however there is no evidence that what some people would consider to be justice by means of enforcement is not actually an injustice through the means of enforcement without cause. There is absolutely no evidence that fear people may have accepted as cause for TSA's rigorous social protection routines at airports has not resulted in unjust enforcement which infringes on our liberties; there is absolutely no evidence that such fear of terrorism is not of domestic fabrication for the purposes of our modern day witch hunt which also, is supported by lawyers.

      There is absolutely no evidence lawyers are more likely to adhere to professional code of conduct if they do not stand to benefit from such adherence. There is no reason to believe their adherence to any code of conduct is not the result of a collusive efforts for such collective benefits such as an image of professionalism and if not for such an image, there would be any volition of any kind for any socially acceptable ethical principals. Furthermore there is no to reason to not contest any notion that such collusive collective benefits are not further exploited in any way possible, even to attempt to divert responsibility and blame legislative bodies and their electorate for misfortunes had in dealing with your kind. Do you have any evidence to suggest that such collusion should really cause people to trust lawyers?

      I see you have played a common law card; I see no reason to not doubt or even challenge your mediocre understanding of the term. While I will present absolutely no evidence to suggest that your claim is untrue, I will not suggest that I do not contest the insinuations present in your claim by counterclaiming: there is also no evidence that common law is not used as a guise by you to cause a declension in the minds of our readers as to of the form of law really practiced in courts today. You will probably present absolutely no evidence to contest the notion that the courts today do not practice Common Law. As an example, let's take the latest push to criminalize copyright infringement, in such a case, there would be no evidence that physical harm was, will be, or even could be inflicted on the "victim" of such a would be crime and yet there is no evidence that lawyers like yourself would not continue to push for conviction of such a would be crime that would have absolutely no Common Law jurisdiction. Furthermore, there is no evidence that lawyers like yourself do not continue to push for such a measure to criminalize people for sharing, something commonly socially encouraged and taught to us as children. There is no evidence that you and all lawyers like yourself, do not depend on the general acceptance of such presumption like Common Law in our courts today to maintain an image. So as it stands, the cause for distrust, if you want to claim you understand common law: I have absolutely no evidence you where not being deceptive when you made a claim as to the value of such a system of law.

    29. Re:Lesson of the day: by powerlord · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not so much a profession as as a psychological disorder

      Can we go so far as to call it a Pathological condition?

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    30. Re:Lesson of the day: by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This site is FULL of rational people

      Slashdot is full of rational people? You're either new around here, or seriously out of touch. The only difference between Slashdot and your average tinfoil hat/truther/birther site is that most Slashdotters know how to spell and capitalize, and are at least vaguely conversant with punctuation.

    31. Re:Lesson of the day: by guises · · Score: 2

      It's actually the pharmaceutical companies that have lobbied most strongly for uncompromising patents on intellectual property. They make money hand over fist in the United States because they're allowed to patent drugs but, unlike every other country which allows drug patents, there are no laws in the US which set limits on the price of drugs. Hence, the pharmaceutical companies have an extreme interest in making sure that things stay this way.

      I'm sure that the patent trolls also do their share of lobbying, but they're small fries comparatively.

    32. Re:Lesson of the day: by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First AC, I commend you for the very reasonable defense of your (presumed) profession. I agree with much of what you wrote. But I felt compelled enough to login to speak to one point you raised:

      They don't get to make law and they'll face worse consequences than a layperson if they break it.

      I have dealt with more than a few lawyers, including working with them (for free on my part) and employing them. I have considered law school in the past (the direction I was urged by family and friends to go in) - I enjoy law and our legal system (generally). The fact is, however, it is not within my realm of experience to corroborate your claim that lawyers face worse consequences if they break the law. I have experienced quite the opposite.

      When I went up against a lawyer who was trying to steal away corporate rights from an organization I helped manage, I witnessed said lawyer act in bad faith, violate the canons of ethics in many respects and even perjure himself in a brazen fashion, in an attempt to prevail against our side. We contacted his state bar with proof of these strong claims and were essentially told that while perhaps some of his actions were questionable, he wasn't violating their standards. They showed us that, at least in that instance, first and foremost lawyers protect one another.

      Against substantial odds we prevailed against the scum bag lawyer being discussed, but other than the settlement that barred him from attacking us in the future, we got not satisfaction in recompense for his wrongdoing from the legal system. No repayment for the very considerable legal expenses he forced us to pay to fight him off.

