Google In Battle With Its Own Lawyers 271
An anonymous reader writes "Google is at daggers end with a law firm it's been using since 2008, after discovering that lawyers in the law firm, named Pepper Hamilton LLP, were representing a patent licensing business that sued Google's Android partners last month. Google has claimed that Pepper Hamilton LLP never provided notice that it was hired by Digitude Innovations LLC, the firm that filed patent infringement complaints against Google's business allies."
Concurrent COI (Score:5, Informative)
Re:An outside law firm ? (Score:5, Informative)
why have not they set up their own shark team yet ?
Google has its own legal team, but that doesn't end the need for external legal advice at times, if only because of the ability to scale up quickly by using a law firm (e.g. during a discovery phase of litigation, or due diligence during an acquisition).
(I'm employed as a lawyer in a substantial in-house legal team, which has a panel of law firms.)
Re:Lesson of the day: (Score:5, Informative)
I really don't get the irrational hatred for lawyers on Slashdot. It's possible that the facts here will show that the law firm has broken a professional code of conduct, which if their jurisdiction is like mine carries penalties under the law. You might as well say "never, never trust a black man" after the hundredth item of news about a black man committing a violent crime, conveniently ignoring the other x million non-violent black men.
Let me summarise as simply as possible: lawyers provide advice and speak on your behalf in defending your rights under the law. That's all they do. They don't get to make law and they'll face worse consequences than a layperson if they break it. If you don't like the law - and there are lots of laws not to like - then by attacking the lawyers you are essentially saying, "I believe the problem is not some particular law but that we even have the rule of law." You are annoyed because some legislative process exists which gives rights and duties and there are remedies for enforcing those rights and duties. But ubi remedium ibi ius: there is no law/justice without a means of enforcing it.
Your problem is with your legislature, a corrupt shower of bastards voted in by an ignorant population. We have a similar problem on the other side of the pond, although in our case it's more apathetic cynicism than mindless patriotism. Deal with them and let your judiciary enforce the laws you want. Common law systems are really top of their class, as far as this planet goes.
Re:Lesson of the day: (Score:4, Informative)
Not how it works... Obviously, Google would be using ANOTHER FIRM to sue this one...
The whole problem is that these guys are representing Google while working against them. When Google makes this allegation, they're pretty much automatically fired as Google's lawyers...
Re:An outside law firm ? (Score:5, Informative)
Many things can't be done by in-house lawyers. I don't know how it is in the US, but here in India, a case cannot be argued in court by in-house lawyers. This is done partly to reduce conflicts of interest. An attorney is supposed to be able to give his client advice the client doesn't want to hear, and by being independent, that's supposed to help a bit.
Also, having a specialized company handling multiple clients rather than each company trying to replicate the function is probably more efficient?
Re:What kind of Slashdot is this? (Score:5, Informative)
The differences, of course.
First, there's no history of violence against lawyers. There's never been (to my knowledge) a lawyer genocide, or a lawyer slavery. Remarks about racial discrimination, even in jest, are at best uncomfortable because there was once some sincerity to it.
Second, people cannot choose their race. I did not choose to be Caucasian. But people can, with very few exceptions, choose their profession - I chose to become a programmer, lawyers chose to become lawyers.
That's why it's funny. Because there's none of the uncomfortable realness that comes with race-based jokes.
Re:Lesson of the day: (Score:5, Informative)
No, they're not. For example, less than 35% of the US House of Representatives are lawyers.
Laws are written by lobbyists and rich business executives.
Re:Lesson of the day: (Score:2, Informative)
Ya, that's why Donald Knuth is in such huge proponent of pate... OH WAIT, NO! [progfree.org] What a stupid point you made.
Re:So, (Score:5, Informative)
I had a friend whose family was so ashamed of his uncle, he was barred from ever visiting. They used to tell people he was in prison for drug dealing. He was a lawyer. For the IRS.
Another friend actually wanted to be a lawyer, and help people. When his lessons had him shadow a real lawyer, he found out his two goals were mutually exclusive. He said it was like dealing with the mafia. Do evil for pay, and leave it at the office while pretending to be a nice person to your kids and wife. And that was one of the more reputable law firms in town...
Hated of lawyers? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't see a hatred against all lawyers, but a general distrust of the industry and a hatred of bad/immoral/etc lawyers.
NYCL is fairly popular here, as are the folks at Groklaw (OK, P.J. is actually a paralegal). The others (patent troll lawyers, Jack Thompson, etc) are surely unpopular here, but IMHO in most cases their lack of popularity is rather warranted.
Re:Lesson of the day: (Score:2, Informative)
No. The system doesn't work:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101008/09595411336/why-this-year-s-physics-nobel-winner-never-patented-graphene.shtml [techdirt.com]