Two excellent books which made me question why I had my email pushed to me, notifications popping up, looked at work email before I went to bed and so on. Switching email to "pull" (both work and personal, both mobile and computer), not having work email enabled on my phone unless I actually needed it, and minimising distractions ("silent" on my phone means no vibrations either — no distractions), I've found that I get a lot more done in a given period of time (may sound silly, but "Getting Things Done" did a lot for me here, too), and am generally more relaxed.
I'm a huge fan of being connected, but this experience has made me realise I truly value having connectivity available when I want it, rather than letting things rule me.
Therefore, the effect of the failure of the product to perform *as advertised* constitutes a material breach of contract, one which should be pursued for restitution and remedy.
Absolutely — provided that this term is actually incorporated into the contract, which is the key issue here. (Let's assume that English law applies here.)
Although the term is an "implied term," and thus can exist even if it is not written into a contract (if there is a written contract) or expressly stated as part of the agreement, there's no general principle of law which says that implied terms cannot be excluded. Instead, we have to look to specific laws on this.
(2) As against a person dealing as consumer, liability for breach of the obligations arising from—
(a) section 13, 14, or 15 of the 1979 Act (sellers’s implied undertakings as to conformity of goods with description or sample, or as to their quality or fitness for a particular purpose);...
cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any contract term.
As such, in a contract where one party deals as a consumer, the section you reference cannot be excluded — but there is no such prohibition in contracts between businesses. There is debate as to what it means to "deal as a consumer," though — could a business deal as a consumer for a particular transaction? It would be a question of fact in each case, but there's an argument that, yes, it could.
So whilst there's no definite prohibition on excluding this term in a business to business transaction, businesses are not entirely out of luck, although by virtue of s6(3), there is a variable at play, which makes the position less certain:
(3) As against a person dealing otherwise than as consumer, the liability specified in subsection (2) above can be excluded or restricted by reference to a contract term, but only in so far as the term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
The business would need to look and see whether liability was excluded under the contract. If there's nothing saying that the term is excluded, brilliant. If the contract does attempt to exclude liability, the business would need to argue that this exclusion was unreasonable:
... the requirement of reasonableness... is that the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made. (s11(1))
This would be a question of fact, highly dependent on the circumstances. If the exclusion clause is unreasonable, the implied term as to fitness for purpose stands. If it is reasonable, it falls.
I can only speak from my experience, but getting a general "fitness for purpose" clause in a business contract is rare — it's a very broad warranty to give. More likely, I would have thought, is that the seller will have excluded the term, and the hotel will either need to make an argument about reasonableness of the exclusion, or else dig through its agreement to see whether the product failed to comply with an agreed specification or to a particular performance level, or anything like that.
Just my musings, could be wrong, not your lawyer, hate that one might argue I need to exclude the possibility that someone might consider this legal advice etc.
If you do go for a tablet, be strict about keeping Wi-Fi off. Else you'll find yourself posting on Slashdot and not reading. The more capable the device, the more discipline required to get anything done, I reckon...
.... and, in my opinion, if you want to read for pleasure, something with an eInk screen is the way to go. I've read tens of thousands of pages on my iPad over the past two years, on both the first gen iPad and, latterly, the iPad 3, and, were it not for the need to mark up / annotate my reading, I'd have much preferred an eInk screen; reading on the iPad has been tough on the eyes, and, whilst far from heavy, it's not ideal for reading over long periods of time.
When I read for pleasure, I used a Sony 505, and, before that, a COOL-ER reader. Each had its flaws, but, for the simple act of displaying a page in an easy-on-the-eye manner, they were streets ahead of the iPad. They are different things, for sure — I'm happy with my iPad for annotating my reading, as I tend to read mostly academic works now, and, when I do read for pleasure, I use the iPad, simply because it's with me, and the best book is the one I have to hand. But if I were looking for something to read for pleasure, I'd go for eInk, whether a Kindle or something else.
Oh, and I'd make sure I had DeDRM and Calibre installed, to ensure that I can read any book I purchase on any software client I like:)
The concentrations you are suggesting would be worthless.
