4 ms·

PG, I know you aren't inviting them to your demo day, but I hope you can commit to not not doing business with the law firms on this list and also not sharing l

by htsh 15y ago

PG, I know you aren't inviting them to your demo day, but I hope you can commit to not not doing business with the law firms on this list and also not sharing law firms with these old-media dinosaurs like ESPN and the NFL. If ESPN hires a law firm to write this bad law which will likely hurt your business in the future, doesn't it make sense to advise your clients to not hire that same law firm? As someone who has worked with both, it's clear that the Entrenched Big Law model & the Disruptive Startup Model are obviously incompatible and the more we can do to move away from these conflicted monoliths the better we can actually affect real reform. This will require some work and likely even severing an old business relationship or two, but these small changes from someone like you and a peer or 2 can have immeasurable effect. 1 Paul Graham taking business away from 1 Big Law Firm will do more than thousands of us can.

DanLivesHere 15y ago
By and large, the law firms shouldn't be on the list. Some lawyers wrote a letter arguing that the Constitutional concerns around SOPA are non-issues; Rep. Lamar Smith and co. used that letter as a basis for including many of the firms on the official list of SOPA supporters. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/09051617180/law-firms-removing-their-name-sopa-supporters-list-sopa-support-crumbling.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/09051617180/law-fi...
- htsh 15y ago
  This does not change the fact that ESPN's law firm working with other big law firms wrote large chunks of this bad law just the way their clients wanted it. Or that lawyers at law firms don't just willy-nilly write or sign these letters for free, they do it on behalf of their SOPA-supporting clients while receiving a paycheck from the law firm who their SOPA-supporting-client has hired. Again, that's why I made the point about sharing law firms. All it's saying is "I'm not doing business with these lawyers who I think are being paid by clients to help them censor the internet." And though the law firm isn't saying "our entire law firm supports this law," they are saying "our lawyer looked at this law for our client and she did find constitutional problems with it even though that is not the position of the entire firm." As I explained below I can understand why the latter isn't so troubling to some but I think the incentives these firms face are the same once they are in the business of protecting ESPN's interests. And it will not change the fact that startups not working with ESPNs law firm will 1 - Give business to lawyers who do believe censoring the internet is unconstitutional & 2 - Remove an obvious and blatant conflict of interest. I'm just saying, do we really want our startups to be working with the same network of big law firms that helped Disney extend copyright law duration to infinity 100 years ago? These big law firms obviously have their interests in protecting old streams of business -- I would too.
  - chc 15y ago
    The point is that the firms themselves were not behind SOPA. If you're suggesting that we shouldn't deal with any businesses that employ anyone who supports SOPA, I think you're a little off the rails here. That won't help anything and just makes us look unreasonable.
    - htsh 15y ago
      These aren't just employees who signed these letters independently. They were asked by a client to sign onto the letter which agrees with the clients interests. They sign these precisely because the client of the firm paid them to. While I was at a firm we signed onto letters or drafted our own for clients all the time (and it was precisely b/c it helped get the laws through, so call it what you want -- i know I don't mind "support" though I can see how some object to the technicality). In laymen's terms, client shows up and says "we need this law to go through we'd like to hire a lawyer to write an independent legal opinion letter to the court to help them make their decision. Or maybe you guys can sign on to this guy's already written letter? We'll pay you for it, of course." The techdirt article points this out too. When there's a law up for debate which a client wants to get through they try to get these letters in to make it more likely the law will pass. And yes this is different from official "support" which is saying "we the law firm want this law to pass." This is more like "our lawyer looked at this for our client and he does not think it's unconstitutional though this is not the position of the entire firm." To me, that's still bad but I completely understand if others are okay with it. Reasonable men can and do disagree about a lot of things.
    - wtallis 15y ago
      Law firms aren't supposed to take on clients with conflicting interests. If a firm has helped one of their clients lobby in support of SOPA, they shouldn't accept clients who depend on fair use or DMCA Safe Harbor.
      - htsh 15y ago
        well should is a strong word. and if you are a startup it's very possible that you don't depend on a fair use / DMCA Safe Harbor argument now but will in the unpredictable future so it's unlikely a client will ever get rejected for that potential conflict. Is it really wise to get in bed with ESPN in the first place? that's all I'm saying. I am not and will not be the first to argue that sharing lawyers with those on opposite sides of important legislation with you is a bad idea.

