Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 15:40:07 -0500
Reply-To: arbosch@RA.ROCKWELL.COM
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Alan Bosch <arbosch@RA.ROCKWELL.COM>
Subject: Re: To the defense of VW and their lawyers
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Simple. There's nothing for sale here. It not a money-making site,
therefore it's left alone.
Alan Bosch
& Phred ('88 Wolfsburg)
Mark Dorm <mark_hb@HOTMAIL.COM>@GERRY.VANAGON.COM> on 05/25/2001 02:57:24
PM
Please respond to Mark Dorm <mark_hb@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent by: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
cc:
Subject: Re: To the defense of VW and their lawyers
Okay Horace, but why is we get away with having a site called vanagon.com?
>
>At 04:09 PM 5/24/01 -0700, Mark Sheflo wrote:
>>Apologies to HKS and SS.
>>
>>This is all about laywers making work for themselves. The client (VW)
>>wants
>>a return on their investment. So we have the laywers providing a
>>justification for their continued employment.
>
>
>
>Don't apologize -- but open your mind. Surely all understand the basic
>rules of the game: an attorney absolutely cannot under any state of
>circumstances just start suing the *hail* out of people or companies or
>taking action of any kind whatsoever WITHOUT A CLIENT ORDERING IT TO BE
>DONE. First comes the client, then comes the legal action --not the other
>way around. For a lawyer to bring a lawsuit WITHOUT CLIENT AUTHORIZATION
>would be grounds for a lawsuit by the client against the attorney. And
>he/she would get it in a heartbeat.
>
>The reality is, Volkswagen Worldwide takes a very aggressive stance on
>their trademarks, service marks, and symbols. They spend money to squash
>out infringement. You will find many big players do. Many small players
>too. Why? Its their property. They made it, they earned it, they keep
it
>up. Just like you would, they don't like use of their property without
>their authorization or control. Just try inventing your mark, watch it
>become successful, and then watch others steal it. YOU would be mad as
>*hail.* And rightfully so.
>
>It does not have a damn thing to do with lawyers wanting to make
>money! That is demonstrated above. VW calls the shots, folks. Yes,
>lawyers want to make money -- so how that does fit into this picture? VW
>has in-house counsel out the wazoo, who monitor the fees, who arrange for
>the legal work they can't do themselves, hire local counsel in various
>jurisdictions to pursue the "serious" violators, etc. VW is a
money-making
>enterprise and has the power to pretty much pick and choose whatever
>lawyers it wants, and pay whatever price they want 99% of the time. That
>is the reality. Do you have any earthly idea how prestigious it is to a
>law firm to represent a huge company that VW? Law firms practically pay
>the client sometimes instead of the other way around. Its good for
>business. No, its GREAT for business.
>
>Lawyers billing fees needlessly or without authorization, are not likely
to
>happen in this scenario. Here's why. Big corporate clients today are
>savvy, legal street-wise, and know the value of having an legal insider
>look over the shoulder of the other attorneys. Insurance companies have
>become masters at this. How do I know? I do some of this. Lawyers doing
>things to create work --just to "churn" transactions like the stockbroker
>who constantly trades in order to make his commission on each trade -- at
>least in the realm of big corporations, is just not happening. We would
>refuse to pay legal bills for unnecessary or unauthorized work. And they
>would likely remain unpaid. No law firm wants that kind of bad publicity
>from a dispute with a major corporate client.
>
>Is VW "right" or "wrong" in its policies about trademarks, etc? I don't
>know, and you don't. And guess what -- you're not going to know; not
>unless you happen to find yourself sitting on the Board of Directors of
>Volkswagen in an executive session (behind closed doors) meeting
discussing
>the merits of the subject. We here on the outside only know their (VW's)
>past acts in order to try to get a feel for their forward direction. We
>know they are extremely aggressive, and they are willing to pay money to
>pursue their aggressive stance, so there is most likely a pretty damn good
>financial reason for VW doing so. Enough reason to justify paying
lawyers.
>
>So it is clear the infringement enforcement lawyers have nothing to do
with
>corporate policy-making in this instance. A decision was made to be
>aggressive, and the lawyers are the ONLY means of enforcement. Do I need
>to say more??
>
>HK
>
>
>"The defense is ready to proceed, Your Excellency."
>"Uhh, <bowing> I mean -- Your Highness . . . Your Imminency . . .
>Your Greatness, Your Lordship, Your Worship.
>Your Honor."
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
|