John William Nelson (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 7:01pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm a trial lawyer and I'm for patent reform, if done correctly
I have no problems with patent applications being defeated. Frankly, most good patent lawyers I know probably wouldn't have problems with this either, as they work hourly.
John William Nelson (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 10:17am
Re: Re: I'm a trial lawyer and I'm for patent reform, if done correctly
This would require a shift in the burdens placed on patent attorneys in prosecuting a patent. I do think this could provide some benefit, but at the same time you have to be careful about how far you take it.
No matter what, someone will want a patent or other bit of IP to cover as broad an area as possible.
Further, while narrowly tailoring patents sounds great initially, it may open up the need to file dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of patents where now you may only need to file one to cover an invention.
In addition, having a narrowly tailored focus may allow bonafide infringers to escape while harming legitimate inventors and prevent them from obtaining a proper remedy.
In short, it is not a simple balance of issues.
Which is why the simple act of properly funding the USPTO would go so very far without having to tinker with the underlying law.
Also, get rid of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). They're a bunch of idiots.
John William Nelson (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 9:52am
This is one of the funniest things I've seen today
I first read about this on Slashdot. An article about these charges was two articles above an article about Cisco complaining to the President about how the NSA's backdoors on its systems have hurt international sales badly.
I am so disappointed that the county and government I grew up thinking were the good guys have been behaving like the bad guys.
John William Nelson (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 7:34am
I'm a trial lawyer and I'm for patent reform, if done correctly
Looked at the linked article and all it does is state that trial lawyers are pressuring Senate Democrats.
Really? Which ones?
Because, you know, there are actual trial lawyer associations which lobby, so I would prefer to know which ones are doing said lobbying (if any) against patent reform.
For example, what is the American Association for Justice's take on this?
What I've read so far on its views is that (1) this is rush legislation with problems, (2) the legislation does not fix fee diversion wherein Congress takes USPTO fees away from the USPTO and therefore fails to adequately fund the office (best way to fight a bad patent is to fund the USPTO so it stops bad patents), (3) places burdens on plaintiffs which will impact patent trolls and non-patent trolls alike, and (4) reduces the ability of the federal courts to weigh damages and fees on case-by-case basis by removing a judge's decision making ability.
In all seriousness, patent reform is important and needs to be undertaken. However, one of the most impactful ways to reform the patent process is to fund the USPTO so that it does not feel pressured to relieve backlogs by granting folks like Amazon ridiculous patents for photographing against a white background.
The best way to stop abusive patent litigation is to stop having silly or ridiculous patents being granted which are overly vague, too broad, and able to be applied in litigation to inventions so far afield as to not make sense.
John William Nelson (profile), 28 Apr 2014 @ 12:20pm
WIPO still shouldn't be bullying
There may be more going on than meets the eye, but this bullying of bloggers is ridiculous and groundless under US law.
The problem is if a blogger may have interactions with WIPO (such as a patent attorney) or otherwise be subject to non-US laws regarding defamation (assets or regular travel to Britain, for example, which has pro-Plaintiff defamation laws; or, apparently, Switzerland).
But still, bullying to censor news is bad for democracy.
John William Nelson (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 12:28pm
DoJ prosecutor somewhere thinks . . .
"Hmmm, I could get another easy conviction belt notch. 5 year old kids roll over easy. Just have to find a way to get him charged as an adult. I mean, he knows how to use a computer, so that must mean he is mature enough to be charged as an adult. I don't even know how to use my web box of tubes."
John William Nelson (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 5:36am
Re: Re: Prosecutor should be fired . . . but won't be
Prosecutorial discretion is not the problem. The culture of prosecutor's offices is the problem.
I've seen the effects. I've seen gentle souls go in and come out terrible people. I've had other friends flat out tell me the atmosphere is toxic.
In most prosecutor's offices, there is little pursuit of truth or justice. Only pursuit of the conviction, with no care for whether the Defendant is innocent or if the correct person is caught.