I can only relate to my experience, but I agree — when I was in the jungle/rainforest part of Sabah, Borneo, we attempted to use DEET to keep the mosquitos from landing on us. The stuff from camping stores seemed to attract, rather than repel them — even going up to as higher percentage as we had with us (around 90%, from memory), and it was not much use, even when applied directly to the (small areas) of exposed skin.
Covering up as much skin as possible, and hoping that the mosquitos found others in the group more attractive, were pretty much the only successful approaches.
"public safety purposes" -- if public safety were reliant on wifi, someone surely screwed up.
That was my view, hence thinking that there might have been some other document covering Wi-Fi; restricting on the basis of private property rights is far easier than requiring legislation, though, noting that the Regulations cover areas much greater than the Olympic sites.
Use the lecture as a way to get an introduction to a topic — you'll be doing reading on the subjects anyway, in more depth than you hear about them in lectures, so focus on taking effective notes from reading instead.
(I'm just finishing a distance learning masters, and have done just this; listen to the podcasts, and then focus on taking notes from the reading.)
Wifi interference is not prohibited, operating Wifi devices on their private property is. Two completely different things.
I agree with you completely. Looking at what Ofcom wrote a couple of years back, I was under the impression that particularly rules were to be drawn up on this, rather than relying on the exclusionary right of a property owner, but this may well not be the case.
I have serious doupt about the legallity of this action in light of RF frequency allocation and usage rules. If it is an open and unregulated band for wifi, BT has not right what so ever to ask someone to turn of an access point.
Ofcom was certainly interested in this. In it's 2009 publication "The Spectrum Plan for the London 2012 Games," Ofcom said:
4.91 Certain equipment may be exempted in the UK from the requirement to be licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 because its use is not likely to cause harmful interference. Experience from past Games has shown, however, that the unusual concentration of such equipment in particular venues can create the potential for localised harmful interference.
4.92 We are exploring with LOCOG how such use can best be controlled and/or coordinated to avoid any disruption to the smooth running of the London 2012 Games. Practical measures (e.g. preventing certain types of equipment from being brought into London 2012 Games venues or actively coordinating use between users) have proved successful at past Games.
4.93 The Met Office raised concerns in its response about the need to protect the use of its radars and the importance of the information provided by these radars to the London 2012 Games. Ofcom will carry out a detailed study of the protection of meteorological radars from WLANs and will consider how WLAN use can best be controlled and/or coordinated to avoid any disruption to the meteorological radars.
It also appears, from the same document that the Vancouver Games took a slightly different approach:
4.95 During the Vancouver Games, VANOC will be providing both wired and, in certain high-traffic locations such as the Olympic and Paralympic Villages, the MPC and the Media Centre, WLAN Internet services. Within Olympic Net Zone wireless hotspots, use of personal WLAN routers will not be permitted. Use of WLAN routers will be permitted in designated locations outside these Zones. Anyone bringing in their own WLAN services will have to use the 5000 MHz band and the 802.11a networking standard. They will not be able to use the 2400 MHz band (802.11 b/g/n) or selected channels at 5000 MHz (802.11 a/n). VANOC will stipulate the SIDH and channel assignment.
The requirement is that between 26th July 2012 and 10th September 2012 apparatus must when in use operate at a sufficiently low intensity of electromagnetic energy such that it does not cause undue interference with wireless telegraphy used for public safety purposes within a protection area.
I've yet to find the basis on which Wi-Fi interference is verboten, but I would have thought there's a document out there somewhere...
So, whatever a "television receiver" might be, mere ownership or possession of one does not require a licence — the requirement only kicks in if the receiver is "installed or used." ("Using" a TV means "using it for receiving television programmes" (s368(3)); using it for anything else (e.g. as a monitor for gaming, or for displaying DVDs) is not "use," although, if that was its use, I'd want to make sure it was not tuned for receiving programmes, or anything else which could be used to argue that it had been "installed".)
"Television receiver" is defined in another piece of legislation, The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004:
"any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose."
(The repetition of "installed or used" in the definition of "television receiver" makes the s393(1) requirement somewhat circular, but ho hum...)
Further:
any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.
