IP: Re: one more RE: interesting point on the DMCA also

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> X-Sender: rmm () mail unidot com
> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 14:51:40 -0700
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> From: "Robert M. McClure" <rmm () unidot com>
> Subject: Re: IP: one more RE: interesting point on the DMCA also
>
> Spoken like a true ambulance chaser,  Comments included
>
> At 03:51 PM 9/15/01 -0400, you wrote:
>
> > > Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:34:47 -0400
> > > To: farber () cis upenn edu
> > > From: Tom Goltz <tgoltz () QuietSoftware com>
> > > Subject: Re: IP: RE: interesting point on the DMCA also
> > >
> > > At 08:49 PM 9/14/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> > > > > From: "Sackler, Dr Richard" <333 () pharma com>
> > >
> > > > > 3. Limit contingent fees to lawyers to limit to reasonable costs and 
> > > > > payment
> > > > > for time
> > >
> > > Speaking as someone who sells his professional services, I strongly 
> > > oppose this idea.  When a lawyer takes on a contingent case, he's 
> > > gambling.  If he wins one case, and gets a million or even ten million 
> > > dollars in fees, but loses the other five cases he took on that year, is 
> > > this wrong?  I think we should look at it that he's performing a needed 
> > > public service by taking those other five cases to trial for people who 
> > > otherwise might lack access to the legal system.
>
> If a contingency attorney loses 80% of his cases, then I would accuse him 
> of frivolous litigation.
>
>
> > > When I'm dealing with many of the start-up companies that have been my 
> > > clients, I quote them an hourly rate for my services.  If they want me 
> > > to accept stock or other forms of future compensation in lieu of cash, 
> > > the rate goes up by a factor of around ten, in order to try to cover the 
> > > risk I'm taking.  The day that a law passes saying I can't do this, it 
> > > will be cash on the barrelhead, period.
>
> England seems to have gotten by very well without contingency fee 
> arrangements, thank you.
>
> > > > > 4. Immunize all those whose facilities (airports) and planes were used to
> > > > > carry out this outrage.
> > >
> > > No way!  It was their decision to hire security people, pay them minimum 
> > > wage, and ignore the fact that they were not doing an effective 
> > > job.  The reasons behind this were entirely financial, and I see no good 
> > > reason why they should be shielded from the liability and the costs 
> > > resulting from that decision.  It may put a couple of airlines and 
> > > airports into bankruptcy, but I can promise you that their successors 
> > > will be a LOT more careful than if we pat them on the shoulder and say 
> > > "Just try harder next time, please."
>
> At most airports, the airlines do *not* hire the security people.  They 
> are hired by the airports, which
> virtually throughout the United States are owned an operated by cities, 
> states, and yes, even the
> Federal government.  Consider who operates Newark -- the Port Authority -- 
> should we hold them
> liable.  According to my best reading of the Constitution, national 
> security is still the domain of the
> federal government, not the Port Authority.
>
> > > Have any doubts about airport security?  As you sample the following 
> > > links, ask yourself if this is the behavior that you want to indemnify:
>
> No one is claiming that airport security is great.  The evidence is 
> otherwise.  However, the kind of
> security necessary to absolutely, unequivocally prevent the attacks that 
> happened this week is
> too onerous for Americans to bear.  Some reason must be applied to this 
> situation.
>
> Consider the following.  Five thousand people, give or take a few, lost 
> their lives in the terrorist
> attack this week.  This is approximately 10% of the number of people who 
> will lose their lives in
> automobile accidents this year.  The damage done is estimated at 5-20 
> billion dollars.  The congress
> has just appropriated *40* billion to do something (exactly what we do not 
> yet know).
>
> This writer would sink the best, most reliable, safest, airline system in 
> the world to enrich a few more
> trial lawyers.  Rubbish!  I don't think he has the slightest clue about 
> how the world works.
>
> Bob McClure



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/