John William Nelson (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 10:00am
Prosecutor should be fired . . . but won't be
The prosecutor is a belt-notcher. "Let me measure my manhood by showing you the notches of convictions I have on my belt."
A petty, petty man who deserves to be fired for ignoring the professionalism the legal profession teaches.
Sadly, he is also more the norm than the exception in prosecutorial offices. It's not about justice, or the truth, but how big their endowment is because of who they were able to get in jail.
In fact, it's often a bigger win for these jackasses if the facts are bad for them. "I just put an innocent in jail. I'm that good."
I hate prosecutors like Heymann. Sadly, so many of them are exactly this jackass.
John William Nelson (profile), 26 Feb 2014 @ 6:45am
Re: Re: Re:
If the item is removed then your credit report will no longer show the history of the item and your credit score should change as if the item was no longer present. Depending on how the removal is reported, of course.
John William Nelson (profile), 26 Feb 2014 @ 5:28am
Bad prosecutors are the problem
Too many prosecutors would take this case all the way through. This is the problem. To them it is a game. It pisses me off to no end the games played by prosecutors and cops in these situations.
The prosecutor bringing this should be ashamed. It should be considered ethical misconduct wasting the court's time with this nonsense. Sadly, it isn't.
And that doesn't even count the judges who want to be seen as "tough on crime" who are complicit in the whole system.
John William Nelson (profile), 26 Feb 2014 @ 5:21am
Not immune to the FDCPA or FCRA
Fidelity Information Corp is not immune from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Both give a consumer the right to sue and collect statutory damages as well as attorney's fees if successful.
I hope they didn't let Fidelity Information Corp out easily. I hope they at least had to pay some basic fees and damages. I do not know the full facts, but my understanding is that Ms. Palmer did attempt to explain to the debt collectors that this debt was erroneous and they simply ignored her.
Clearing up credit is one thing, but Fidelity would be required to do that anyway.
John William Nelson (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 8:36pm
Attorney's Fees are a double-edged sword
Trying to get attorney's fees awarded more often is a double-edged sword. The default approach is to allow fees to be awarded to the prevailing party. This is, in fact, the English approach.
In the U.S. we take a different tack. Attorney's fees are awarded more rarely because of the public policy of encouraging Plaintiffs who may not otherwise have resources to press their claims.
In other words, do we want to discourage Joe Random Inventor from bringing a claim against, say, Ford because Joe will be going against a well-funded opponent and, if not successful, may end up owing substantial amounts in attorney's fees to the other side (plus, potentially, his own)? In the U.S. court system, the answer is no.
The Answer I think is to look at some of the more consumer-oriented statutes which allow the award of attorney's fees. One good example is the FDCPA. However, in the patent context you may want to flip the typical script.
In the FDCPA both sides may be awarded attorney's fees. Consumers, if successful, can basically get reasonable attorney's fees right out. (There are limits, but it is far more common than in typical state or federal cases.) Defendant Debt Collectors, however, can only recover if they can show the claim was brought in bad faith.
Perhaps shifting the burden to where a counterclaim can be brought in a patent case. If that counterclaim is successful, then statutory attorney's fees can be awarded per the FDCPA and some other statutes. If not, then the other side can only recover attorney's fees with a showing that the actions of the counter-claimant were brought in bad faith (or whatever the standard is for the FDCPA and other similar-style causes of action).
Perhaps this counterclaim might be for patent troll-like behavior. In other words, the patent is not in use by the owner (other than through licensing) and the company is simply a patent-holding entity. This counter claim may be extended to declaratory actions when given a reasonable threat of litigation, with the same fee-shifting approach.
The problem is you must be careful with new causes of action. Think of what the Prendas of the legal world and the Paul Duffys might do. While patent trolls are a problem, they are enabled by lawyers who in many ways act as legal trolls. Such a cause of action may enable legal trolling behavior to too great an extent.
