4 ms·

"""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 infi

"""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 business -- I would too.""" The law firms care about what their clients care about. If a startup is paying them, they care about the startup's concerns. The problem lies with the legislators, lobbyists and big media companies --not with lawyers. It's like arguing you wouldn't want to do business with a lawyer who works with murderers and such! Well, the whole point of the law system is that EVERYONE gets their defense.

htsh 15y ago
My point is simply that if a startup is paying a law firm & that ESPN is paying a law firm then maybe the law firm cares more about ESPN's business in case of conflicts. I do not think that is as unreasonable as your hysterical response makes it out to be. They are not saying "we the firm support SOPA" but they are saying "our lawyer looked at this law for our client and he finds it constitutional though this is not the position of the entire firm." I can understand if you're not disturbed by the latter but I think a simple incentive analysis should make it clear why I'm not the first to argue against sharing law firms with those on the opposite sides of controversial issues facing the court. A simple hypothetical should explain it: ESPN wants SOPA, they get their lawyer to sign a letter which says the law looks fine. Let's say the law threatens the startup's business at the same time, maybe the law firm isn't as likely to write or sign a letter arguing against the law if it means it upsets ESPN. End result, more lawyers at these firms sign on to SOPA and you end up with what appears like considerably more support for that side from the legal community simply b/c bigger clients support the law than those that oppose it. Really -- my point is simply that you don't need to hire a 5000 lawyer firm who also represents ESPN & the NFL when a 20 lawyer firm will do. I believe that is in line with the startup ethic as well. And again that's not my point at all to not work with lawyers who work with murderers -- your statement of my position is a straw man at best and a dishonest mischaracterization at worst. I'm not saying ESPN did anything wrong here -- I'm saying ESPN disagrees with your startup's positions and it is paying that law firm to do what it can to win and hold their position. Maybe it's not a good idea to hire the firm if you don't like the law, you know?
- dextorious 15y ago
  """My point is simply that if a startup is paying a law firm & that ESPN is paying a law firm then maybe the law firm cares more about ESPN's business in case of conflicts.""" That would be a case of mis-representation of your interests, and the lawyer/firm could face serious legal consequences. """I do not think that is as unreasonable as your hysterical response makes it out to be.""" You keep using that word, "hysterical". I don't think it means what you think it means. """They are not saying "we the firm support SOPA" but they are saying "our lawyer looked at this law for our client and he finds it constitutional though this is not the position of the entire firm." I can understand if you're not disturbed by the latter but I think a simple incentive analysis should make it clear why I'm not the first to argue against sharing law firms with those on the opposite sides of controversial issues facing the court. A simple hypothetical should explain it: ESPN wants SOPA, they get their lawyer to sign a letter which says the law looks fine. Let's say the law threatens the startup's business at the same time, maybe the law firm isn't as likely to write or sign a letter arguing against the law if it means it upsets ESPN. End result, more lawyers at these firms sign on to SOPA and you end up with what appears like considerably more support for that side from the legal community simply b/c bigger clients support the law than those that oppose it.""" Hmm. Not really familiar with how the legal system works, are we?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - htsh 15y ago
    No besides the degree, the years working at a legal clinic & the time at a firm, not so familiar. I am definitely not as familiar as an experienced lawyer but I definitely saw enough of that world to know that it is not for me and that I would rather program games. I actually never even bothered getting licensed after school but while in school I was temporarily licensed to practice in IL and even won a couple of actual hearings for actual clients working with the clinic I work with. And i only used the word hysterical once. i think you need to look up the words "keep using." I am happy to have a conversation with you but in order to do so it's necessary that you respond rather than react, you know? Maybe you can try starting with using one or two pairs of quotation marks -- do we really need 3? And I would appreciate it if you want to go ahead and explain to me what i have wrong here. Simply saying that i'm wrong without an explanation is not very useful. I am obviously open to listening to your reasoning. If you'd like to move this offline please email me at the address in my profile. Thanks for reading though -- I really do appreciate it.
Maxious 15y ago
Hear, hear! Anybody that argues otherwise should familiarise themselves with the cab rank rule - "the obligation of a barrister to accept any work in a field in which he professes himself competent to practise, at a court at which he normally appears and at his usual rates. In the absence of such a rule it might be difficult for an unpopular person to obtain legal representation, and barristers who act for such people might be criticised for doing so."