      So, Attorney AC, based on my admittedly thin anecdotal experience, lawyers very often don't get punished for violating the law. They know how to take advantage of the system, and their colleagues protect them. They resort to underhanded and at times explicitly illegal tactics to gain the upper hand, and they don't get called on it except in extraordinary situations. I've also found that even good lawyers often have to resort to doing bad things in the course of their duties. Given that so many lawyers are scum, it's not hard to surmise that even the good ones have to act like scum in the course of dealing with the true scum. There is such a thing as a good lawyer; many presumably exist. They don't deserve to be negatively stereotyped. But the profession itself, at least in the US, justifiably carries a bad reputation.

      --
      Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
    33. Re:Lesson of the day: by tqk · · Score: 2

      You need a Java developer. And an Oracle DBA. And a Linux admin. And a Windows server admin. And someone to babysit your NetApp. And a network admin. And a .NET person. And on, and on, and on.

      And then they still tell you that you need consultants because upgrading a critical part of infrastructure is very complicated.

      The difference is, one's tech, and is still being invented. That's complex. Machine code --> Assembly --> FORTRAN --> BASIC --> C --> ...

      The other's an ancient arcane profession wrapped in centuries of jargon, when it should be in English understandable by anyone.

      "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." I just learned recently that it's now illegal to use a pellet rifle within city limits. It wasn't that way when I was a kid. Why is it now?

      It's not encouraged to have a lawyer with you in small claims court. Why is it mandatory to have them in other courts?

      I have the same complaint wrt doctors, dentists, mathematicians, and accountants. Why have YOU made your profession so arcane and complex that the man on the street needs your services? Every good geek I know is fighting complexity in everything they do, preferring simplicity.

      You're still fighting the guild wars of the fifteenth century. You gain by being indispensable in an arcane, complex monopoly market, and we're forced to use you to protect ourselves from what you've wrought.

      I hate entrenched, self-perpetuating monopolies, of which the legal profession is one. Read some John Grisham.

      And would someone please tell me what "a neckbeard" is?!?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    34. Re:Lesson of the day: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's essentially the point of a patent system. We can argue about the evils of it, but it does have some good. Without such a system, if you or I were to invent something tomorrow, there'd be nothing to stop big corporation X from "independently" developing their own similar product and crushing all newcomers. As broken as the current system may be, I don't think that things would be better off if it were entirely removed.

      No. The system doesn't work:

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101008/09595411336/why-this-year-s-physics-nobel-winner-never-patented-graphene.shtml

      The guy told me, "We are looking at graphene, and it might have a future in the long term. If after ten years we find it's really as good as it promises, we will put a hundred patent lawyers on it to write a hundred patents a day, and you will spend the rest of your life, and the gross domestic product of your little island, suing us." That's a direct quote.

    35. Re:Lesson of the day: by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      There is nothing irrational about the hatred of lawyers in today's world. A lawyer will take a struggling single parent's last dollar, before telling her that he cannot help her. We've seen lawyers take money to represent a client, then abandon that client days before a court hearing. I've personally seen a lawyer take hundreds of dollars from struggling young parents AT CHRISTMAS TIME, just to inform them that there is almost nothing he can do for them.

      While some individuals might be admirable persons, as a class lawyers are despicable people.

      Remember that the damned fools who author all those repressive bills for congress to debate are lawyers. The "Patriot" act was debated, kicked around, and rewritten by lawyers for years before 9/11/01.

      Lawyers? If you can find a good admirable person who is also a lawyer, be sure to nominate him for congress or the presidency. He is probably the last of a dying breed.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    36. Re:Lesson of the day: by slippyblade · · Score: 2

      Huh?

    37. Re:Lesson of the day: by SerpentMage · · Score: 2

      Ehhhh NO....

      Yes lawyers provide advice, and yes lawyers defend your rights. HOWEVER, lawyers also use loopholes that go beyond common sense. As an engineer I had to take law (that's how it is in Canada). So the lawyer who talked to us talked to us about the following case.

      His client drove through a stop sign and rammed another person and causing quite a bit of damage. The thing is that his client was guilty of running a stop sign. Though his client asked if he could "get out of jail." The lawyer (he) looked in detail at the situation and found an odd thing. Namely that the stop sign was lower than the usual sign. It was lower because there was an old tree that would have needed to be cut down, hence they made the sign shorter. The lawyer checked the books and found out that the stop sign was not regulation height. It missed by 10 cm (4"") of being below the lower boundary. The lawyer submitted this and won the case for their client. As I heard this I realized the person who was rammed had to claim this as an accident that would be a market on their insurance. Instead it should have been the other person's fault.