Another approach is to not create a cause of action, but to simply shift burdens statutorily in patent cases. The key is to avoid equivalency on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant. You want to not destroy the incentives for small players with valid claims to be able to press those claims against larger, perhaps even monopolistic, entities. So creating a new burden which allows attorney's fees recovery may be the ideal.
For example, in a patent lawsuit, both sides follow the American rule of each side paying for their own legal fees. However, upon notice in the Answer by the Defendant, this burden can be shifted. Once notice is given of the intent to go after attorney's fees, then the Defendant is then given the burden of pro-actively showing the other side it case has little-to-no merit.
This pro-active approach can be begun at any time up to and until the Answer stage of a lawsuit. Therefore, if a demand letter is sent, and the defending company responds with a notice of the intent to pursue attorney's fees, and then lays out in detail the reasons why the case has little-to-no merit, then that works just as well as if it was after suit.
Once this showing has been made, then if the Defendant wins then the Defendant must be awarded reasonable attorney's fees absent a showing by the Plaintiff, and accepted by the court, as to why some other conduct by Defendant which negates this.
Even this approach is fraught with procedural peril, however. The system might be gamed too much. Responses may lose their value as they become more standardized. It may end up resulting in inhibiting the bringing of valid claims by small players against larger players.
Ultimately, the CAFC (which I loathe, greatly) is correct that judges have the power to fee-shift already in these cases. It is a power they rarely choose to act upon, in large part for the basic policy reason stated at the beginning of this comment. (Said policy reason holding true to all types of lawsuits, not just patent ones—not inhibiting plaintiffs from bringing valid claims against well-funded adversaries with the risk of a double-whammy of attorney's fees.)
Perhaps the easiest route is to find a way to change the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this, or develop precedent in each circuit which more clearly outlines ways in which judges can and should implement their fee shifting powers in these types of cases. (Each circuit, and each state, is different on when and how they fee shift.)
There is no easy answer. There are tradeoffs for each approach, and each approach can create new issues on top of some which may be unforeseen.
In short, fee shifting sounds great in theory, but it can be difficult in practice.
John William Nelson (profile), 4 Nov 2013 @ 10:48am
V for Vendetta plot?
Amusing that this is published on the 4th of November, one day removed from the 5th.
I am pretty sure this view of the British authorities—that ideological differences and questioning authority make you a terrorist—is a central theme to the movie/graphic novel V for Vendetta.
Remember, remember, the 5th of November, gunpowder treason and plot indeed.
John William Nelson (profile), 18 Sep 2013 @ 9:34am
Or because he now lives in Russia?
More likely, Mr. Snowden is likely to become an alcoholic because he now lives in Russia. And trying to hang with Russians and Ukranians in drinking alcohol can lead to alcoholism. After all, Oksana Baiul has made it clear that five Long Island Iced Teas mean nothing to a Russian or Ukrainian in the infamous "I'm Russian and therefore not drunk" defense.
And this line of reasoning is still superior to Hayden's line of reasoning.
John William Nelson (profile), 28 Aug 2013 @ 8:27am
All about the Billable Hours
O'Melveney & Myers LLP may be hurting and needs some billable hours. What's a BigLaw law firm to do?
Why, convince a client on a nice retainer to engage in a bad lawsuit! Trademarks! Copyrights! Patents! Use them or lose them!
Don't worry client, we'll put our top Patent partner on your Trademark case, and we'll make sure he teams up with one of our Of Counsel lawyers because we make higher margins on those than on our associates!
And we know a local law firm who is willing to be local counsel on just about ANYTHING we file! Yarmuth Wilsdon, trial lawyers!
The problem here is the lawyers involved forgot the "counselor" portion of their job and went straight for the "attorney" bit.
This is poor service to their clients—they should have seen this coming.
It's easy to imply this is all about the money. It's not—these lawyers aren't trying to shake down their clients. At least I don't think they are.
However, their billable hour requirements, and their billable hour process, can lead to shortchanging solutions which may serve the client better in favor of litigation.