A "television programme service" is not necessarily limited to something which enables a programme to be received "at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by broadcast recipients, as the definition is that the reference to it "includes" this, rather than solely consists of it. However, TV Licensing considers that "catch-up services, like BBC iPlayer or 4oD" are not within the scope of the definition. The BBC's "No Licence Needed Policy" supports this, commenting that a licence is not required for "receiving programmes by means of a
DVD or the on-demand elements of services such as i-Player."
The end result is that watching something which is being broadcast to television receivers live or near live requires a licence — it is this "watching" which, absent a licence, is illegal. Proxying to access on-demand content, whilst potentially an infringement of copyright (and potentially an infringement on the part of the serving provider), does not mean that the requirement for a licence is breached. It is possible to watch a TV programme without a licence, fully in compliance with the law, and I would have thought that quite a few people take that option these days.
So you are "stealing".
There are certainly circumstances in which the body responsible for collecting licence fees considers that watching TV programming without a licence is not stealing, even if the law is not crystal clear on this. Whether these people are morally wrong if they watch a lot of programs on iPlayer and so on is perhaps akin to the tax avoidance debate — they are benefitting from something for which others are paying, but are not committing any legal wrong in doing so.
I waited a couple of days, to check that there were no obvious glitches on loading, and then went for it — I wanted it for one thing only, really, and that was a bug fix: faster logging in after opening the screen / coming out from sleep/hibernation/whatever it is.
The prosecution isn't supposed to try the case and decide who's guilty.
Absolutely.
What might be worth considering, however, is that the prosecution does have a duty to determine whether bringing a case is in the public interest:
In 1951, Sir Hartley Shawcross, who was then Attorney General, made the classic statement on public interest: "[i]t has never been the rule in this country - I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution". He added that there should be a prosecution: "wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest" (House of Commons Debates, Volume 483, 29 January 1951). This approach has been endorsed by Attorneys General ever since.
The judges noted there was no evidence before the Crown Court to suggest any of the followers of the ”tweet“, or anyone else who may have seen it posted on Mr Chambers' timeline, found it to be of a menacing character or, at a time when the threat of terrorism was real, even minimally alarming. (My emphasis)
Following the test set out in the Code, and taking into account the common public interest factors for and against prosecution, I am surprised that this prosecution would pass the public interest test, given a lack of evidence of harm, or of anyone finding it menacing.
Before I'm going to take the risk in upgrading, or even considering whether I want to upgrade, I'll be waiting to hear about other experiences — upgrading a machine on which you rely at the very first (public) opportunity sounds like a recipe for pain to me... Long reviews on tech. sites are all well and good, but there's nothing like finding out how others in the same position as you have fared before taking the jump.
people say IT folks have a hard time seeing the business side of things. I would argue that lawyers are FAR worse.
Time to get new lawyers, then!
(Or, better still, give them a copy of something like "Getting To Yes" or "Crucial Conversations" — if you have always been trained to be aggressive and forceful, just having your eyes opened to another way of dealing might help. I know I learned a lot from each of these — legal training in the UK is pretty commercial, and a pretty much guaranteed question at an interview for a legal role (at a trainee level) would be around "commercial awareness", but, despite training here, these (and other) books made me think about how to approach different situations. Frankly, I'd have thought anyone who works with other people could benefit from reading them, lawyer or not!)
What incentive does a lawyer have to be non-combatitive?
Preserving the company's brand, and likely closing down the issue quickly and efficiently, potentially even winning an advocate of the brand in the process?
If it leads to a huge battle, the company isn't going to blame the lawyer for being to combative, since he is just fighting for them.
If you've got a lawyer who can only litigate, I'd have thought you have a liability on your hands — far better someone who can assess the commercial implications along with the law, and come up with a sensible plan. If you want to reach a conclusion quickly and easily, litigation is perhaps the worst, and most expensive, way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
Or because it is a better means of escapism than reading cod-psychology online?
Thank you!
Interesting. There's got to be a short story in that (if there is not already)...
Two excellent books which made me question why I had my email pushed to me, notifications popping up, looked at work email before I went to bed and so on. Switching email to "pull" (both work and personal, both mobile and computer), not having work email enabled on my phone unless I actually needed it, and minimising distractions ("silent" on my phone means no vibrations either — no distractions), I've found that I get a lot more done in a given period of time (may sound silly, but "Getting Things Done" did a lot for me here, too), and am generally more relaxed.
