Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On 5/11/06, Robin Laing <Robin.Laing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Whoa, don't give the lawyers an idea on how to make more money.
Just think about it. Your legal department all of a sudden decides
that you cannot install any software without one of their staff
reading and discussing the implications of the EULA and deciding if
it is safe for the company to use.
This is a non-sequitur. Lawyers aren't making more money in this
case because they're already part of your paid legal staff. They're
making the same money regardless of reading EULA documents or sitting
on their butts drinking coffee in a break room.
Most lawyers I know and have dealt with only make money if they are
doing something constructive. Of course I haven't worked for a
corporation that has it's own legal department. They may be on a
retainer but not fully paid. The more work they can get, the more money
they make.
On the other hand, if the lawyers get involved, there may be a good
reason not to purchase Windows or pre-installed systems. Lawyers
have a good way of taking things way out of context.
That's in a criminal or civil trial where one side is attempting to
provide a burden of proof that the other side is or is not an injured
party. Lawyers dealing with protecting your company from violations
of intellectual property law do not.
I think people just like to make shit up and bash lawyers.
FWIW, my brother-in-law is a lawyer and after many discussions with him,
I still feel the same way. Of course he has been burned by bad lawyers
in his younger years. Now they have to deal with one of their own.
The issue is litigation is getting more rampant. As these litigations
increase, so do the fears of being sued. As in the OP link, the owner
of the business had to get his lawyers involved in the case of a poor
sales strategy. A fear of litigation was raised by Mrs. Lawless.
Same thing is happening with IP in the case of how many uses of the DMCA
to prevent others from even doing something associated with a product
that isn't controlled by that company. I look at Lexmark over their
print cartridges and refillers and some company over another company
that made universal garage door openers.
Of course the fear of litigation is causing many businesses to just pay
up thousands of dollars to use items that may have been patented when
they shouldn't have due to the workload and knowledge of the USPO. Lets
not forget how many individuals have decided to pay the RIAA money so
they don't have to go to court.
Of course with the new laws on releasing private info and possible fines
or jail terms being proposed, any access to your systems from outside
sources could become a legal issue. How many lawyers have advised
companies to change practices to minimize the chances of litigation?
I saw a program on TV many years ago about a company that made ladders.
After being sued a few times for user stupidity, they changed policies
and put all their safety info actually on the ladder. This didn't stop
the litigation. After a few more times in court, they decided to print
a book and affix it to the ladder. After some more litigation, they just
gave up making ladders as the litigation was to costly.
This could be it.
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp108&sid=cp108DOpqK&refer=&r_n=hr682.108&item=&sel=TOC_39703&;>
Small businesses and workers suffer. This year, the nation's oldest
ladder manufacturer, family-owned John S. Tilley Ladders Co. of
Watervliet, New York, near Albany, filed for bankruptcy protection
and sold off most of its assets due to litigation costs. Founded in
1855, the Tilley firm could not handle the cost of liability
insurance, which had risen from 6% of sales a decade ago to 29%, even
though the company never lost an actual court judgment. `We could see
the handwriting on the wall and just want to end this whole thing,'
said Robert Howland, a descendant of company founder John Tilley. 41
I know that many lawyers are not greedy but there are many that would
sue their mothers if they could make a buck.
--
Robin Laing