And, yea, they are so wrong on the law. But hey, what's a little shakedown between businesses?
John William Nelson (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 5:55am
Not the same as LavaBit—Groklaw could continue
I love Groklaw. It in part encouraged me to go to law school and become a lawyer.
I also respect PJ. She has worked hard on Groklaw. Her legal analysis has been great. Her work in putting up primary documents in important cases has been valuable (maybe even invaluable).
But I disagree with her reaction, to a point. I can understand and respect her desire to not continue Groklaw. In fact, I remember not long after the SCO v. IBM/Novell cases wound down she intended to shut down Groklaw once before.
Working on Groklaw must be a full-time or near-full-time job. It could be time for her to move on, and I respect that.
I also understand her feeling on the NSA surveillance. I can understand her unwillingness to continue communicating in a manner where that communication may be read by third parties. I also remember how private she is, and I respect that.
But Groklaw is not LavaBit. LavaBit was a company that held the emails of its clients in trust. That trust was sought to be broken by the government. In contrast, Groklaw is not an email company, it is a news and analysis blog.
Groklaw's contributors, sources, and PJ may be reluctant to continue Groklaw because of the NSA surveillance, but this is substantially different than the actions of a company who hosts secure email for clients shutting down.
After all, the end product of Groklaw is public information; the end product of LavaBit was encrypted privacy.
Finally, while I understand the desire for protecting privacy, I cannot understand shutting down a forum which speaks truth to power. While I am furious over the NSA surveillance, shutting down forums which speak truth to the illegality of the program and government intrusion does not help.
I just listened to a program on the BBC World Service about the Prague Spring. It made me think of the bravery activists and protesters in the Soviet countries during the Cold War. There they also had reduced privacy, but those that spoke out risked much more than we do—prison or even death.
Do I like the NSA surveillance? No. But I do not think shutting down forums and going silent or underground is the answer.
Still, it is PJ's site, and she is the heart and soul of Groklaw, even with the incredible contributions of others. It will be missed, and godspeed to PJ and good luck to her in her future endeavors.
And, as always, her post on why she is shutting it down is powerful, well-reasoned, and well-written—even if I ultimately disagree with some aspects of it.
On the post: Looks Like Patent Trolls Have Won This Round As Even Weakened Patent Reform Likely To Die
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm a trial lawyer and I'm for patent reform, if done correctly
On the post: Looks Like Patent Trolls Have Won This Round As Even Weakened Patent Reform Likely To Die
Re: Re: I'm a trial lawyer and I'm for patent reform, if done correctly
No matter what, someone will want a patent or other bit of IP to cover as broad an area as possible.
Further, while narrowly tailoring patents sounds great initially, it may open up the need to file dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of patents where now you may only need to file one to cover an invention.
In addition, having a narrowly tailored focus may allow bonafide infringers to escape while harming legitimate inventors and prevent them from obtaining a proper remedy.
In short, it is not a simple balance of issues.
Which is why the simple act of properly funding the USPTO would go so very far without having to tinker with the underlying law.
Also, get rid of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). They're a bunch of idiots.
On the post: Irony Alert: US Filing Criminal Charges Against China For Cyberspying
This is one of the funniest things I've seen today
I am so disappointed that the county and government I grew up thinking were the good guys have been behaving like the bad guys.
On the post: Looks Like Patent Trolls Have Won This Round As Even Weakened Patent Reform Likely To Die
I'm a trial lawyer and I'm for patent reform, if done correctly
Really? Which ones?
Because, you know, there are actual trial lawyer associations which lobby, so I would prefer to know which ones are doing said lobbying (if any) against patent reform.
For example, what is the American Association for Justice's take on this?
What I've read so far on its views is that (1) this is rush legislation with problems, (2) the legislation does not fix fee diversion wherein Congress takes USPTO fees away from the USPTO and therefore fails to adequately fund the office (best way to fight a bad patent is to fund the USPTO so it stops bad patents), (3) places burdens on plaintiffs which will impact patent trolls and non-patent trolls alike, and (4) reduces the ability of the federal courts to weigh damages and fees on case-by-case basis by removing a judge's decision making ability.