I'm a huge fan of being connected, but this experience has made me realise I truly value having connectivity available when I want it, rather than letting things rule me.
Therefore, the effect of the failure of the product to perform *as advertised* constitutes a material breach of contract, one which should be pursued for restitution and remedy.
Absolutely — provided that this term is actually incorporated into the contract, which is the key issue here. (Let's assume that English law applies here.)
Although the term is an "implied term," and thus can exist even if it is not written into a contract (if there is a written contract) or expressly stated as part of the agreement, there's no general principle of law which says that implied terms cannot be excluded. Instead, we have to look to specific laws on this.
For this particular term, section 6 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 provides that:
(2) As against a person dealing as consumer, liability for breach of the obligations arising from— (a) section 13, 14, or 15 of the 1979 Act (sellers’s implied undertakings as to conformity of goods with description or sample, or as to their quality or fitness for a particular purpose); ...
cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any contract term.
As such, in a contract where one party deals as a consumer, the section you reference cannot be excluded — but there is no such prohibition in contracts between businesses. There is debate as to what it means to "deal as a consumer," though — could a business deal as a consumer for a particular transaction? It would be a question of fact in each case, but there's an argument that, yes, it could.
So whilst there's no definite prohibition on excluding this term in a business to business transaction, businesses are not entirely out of luck, although by virtue of s6(3), there is a variable at play, which makes the position less certain:
(3) As against a person dealing otherwise than as consumer, the liability specified in subsection (2) above can be excluded or restricted by reference to a contract term, but only in so far as the term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
The business would need to look and see whether liability was excluded under the contract. If there's nothing saying that the term is excluded, brilliant. If the contract does attempt to exclude liability, the business would need to argue that this exclusion was unreasonable:
... the requirement of reasonableness ... is that the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made. (s11(1))
This would be a question of fact, highly dependent on the circumstances. If the exclusion clause is unreasonable, the implied term as to fitness for purpose stands. If it is reasonable, it falls.
I can only speak from my experience, but getting a general "fitness for purpose" clause in a business contract is rare — it's a very broad warranty to give. More likely, I would have thought, is that the seller will have excluded the term, and the hotel will either need to make an argument about reasonableness of the exclusion, or else dig through its agreement to see whether the product failed to comply with an agreed specification or to a particular performance level, or anything like that.
Just my musings, could be wrong, not your lawyer, hate that one might argue I need to exclude the possibility that someone might consider this legal advice etc.
If you do go for a tablet, be strict about keeping Wi-Fi off. Else you'll find yourself posting on Slashdot and not reading. The more capable the device, the more discipline required to get anything done, I reckon...
When I read for pleasure, I used a Sony 505, and, before that, a COOL-ER reader. Each had its flaws, but, for the simple act of displaying a page in an easy-on-the-eye manner, they were streets ahead of the iPad. They are different things, for sure — I'm happy with my iPad for annotating my reading, as I tend to read mostly academic works now, and, when I do read for pleasure, I use the iPad, simply because it's with me, and the best book is the one I have to hand. But if I were looking for something to read for pleasure, I'd go for eInk, whether a Kindle or something else.
Oh, and I'd make sure I had DeDRM and Calibre installed, to ensure that I can read any book I purchase on any software client I like :)
The concentrations you are suggesting would be worthless.
I can only relate to my experience, but I agree — when I was in the jungle/rainforest part of Sabah, Borneo, we attempted to use DEET to keep the mosquitos from landing on us. The stuff from camping stores seemed to attract, rather than repel them — even going up to as higher percentage as we had with us (around 90%, from memory), and it was not much use, even when applied directly to the (small areas) of exposed skin.
Covering up as much skin as possible, and hoping that the mosquitos found others in the group more attractive, were pretty much the only successful approaches.
"public safety purposes" -- if public safety were reliant on wifi, someone surely screwed up.
That was my view, hence thinking that there might have been some other document covering Wi-Fi; restricting on the basis of private property rights is far easier than requiring legislation, though, noting that the Regulations cover areas much greater than the Olympic sites.
