5 ms·
The House Judiciary supporters list is chock-full of lawyers -- one-seventh of the list has the string 'LLP' -- and therein lies a major target of opportunity f
by chernevik 15y ago
The House Judiciary supporters list is chock-full of lawyers -- one-seventh of the list has the string 'LLP' -- and therein lies a major target of opportunity for the technology industry. I doubt anyone will change their counsel over this, but they can make them explain their position.
Let every tech industry CEO, CFO and board member call their most senior contact at a supporting firm. Ask them to explain their position, ask them to explain how this _won't_ break DNS, how the precedents set here won't spread to other policy questions or countries. Don't get into balancing one industry or another -- just make them demonstrate a reasonable layperson understanding of how the internet works. The last thing a partner wants is to sound less than informed on the core technologies in their industry of expertise. If nothing else they'll have to go to school on the question.
No doubt many such partners will say they get it but the firm is larger than they are. And that's the point of a law firm, isn't it, you hire one because it provides quick access to expertise on a wide variety of subjects. But if that larger firm doesn't understand the tech business, just how prepared are they to handle technology problems in various corners of the law? Ask the M&A guy, the financing guy, the tax guy, to explain how SOPA won't break DNS.
I don't know where tech billings compare with movie and recording industry. But they aren't small: M&A, financings, patent, etc etc ad nauseum. Beyond that, the network and technology are the core of how business and industry are changing. Maybe these firms stand to gain from SOPA over the next five years. But can they, can the individual partners, afford to misunderstand the technologies that will be driving more and more clients over time? Get on the phone, not to argue, but to make them understand that they are showing an ignorance that could leave them behind.
- pan69 15y agoAll though I sympathize with your argument, it seems to be based on "reasoning". Reasoning is the one thing this government/industry ins't interested in.
- bigohms 15y agoFirms do not usually take stances on legislative matters their own. SOPA's passage significantly benefits firms' activity levels and in turn the revenue produced in the furtherance of protecting their clients' rights. While outward facing corporate positions may take a neutral or negative stance on SOPA, many overt and implicit stances are taken by their respective counsel. SOPA claims made via premptive cease and desist letters or active litigation may or may not claim SOPA in their position statements to prevent drawing clear relationships between their clients and SOPA. Most agreements come with gag clauses to further protect and guarantee the cat doesn't get out of the bag. Unfortunately, firms are notoriously good for keeping secrets, so I am not expecting Wikipedia like bombshells connecting brand X to SOPA support.
- ArbitraryLimits 15y agoBefore we go off half-cocked here, let's take a minute and ask ourselves how good a plan that relies on lawyer's being embarassed to have to argue both sides of an issue can be?
- dpe82 15y agoI was extremely alarmed to see our firm, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, on that list and immediately emailed my attorney (a partner) about it. Turns out two of their attorneys agreed to lend their names AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and made it clear their support was in no way representative of the views of the firm. Despite that, DWT got added to the list. Incredibly dirty move on the part of Rep. Smith. DWT has tweeted about it (http://twitter.com/#!/DWTLaw/status/150019649130606592 http://twitter.com/#!/DWTLaw/status/150019649130606592) and tell me they are working to get their name removed from the list. Edit: fix link
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- gcb 15y agoWhen law firms have trouble, the common man can expect Kafka experience Imagine your company name appears there days before some meeting with pg
- rmc 15y agoIt would be brilliant. It would mean if you were a tech company or involved with tech, that you would steer the hell clear of any offical/unoffical/private/corporate endorsment of any crazy laws. If some legislator asks for your "private personal support" for some crazy anti-internet law, you might remember this and not tell them anything, for fear that they'll list your company.
- marshray 15y agoTurns out two of their attorneys agreed to lend their names AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and made it clear their support was in no way representative of the views of the firm. Despite that, DWT got added to the list. Riiiight.
- dpe82 15y agoI believe them. Once upon a time I worked as a legislative aid in the WI State Senate. I saw this type of thing happen a few times where some overzealous lobbyist or staffer fudged the list of supporters for some controversial legislation. Predictably it always resulted in a gigantic shitstorm. Beats me why they try to get away with it in the first place.