In all seriousness, patent reform is important and needs to be undertaken. However, one of the most impactful ways to reform the patent process is to fund the USPTO so that it does not feel pressured to relieve backlogs by granting folks like Amazon ridiculous patents for photographing against a white background.
The best way to stop abusive patent litigation is to stop having silly or ridiculous patents being granted which are overly vague, too broad, and able to be applied in litigation to inventions so far afield as to not make sense.
On the post: Find Two Hours To Watch Glenn Greenwald Debate Michael Hayden
Hayden and Derhsowitz have nothing
Their arguments ignore the points, ignore the reality, create straw men arguments, and are so very weak.
Wow.
On the post: Shameful: WIPO Threatens Blogger With Criminal Charges For Accurately Reporting On WIPO Director's Alleged Misconduct
WIPO still shouldn't be bullying
The problem is if a blogger may have interactions with WIPO (such as a patent attorney) or otherwise be subject to non-US laws regarding defamation (assets or regular travel to Britain, for example, which has pro-Plaintiff defamation laws; or, apparently, Switzerland).
But still, bullying to censor news is bad for democracy.
On the post: 5 Year Old Hacks Xbox Live; Thankfully DOJ Apparently Uninterested In Prosecuting Cute Kid Under CFAA
DoJ prosecutor somewhere thinks . . .
On the post: ICE Rejects My Request To Waive FOIA Fees 'Because .' Yes, 'Because .'
But bloggers aren't "journalists" . . .
This should also be filed under "government form letter fails."
On the post: Details Show MIT Employees Gleefully Helped With Prosecution And Persecution Of Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Prosecutor should be fired . . . but won't be
I've seen the effects. I've seen gentle souls go in and come out terrible people. I've had other friends flat out tell me the atmosphere is toxic.
In most prosecutor's offices, there is little pursuit of truth or justice. Only pursuit of the conviction, with no care for whether the Defendant is innocent or if the correct person is caught.
On the post: Details Show MIT Employees Gleefully Helped With Prosecution And Persecution Of Aaron Swartz
Prosecutor should be fired . . . but won't be
A petty, petty man who deserves to be fired for ignoring the professionalism the legal profession teaches.
Sadly, he is also more the norm than the exception in prosecutorial offices. It's not about justice, or the truth, but how big their endowment is because of who they were able to get in jail.
In fact, it's often a bigger win for these jackasses if the facts are bad for them. "I just put an innocent in jail. I'm that good."
I hate prosecutors like Heymann. Sadly, so many of them are exactly this jackass.
On the post: Senator Feinstein Finally Finds Surveillance To Get Angry About: When It Happened To Her Staffers
Hypocrite much?
Seriously hypocritical.
Still, maybe this will be a wake up call for the Intelligence Oversight Committee? Probably not, but you never know.
On the post: Collections Company Named In KlearGear Lawsuit Dismissed After Reporting $3,500 Charge Was 'Erroneous'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: With Great Power Comes The Thinnest Skin: 13-Year-Old Hit With Felony Charges After Throwing Snowball At Cop
Bad prosecutors are the problem
The prosecutor bringing this should be ashamed. It should be considered ethical misconduct wasting the court's time with this nonsense. Sadly, it isn't.
And that doesn't even count the judges who want to be seen as "tough on crime" who are complicit in the whole system.
On the post: Collections Company Named In KlearGear Lawsuit Dismissed After Reporting $3,500 Charge Was 'Erroneous'
Not immune to the FDCPA or FCRA
I hope they didn't let Fidelity Information Corp out easily. I hope they at least had to pay some basic fees and damages. I do not know the full facts, but my understanding is that Ms. Palmer did attempt to explain to the debt collectors that this debt was erroneous and they simply ignored her.
Clearing up credit is one thing, but Fidelity would be required to do that anyway.