Use the lecture as a way to get an introduction to a topic — you'll be doing reading on the subjects anyway, in more depth than you hear about them in lectures, so focus on taking effective notes from reading instead.
(I'm just finishing a distance learning masters, and have done just this; listen to the podcasts, and then focus on taking notes from the reading.)
Wifi interference is not prohibited, operating Wifi devices on their private property is. Two completely different things.
I agree with you completely. Looking at what Ofcom wrote a couple of years back, I was under the impression that particularly rules were to be drawn up on this, rather than relying on the exclusionary right of a property owner, but this may well not be the case.
In it's
Oop's*
*intentional, this time...
I have serious doupt about the legallity of this action in light of RF frequency allocation and usage rules. If it is an open and unregulated band for wifi, BT has not right what so ever to ask someone to turn of an access point.
Ofcom was certainly interested in this. In it's 2009 publication "The Spectrum Plan for the London 2012 Games," Ofcom said:
4.91 Certain equipment may be exempted in the UK from the requirement to be licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 because its use is not likely to cause harmful interference. Experience from past Games has shown, however, that the unusual concentration of such equipment in particular venues can create the potential for localised harmful interference.
4.92 We are exploring with LOCOG how such use can best be controlled and/or coordinated to avoid any disruption to the smooth running of the London 2012 Games. Practical measures (e.g. preventing certain types of equipment from being brought into London 2012 Games venues or actively coordinating use between users) have proved successful at past Games.
4.93 The Met Office raised concerns in its response about the need to protect the use of its radars and the importance of the information provided by these radars to the London 2012 Games. Ofcom will carry out a detailed study of the protection of meteorological radars from WLANs and will consider how WLAN use can best be controlled and/or coordinated to avoid any disruption to the meteorological radars.
It also appears, from the same document that the Vancouver Games took a slightly different approach:
4.95 During the Vancouver Games, VANOC will be providing both wired and, in certain high-traffic locations such as the Olympic and Paralympic Villages, the MPC and the Media Centre, WLAN Internet services. Within Olympic Net Zone wireless hotspots, use of personal WLAN routers will not be permitted. Use of WLAN routers will be permitted in designated locations outside these Zones. Anyone bringing in their own WLAN services will have to use the 5000 MHz band and the 802.11a networking standard. They will not be able to use the 2400 MHz band (802.11 b/g/n) or selected channels at 5000 MHz (802.11 a/n). VANOC will stipulate the SIDH and channel assignment.
The Wireless Telegraphy (Control of Interference from Apparatus) (The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Regulations 2012 were certainly part of the legal basis for tackling interference, but these regulations are limited to interference with wireless communications for public safety purposes:
Regulation 5(1):
The requirement is that between 26th July 2012 and 10th September 2012 apparatus must when in use operate at a sufficiently low intensity of electromagnetic energy such that it does not cause undue interference with wireless telegraphy used for public safety purposes within a protection area.
I've yet to find the basis on which Wi-Fi interference is verboten, but I would have thought there's a document out there somewhere...
we all have to pay a T.V. licence fee. ... Watching without paying is illegal.
It's certainly the case that certain "watching" is illegal absent a licence, but it might be worth being clear as to what is required here:
A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence..
Communications Act 2003, s393(1)
So, whatever a "television receiver" might be, mere ownership or possession of one does not require a licence — the requirement only kicks in if the receiver is "installed or used." ("Using" a TV means "using it for receiving television programmes" (s368(3)); using it for anything else (e.g. as a monitor for gaming, or for displaying DVDs) is not "use," although, if that was its use, I'd want to make sure it was not tuned for receiving programmes, or anything else which could be used to argue that it had been "installed".)
"Television receiver" is defined in another piece of legislation, The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004:
"any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose."
(The repetition of "installed or used" in the definition of "television receiver" makes the s393(1) requirement somewhat circular, but ho hum...)
Further:
any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.
A "television programme service" is not necessarily limited to something which enables a programme to be received "at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by broadcast recipients, as the definition is that the reference to it "includes" this, rather than solely consists of it. However, TV Licensing considers that "catch-up services, like BBC iPlayer or 4oD" are not within the scope of the definition. The BBC's "No Licence Needed Policy" supports this, commenting that a licence is not required for "receiving programmes by means of a DVD or the on-demand elements of services such as i-Player."