      This is why lawyers are bunch of wankers! The presented case is a fringe loophole case that missed the intent of the law. You might argue that the sign was lower, but for crying out loud there is a common sense intent that just went out the window! In Europe thankfully this common sense still exists. Whereas in Canada and the US it does not.

      So then excuse me if I think lawyers are a bunch of parasites! They don't protect and defend anymore. They are loophole finders based on a system devised by them to create loopholes! Remember how many politicians are lawyers...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    38. Re:Lesson of the day: by lcam · · Score: 2

      Lawyers are nothing but hired guns to fight battles. An attorney is required to provide the best defense or offense for their client regardless of what they think of their client. If attorneys started refusing to provide legal defenses for the worst of the worst then how would we really know who they are; the government would be free jail most anyone by claiming them "the worst of the worst."

      That is actually untrue.

      American 2nd jurisprudence states in paragraph 6 that an officer of the court (ie lawyer) has a preemptive obligation to public policy and the courts before his client. Which means the lawyer is actually required to take a position against his client in open court if the client moves in a way that could undermine the prioritative interests of either or.

      Insofar as the client does not actually interfere, then let the spectacle begin for all who may see. The scenario is has more in common to the strawman fallacy than a hired gun. Lawyers represent the "worst of the worst", not to really get them out of jail time, but rather to setup a target that can either be hit, or missed for anyone who cares to see.

  3. An outside law firm ? by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    google has the finances to buy out entire u.s. legal system. why have not they set up their own shark team yet ? ............

    really. the way silicon valley takes these threats to the digital age - like copyright/big media, patent trolls etc, anti-net neutrality etc - is WAY too carefree and lighthearted. even, totally oblivious.

    for example, sopa/pipa thwarted, another is being cooked, acta already being pushed, and silicon valley is not doing shit.

    1. Re:An outside law firm ? by Neil_Brown · · Score: 5, Informative

      why have not they set up their own shark team yet ?

      Google has its own legal team, but that doesn't end the need for external legal advice at times, if only because of the ability to scale up quickly by using a law firm (e.g. during a discovery phase of litigation, or due diligence during an acquisition).

      (I'm employed as a lawyer in a substantial in-house legal team, which has a panel of law firms.)

    2. Re:An outside law firm ? by marcroelofs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More to the point, why would a lawfirm having a client with the stature and glamour like Google risk all by even negotiating with a conflicting cient.

    3. Re:An outside law firm ? by SteveFoerster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google could buy out the whole MAFIAA with little leverage, and with cooperation with Facebook and co, even straight out.

      ...were it not for antitrust legislation.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    4. Re:An outside law firm ? by oiron · · Score: 5, Informative

      Many things can't be done by in-house lawyers. I don't know how it is in the US, but here in India, a case cannot be argued in court by in-house lawyers. This is done partly to reduce conflicts of interest. An attorney is supposed to be able to give his client advice the client doesn't want to hear, and by being independent, that's supposed to help a bit.

      Also, having a specialized company handling multiple clients rather than each company trying to replicate the function is probably more efficient?

    5. Re:An outside law firm ? by Score+Whore · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Disney has a market cap of $71.86 billion. News Corp (owns Fox Entertainment Group which owns 20th Century Fox) has a market cap of $50 billion. Sony (owns Sony Pictures) has a market cap if $19 billion. Comcast market cap $74 billion (owns Universal Pictures.) Time Warner (owns Warner Bros. Pictures) market cap $38 billion. I've no idea what Viacom is worth as they're private. The five publicly traded companies have a combined market cap of $252 billion.

      Google has $44 billion in cash. Facebook's IPO hopes to raise $5 billion. Not only could they not "buy out the whole MAFIAA with little leverage", they couldn't do it even if they sold their souls. And it's unlikely anyone would want to buy those two souls. FB will have P/E of 166, GOOG's P/E is 20. Two of the most profitable companies in the world don't have such high P/E ratios. (AAPL P/E is 13 & XOM P/E is 10.)

    6. Re:An outside law firm ? by Spazntwich · · Score: 2

      Greed.