by htsh 15y ago

DanLivesHere 15y ago

By and large, the law firms shouldn't be on the list. Some lawyers wrote a letter arguing that the Constitutional concerns around SOPA are non-issues; Rep. Lamar Smith and co. used that letter as a basis for including many of the firms on the official list of SOPA supporters. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/09051617180/law-firms-removing-their-name-sopa-supporters-list-sopa-support-crumbling.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/09051617180/law-fi...

htsh 15y ago
This does not change the fact that ESPN's law firm working with other big law firms wrote large chunks of this bad law just the way their clients wanted it. Or that lawyers at law firms don't just willy-nilly write or sign these letters for free, they do it on behalf of their SOPA-supporting clients while receiving a paycheck from the law firm who their SOPA-supporting-client has hired. Again, that's why I made the point about sharing law firms. All it's saying is "I'm not doing business with these lawyers who I think are being paid by clients to help them censor the internet." And though the law firm isn't saying "our entire law firm supports this law," they are saying "our lawyer looked at this law for our client and she did find constitutional problems with it even though that is not the position of the entire firm." As I explained below I can understand why the latter isn't so troubling to some but I think the incentives these firms face are the same once they are in the business of protecting ESPN's interests. And it will not change the fact that startups not working with ESPNs law firm will 1 - Give business to lawyers who do believe censoring the internet is unconstitutional & 2 - Remove an obvious and blatant conflict of interest. I'm just saying, do we really want our startups to be working with the same network of big law firms that helped Disney extend copyright law duration to infinity 100 years ago? These big law firms obviously have their interests in protecting old streams of business -- I would too.
- chc 15y ago
  The point is that the firms themselves were not behind SOPA. If you're suggesting that we shouldn't deal with any businesses that employ anyone who supports SOPA, I think you're a little off the rails here. That won't help anything and just makes us look unreasonable.
  - htsh 15y ago
    These aren't just employees who signed these letters independently. They were asked by a client to sign onto the letter which agrees with the clients interests. They sign these precisely because the client of the firm paid them to. While I was at a firm we signed onto letters or drafted our own for clients all the time (and it was precisely b/c it helped get the laws through, so call it what you want -- i know I don't mind "support" though I can see how some object to the technicality). In laymen's terms, client shows up and says "we need this law to go through we'd like to hire a lawyer to write an independent legal opinion letter to the court to help them make their decision. Or maybe you guys can sign on to this guy's already written letter? We'll pay you for it, of course." The techdirt article points this out too. When there's a law up for debate which a client wants to get through they try to get these letters in to make it more likely the law will pass. And yes this is different from official "support" which is saying "we the law firm want this law to pass." This is more like "our lawyer looked at this for our client and he does not think it's unconstitutional though this is not the position of the entire firm." To me, that's still bad but I completely understand if others are okay with it. Reasonable men can and do disagree about a lot of things.
  - wtallis 15y ago
    Law firms aren't supposed to take on clients with conflicting interests. If a firm has helped one of their clients lobby in support of SOPA, they shouldn't accept clients who depend on fair use or DMCA Safe Harbor.
    - htsh 15y ago
      well should is a strong word. and if you are a startup it's very possible that you don't depend on a fair use / DMCA Safe Harbor argument now but will in the unpredictable future so it's unlikely a client will ever get rejected for that potential conflict. Is it really wise to get in bed with ESPN in the first place? that's all I'm saying. I am not and will not be the first to argue that sharing lawyers with those on opposite sides of important legislation with you is a bad idea.