On the post: Patent Reform Needs Fee Shifting Provisions, Because Judges Almost Never Award Attorneys' Fees
Attorney's Fees are a double-edged sword
In the U.S. we take a different tack. Attorney's fees are awarded more rarely because of the public policy of encouraging Plaintiffs who may not otherwise have resources to press their claims.
In other words, do we want to discourage Joe Random Inventor from bringing a claim against, say, Ford because Joe will be going against a well-funded opponent and, if not successful, may end up owing substantial amounts in attorney's fees to the other side (plus, potentially, his own)? In the U.S. court system, the answer is no.
The Answer I think is to look at some of the more consumer-oriented statutes which allow the award of attorney's fees. One good example is the FDCPA. However, in the patent context you may want to flip the typical script.
In the FDCPA both sides may be awarded attorney's fees. Consumers, if successful, can basically get reasonable attorney's fees right out. (There are limits, but it is far more common than in typical state or federal cases.) Defendant Debt Collectors, however, can only recover if they can show the claim was brought in bad faith.
Perhaps shifting the burden to where a counterclaim can be brought in a patent case. If that counterclaim is successful, then statutory attorney's fees can be awarded per the FDCPA and some other statutes. If not, then the other side can only recover attorney's fees with a showing that the actions of the counter-claimant were brought in bad faith (or whatever the standard is for the FDCPA and other similar-style causes of action).
Perhaps this counterclaim might be for patent troll-like behavior. In other words, the patent is not in use by the owner (other than through licensing) and the company is simply a patent-holding entity. This counter claim may be extended to declaratory actions when given a reasonable threat of litigation, with the same fee-shifting approach.
The problem is you must be careful with new causes of action. Think of what the Prendas of the legal world and the Paul Duffys might do. While patent trolls are a problem, they are enabled by lawyers who in many ways act as legal trolls. Such a cause of action may enable legal trolling behavior to too great an extent.
Another approach is to not create a cause of action, but to simply shift burdens statutorily in patent cases. The key is to avoid equivalency on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant. You want to not destroy the incentives for small players with valid claims to be able to press those claims against larger, perhaps even monopolistic, entities. So creating a new burden which allows attorney's fees recovery may be the ideal.
For example, in a patent lawsuit, both sides follow the American rule of each side paying for their own legal fees. However, upon notice in the Answer by the Defendant, this burden can be shifted. Once notice is given of the intent to go after attorney's fees, then the Defendant is then given the burden of pro-actively showing the other side it case has little-to-no merit.
This pro-active approach can be begun at any time up to and until the Answer stage of a lawsuit. Therefore, if a demand letter is sent, and the defending company responds with a notice of the intent to pursue attorney's fees, and then lays out in detail the reasons why the case has little-to-no merit, then that works just as well as if it was after suit.
Once this showing has been made, then if the Defendant wins then the Defendant must be awarded reasonable attorney's fees absent a showing by the Plaintiff, and accepted by the court, as to why some other conduct by Defendant which negates this.
Even this approach is fraught with procedural peril, however. The system might be gamed too much. Responses may lose their value as they become more standardized. It may end up resulting in inhibiting the bringing of valid claims by small players against larger players.
Ultimately, the CAFC (which I loathe, greatly) is correct that judges have the power to fee-shift already in these cases. It is a power they rarely choose to act upon, in large part for the basic policy reason stated at the beginning of this comment. (Said policy reason holding true to all types of lawsuits, not just patent ones—not inhibiting plaintiffs from bringing valid claims against well-funded adversaries with the risk of a double-whammy of attorney's fees.)
Perhaps the easiest route is to find a way to change the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this, or develop precedent in each circuit which more clearly outlines ways in which judges can and should implement their fee shifting powers in these types of cases. (Each circuit, and each state, is different on when and how they fee shift.)
There is no easy answer. There are tradeoffs for each approach, and each approach can create new issues on top of some which may be unforeseen.