htsh 15y ago

My point is simply that if a startup is paying a law firm & that ESPN is paying a law firm then maybe the law firm cares more about ESPN's business in case of conflicts. I do not think that is as unreasonable as your hysterical response makes it out to be. They are not saying "we the firm support SOPA" but they are saying "our lawyer looked at this law for our client and he finds it constitutional though this is not the position of the entire firm." I can understand if you're not disturbed by the latter but I think a simple incentive analysis should make it clear why I'm not the first to argue against sharing law firms with those on the opposite sides of controversial issues facing the court. A simple hypothetical should explain it: ESPN wants SOPA, they get their lawyer to sign a letter which says the law looks fine. Let's say the law threatens the startup's business at the same time, maybe the law firm isn't as likely to write or sign a letter arguing against the law if it means it upsets ESPN. End result, more lawyers at these firms sign on to SOPA and you end up with what appears like considerably more support for that side from the legal community simply b/c bigger clients support the law than those that oppose it. Really -- my point is simply that you don't need to hire a 5000 lawyer firm who also represents ESPN & the NFL when a 20 lawyer firm will do. I believe that is in line with the startup ethic as well. And again that's not my point at all to not work with lawyers who work with murderers -- your statement of my position is a straw man at best and a dishonest mischaracterization at worst. I'm not saying ESPN did anything wrong here -- I'm saying ESPN disagrees with your startup's positions and it is paying that law firm to do what it can to win and hold their position. Maybe it's not a good idea to hire the firm if you don't like the law, you know?

dextorious 15y ago
"""My point is simply that if a startup is paying a law firm & that ESPN is paying a law firm then maybe the law firm cares more about ESPN's business in case of conflicts.""" That would be a case of mis-representation of your interests, and the lawyer/firm could face serious legal consequences. """I do not think that is as unreasonable as your hysterical response makes it out to be.""" You keep using that word, "hysterical". I don't think it means what you think it means. """They are not saying "we the firm support SOPA" but they are saying "our lawyer looked at this law for our client and he finds it constitutional though this is not the position of the entire firm." I can understand if you're not disturbed by the latter but I think a simple incentive analysis should make it clear why I'm not the first to argue against sharing law firms with those on the opposite sides of controversial issues facing the court. A simple hypothetical should explain it: ESPN wants SOPA, they get their lawyer to sign a letter which says the law looks fine. Let's say the law threatens the startup's business at the same time, maybe the law firm isn't as likely to write or sign a letter arguing against the law if it means it upsets ESPN. End result, more lawyers at these firms sign on to SOPA and you end up with what appears like considerably more support for that side from the legal community simply b/c bigger clients support the law than those that oppose it.""" Hmm. Not really familiar with how the legal system works, are we?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- htsh 15y ago
  No besides the degree, the years working at a legal clinic & the time at a firm, not so familiar. I am definitely not as familiar as an experienced lawyer but I definitely saw enough of that world to know that it is not for me and that I would rather program games. I actually never even bothered getting licensed after school but while in school I was temporarily licensed to practice in IL and even won a couple of actual hearings for actual clients working with the clinic I work with. And i only used the word hysterical once. i think you need to look up the words "keep using." I am happy to have a conversation with you but in order to do so it's necessary that you respond rather than react, you know? Maybe you can try starting with using one or two pairs of quotation marks -- do we really need 3? And I would appreciate it if you want to go ahead and explain to me what i have wrong here. Simply saying that i'm wrong without an explanation is not very useful. I am obviously open to listening to your reasoning. If you'd like to move this offline please email me at the address in my profile. Thanks for reading though -- I really do appreciate it.

Maxious 15y ago

Hear, hear! Anybody that argues otherwise should familiarise themselves with the cab rank rule - "the obligation of a barrister to accept any work in a field in which he professes himself competent to practise, at a court at which he normally appears and at his usual rates. In the absence of such a rule it might be difficult for an unpopular person to obtain legal representation, and barristers who act for such people might be criticised for doing so."