    7. Re:An outside law firm ? by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The meme started out as $random_big_tech_company could buy all the RIAA companies. Which is true - the record companies average something like only $13 billion a year in revenue. Their entire industry is small potatoes compared to even a moderate-sized tech company

      Somewhere along the way, people began to substitute RIAA with MPAA, then MAFIAA. That's false - the movie industry is much, much larger than the record industry. (Incidentally, you should be pricing just the subdivisions which make movies when talking about the MPAA, not the parent company.)

      Generally though, slashdotters see the RIAA as much more evil than the MPAA. I mean they're both on the wrong side of the copyright debate, but the movie industry at least prices a 90 minute Blu-ray/DVD for ~$20 which took a staff of thousands to make. They have a thriving movie rental business model, as well as a pay per view model (essentially streamed movies). They're adapting to new technology and developments in their business. Maybe not in ways we always agree with, but at least they're trying.

      The record industry OTOH wants about ~$15 for a 45 minute CD album which took a staff of a few dozen to make. They fought tooth and to kill DATs (succeeded) and MP3s (failed). And the royalties they "negotiated" with Internet streaming companies are so ridiculously high it basically drove them out of business. Of the two branches of the *AA, the RIAA is much, much worse. Which is why the meme about tech companies just buying them out began.

  4. If that is true, they could be screwed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If that happened in my state and Google wanted to push it to the end, that firm could lose its firm license and the lawyers in charge could lose their licenses too.

    But then again, my state takes conflicts of interest very seriously.

  5. Re:retards. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Funny

    But the conflict occurred while the file was already open!

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  6. Concurrent COI by Jayfield · · Score: 5, Informative

    It sounds like this law firm just violated Model Rule 1.7(a)(1), which is concurrently representing adverse clients. Someone's getting in trouble with the state bar...

    1. Re:Concurrent COI by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 2

      Seriously? will they get in "trouble" or will heads really roll? I get the impression that you have to be pretty bad fairly repeatedly before the bar does anything.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    2. Re:Concurrent COI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      A perfect example from Schlock Mercenary, back when the art was bad, but the writing was amazing. Today the writing is still amazing, and so is the art.

      Odd choice of captcha - buttocks.

    3. Re:Concurrent COI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The only problem with this is that no one has sued Google, outside of Oracle. The cases were against other companies and not Google itself. It's definitely dishonest, but then again it's lawyers. They probably have plenty of wiggle room to steer clear of any real problems.

    4. Re:Concurrent COI by FrankSchwab · · Score: 2

      No mod points today, but this is spot on - Legally, there isn't a problem here. However, it seems like a poor strategy to follow if you want to keep Google as a client...

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    5. Re:Concurrent COI by gpmanrpi · · Score: 2

      Well I assume they would have violated actual rules in their jurisdiction. Some states have more flexible conflict rules. If we are assuming California, I would have no idea. But to give the allegory in Florida where I am licensed, they would need to alert the clients of the conflict and then most likely withdraw. If the same attorneys worked on both sides of cases they could be in real trouble. They may have to repay legal fees as well, and they may be then disciplined depending on the nature of the harm caused, etc. If there was malicious intent then that would again be another worse can of worms. Bar associations take this kind of violation seriously, large firms pay money for software to manage such conflicts.

    6. Re:Concurrent COI by m.ducharme · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Other than the problem of losing one of their biggest - if not the biggest - clients.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
  7. What conflict of interest? by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's no conflict; the lawyer's interests are perfectly consistent.

  8. Re:retards. by game+kid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Plus, they were probably using Windows Notepad, which almost never seems to be deterred by that sort of thing when it opens a file. It's like it has...connections...

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  9. Re:haha by pscottdv · · Score: 2

    If only they knew of a quick and easy way to do a search like that.

    --

    this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

  10. Re:Google should call IBM by darkonc · · Score: 2

    We're not *quite* post SCO... The bankrupt ghost of SCO is still trying to push pieces of the lawsuit through the courts.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  11. Re:What kind of Slashdot is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    No - but it should be!

  12. Re:What kind of Slashdot is this? by gman003 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The differences, of course.

    First, there's no history of violence against lawyers. There's never been (to my knowledge) a lawyer genocide, or a lawyer slavery. Remarks about racial discrimination, even in jest, are at best uncomfortable because there was once some sincerity to it.

    Second, people cannot choose their race. I did not choose to be Caucasian. But people can, with very few exceptions, choose their profession - I chose to become a programmer, lawyers chose to become lawyers.

    That's why it's funny. Because there's none of the uncomfortable realness that comes with race-based jokes.