In short, fee shifting sounds great in theory, but it can be difficult in practice.
On the post: UK Officials Argue That David Miranda Was, In Fact, A Terrorist
V for Vendetta plot?
I am pretty sure this view of the British authorities—that ideological differences and questioning authority make you a terrorist—is a central theme to the movie/graphic novel V for Vendetta.
Remember, remember, the 5th of November, gunpowder treason and plot indeed.
On the post: Former NSA Boss Hayden Says Snowden Likely To Become An Alcoholic Because He's 'Troubled' And 'Morally Arrogant'
Or because he now lives in Russia?
And this line of reasoning is still superior to Hayden's line of reasoning.
On the post: Why Trader Joe's Suing Pirate Joe's May Be Bad News For Ownership
Tables of authorities, lol
"Look here, now, we're a big law firm! Roar! See our table of authorities and weep!"
Oh man, lol.
On the post: Why Trader Joe's Suing Pirate Joe's May Be Bad News For Ownership
All about the Billable Hours
Why, convince a client on a nice retainer to engage in a bad lawsuit! Trademarks! Copyrights! Patents! Use them or lose them!
Don't worry client, we'll put our top Patent partner on your Trademark case, and we'll make sure he teams up with one of our Of Counsel lawyers because we make higher margins on those than on our associates!
And we know a local law firm who is willing to be local counsel on just about ANYTHING we file! Yarmuth Wilsdon, trial lawyers!
The problem here is the lawyers involved forgot the "counselor" portion of their job and went straight for the "attorney" bit.
This is poor service to their clients—they should have seen this coming.
It's easy to imply this is all about the money. It's not—these lawyers aren't trying to shake down their clients. At least I don't think they are.
However, their billable hour requirements, and their billable hour process, can lead to shortchanging solutions which may serve the client better in favor of litigation.
And, yea, they are so wrong on the law. But hey, what's a little shakedown between businesses?
On the post: More NSA Spying Fallout: Groklaw Shutting Down
Not the same as LavaBit—Groklaw could continue
I also respect PJ. She has worked hard on Groklaw. Her legal analysis has been great. Her work in putting up primary documents in important cases has been valuable (maybe even invaluable).
But I disagree with her reaction, to a point. I can understand and respect her desire to not continue Groklaw. In fact, I remember not long after the SCO v. IBM/Novell cases wound down she intended to shut down Groklaw once before.
Working on Groklaw must be a full-time or near-full-time job. It could be time for her to move on, and I respect that.
I also understand her feeling on the NSA surveillance. I can understand her unwillingness to continue communicating in a manner where that communication may be read by third parties. I also remember how private she is, and I respect that.
But Groklaw is not LavaBit. LavaBit was a company that held the emails of its clients in trust. That trust was sought to be broken by the government. In contrast, Groklaw is not an email company, it is a news and analysis blog.
Groklaw's contributors, sources, and PJ may be reluctant to continue Groklaw because of the NSA surveillance, but this is substantially different than the actions of a company who hosts secure email for clients shutting down.
After all, the end product of Groklaw is public information; the end product of LavaBit was encrypted privacy.
Finally, while I understand the desire for protecting privacy, I cannot understand shutting down a forum which speaks truth to power. While I am furious over the NSA surveillance, shutting down forums which speak truth to the illegality of the program and government intrusion does not help.
I just listened to a program on the BBC World Service about the Prague Spring. It made me think of the bravery activists and protesters in the Soviet countries during the Cold War. There they also had reduced privacy, but those that spoke out risked much more than we do—prison or even death.
Do I like the NSA surveillance? No. But I do not think shutting down forums and going silent or underground is the answer.
Still, it is PJ's site, and she is the heart and soul of Groklaw, even with the incredible contributions of others. It will be missed, and godspeed to PJ and good luck to her in her future endeavors.
And, as always, her post on why she is shutting it down is powerful, well-reasoned, and well-written—even if I ultimately disagree with some aspects of it.
Next >>