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