  13. Re:never trust a lawyer * by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    * Except NYCL!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  14. "You Screwed Up" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    You trusted us.

    No honour amongst thieves.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  15. Wake Up, Google! by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't you just hate it when you strengthen a system, like patents, and it gets worse, and you strengthen it even more, and it gets worse, and you strengthen it still more, and it gets worse?

    Psst -- Google, Apple, Motorola, Microsoft, IBM -- come here, I want to tell you something.

    When the machine that you have built is moving too much revenue from the producers to the inventors; you can fix it by making it move less revenue from the producers to the inventors. When producing for the customer is paying less and less, and having lawyers and patents is paying more and more, and it is leading to wild legal thickets that make it unattractive to produce things for the customer, the system is out of balance. Much like copyright, the answer to a malfunctioning patent system is not always stricter patents. Sometimes the answer is weaker patents. You should be able to see that pretty clearly from where you are standing. Just open your damned eyes.

    You are getting hoist by your own petard. Wake up and figure it out, already. You own the government now, so we can't do anything to help you. You've got to tell the legislators you own to cut back on patent strength, or you -- and all of us, not that you give a shit -- but you are going to lose all you have built.

    Ask yourself this: Are we having more problems with companies not bothering to come up with cool new patentable things? Or are we having more problems with companies squabbling over who is allowed to build which things? If the bigger problem is the latter, it means we need to reduce the rate of revenue flow or we will all lose. It is actually a pretty easy thing to control through patent policy -- strengthen it, more revenue flows, weaken it, less revenue flows; like a faucet -- you just have to open your eyes and recognize the problem.

  16. Hated of lawyers? by phorm · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't see a hatred against all lawyers, but a general distrust of the industry and a hatred of bad/immoral/etc lawyers.

    NYCL is fairly popular here, as are the folks at Groklaw (OK, P.J. is actually a paralegal). The others (patent troll lawyers, Jack Thompson, etc) are surely unpopular here, but IMHO in most cases their lack of popularity is rather warranted.

    1. Re:Hated of lawyers? by msobkow · · Score: 2

      I've dealt with some exceptionally helpful, good lawyers in my life.

      But you don't hear about them in the news. You hear about the ambulance-chasing shills, the ones who rip off their clients, the scammers who take the majority of settlement funds in class actions, etc.

      In this particular case, Google has every right to complain -- the firm exhibited extremely bad judgment in taking on this new client, due to the obvious conflict of interest. They've demonstrated that like many firms, greed overrides common sense and the law.

      As far as I'm aware, a law firm which has a conflict of interest is required by law to turn away the new client, just like a judge recusing themselves from a case where they have a conflict of interest.

      I hope Google sues them into the ground, and leaves their bodies to hang in front of the city gates as a warning to other law firms: obey the law and live to a higher standard of legal intent, OR ELSE!

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  17. Re:What kind of Slashdot is this? by mgiuca · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's like the episode of Seinfeld where Jerry's dentist is making Jewish jokes, and Jerry starts making dentist jokes. Then the dentist gets all upset because his "people" (the dentists) are oppressed, and Kramer calls Jerry an "anti-dentite". Classic.

  18. Re:What kind of Slashdot is this? by symbolset · · Score: 2

    It's an oblique Shakespeare reference.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  19. There is something wrong with my lawyer ... by perpenso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In my experience lawyers exist to extract money from clients.

    When I told my lawyer that I needed a EULA for an iPhone / iPad app and gave him a list of concerns, he called me back 15 minutes later to say that Apple's App Store EULA covers third parties like me and that my listed concerns are covered there. That I didn't need my own EULA.

    There must be something wrong with my lawyer, he served me well rather than extract the maximum amount of money. YMMV.

  20. Re:What kind of Slashdot is this? by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Funny

    First, there's no history of violence against lawyers. There's never been (to my knowledge) a lawyer genocide,

    When you point things like that out, it really makes me depressed about the nature of humanity and society.

    I mean... why the hell not?!

  21. Been going on for over half a century. by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In 1958, my grandfather worked for Purina and was severely injured falling four stories down an elevator shaft. The elevator had no doors. He was a complete invalid until he died ten years later. His and my grandmother's lives were living hells.

    Grandma spoke to a few lawyers in the area, all of whom told her she she had no case, despite Purina's obvious negligence.

    My dad found out later that Purina had every lawyer in the state on its payroll. It's disgusting what lawyers who are owned by soulless corporations will do for their dirty money.