The end result is that watching something which is being broadcast to television receivers live or near live requires a licence — it is this "watching" which, absent a licence, is illegal. Proxying to access on-demand content, whilst potentially an infringement of copyright (and potentially an infringement on the part of the serving provider), does not mean that the requirement for a licence is breached. It is possible to watch a TV programme without a licence, fully in compliance with the law, and I would have thought that quite a few people take that option these days.
So you are "stealing".
There are certainly circumstances in which the body responsible for collecting licence fees considers that watching TV programming without a licence is not stealing, even if the law is not crystal clear on this. Whether these people are morally wrong if they watch a lot of programs on iPlayer and so on is perhaps akin to the tax avoidance debate — they are benefitting from something for which others are paying, but are not committing any legal wrong in doing so.
What feature is it that people are after?
I waited a couple of days, to check that there were no obvious glitches on loading, and then went for it — I wanted it for one thing only, really, and that was a bug fix: faster logging in after opening the screen / coming out from sleep/hibernation/whatever it is.
No change, no functional differences, no interface differences, but must involve Linux.
Sounds like a Linux box to satisfy you, running just a Windows VM for your users who seem more than happy on Windows...
The prosecution isn't supposed to try the case and decide who's guilty.
Absolutely.
What might be worth considering, however, is that the prosecution does have a duty to determine whether bringing a case is in the public interest:
In 1951, Sir Hartley Shawcross, who was then Attorney General, made the classic statement on public interest: "[i]t has never been the rule in this country - I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution". He added that there should be a prosecution: "wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest" (House of Commons Debates, Volume 483, 29 January 1951). This approach has been endorsed by Attorneys General ever since.
From "The Code for Crown Prosecutors," at paragraph 10 of section 4.
The article in the summary provides that:
The judges noted there was no evidence before the Crown Court to suggest any of the followers of the ”tweet“, or anyone else who may have seen it posted on Mr Chambers' timeline, found it to be of a menacing character or, at a time when the threat of terrorism was real, even minimally alarming. (My emphasis)
Following the test set out in the Code, and taking into account the common public interest factors for and against prosecution, I am surprised that this prosecution would pass the public interest test, given a lack of evidence of harm, or of anyone finding it menacing.
post about a review of a review of a review.
Whereas this is a response to a comment on a post about a review of a review of a review.
1000 different text editors and solitaire clones
Don't forget text editors which run solitaire!
Or is that a solitaire game which permits text editing...?
Before I'm going to take the risk in upgrading, or even considering whether I want to upgrade, I'll be waiting to hear about other experiences — upgrading a machine on which you rely at the very first (public) opportunity sounds like a recipe for pain to me... Long reviews on tech. sites are all well and good, but there's nothing like finding out how others in the same position as you have fared before taking the jump.
You accidentally swapped amperes and voltages.
Amperes and volts, surely? Else current and voltage.
people say IT folks have a hard time seeing the business side of things. I would argue that lawyers are FAR worse.
Time to get new lawyers, then!
(Or, better still, give them a copy of something like "Getting To Yes" or "Crucial Conversations" — if you have always been trained to be aggressive and forceful, just having your eyes opened to another way of dealing might help. I know I learned a lot from each of these — legal training in the UK is pretty commercial, and a pretty much guaranteed question at an interview for a legal role (at a trainee level) would be around "commercial awareness", but, despite training here, these (and other) books made me think about how to approach different situations. Frankly, I'd have thought anyone who works with other people could benefit from reading them, lawyer or not!)
Presumably making the facility's urinals the P-spot?
Atlantis?
What incentive does a lawyer have to be non-combatitive?
Preserving the company's brand, and likely closing down the issue quickly and efficiently, potentially even winning an advocate of the brand in the process?
If it leads to a huge battle, the company isn't going to blame the lawyer for being to combative, since he is just fighting for them.
If you've got a lawyer who can only litigate, I'd have thought you have a liability on your hands — far better someone who can assess the commercial implications along with the law, and come up with a sensible plan. If you want to reach a conclusion quickly and easily, litigation is perhaps the worst, and most expensive, way to go.