This blog has been abandoned for a while.  I may post to it occasionally if something particularly legal in nature comes to mind, but I have moved most of my posts to This Is Tech.  That site is focused primarily on technology and occasional links related to my work as an attorney.  Bio here:  Michael Schneider, Wilson Sonsini.

Sizing Up the Money at an In-House Job: ”

A few months ago, we attended a goodbye party for an old law-firm colleague — a seventh-year associate who was leaving the firm to take an in-house job at a pharma company. As the liquor flowed, whispers grew about fewer hours, improved quality of life, and, of course, a better paycheck.

It got us wondering: Just how good is the money at an in-house job?

This morning, Zachary Zaharek, the senior corporate counsel at First American CoreLogic, a real-estate data company in Southern California, passed along the results of a recent survey that offers partial answers to those questions. The Southern California chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel, which Zaharek heads, polled its members on everything from signing bonuses to company revenue to male vs. female pay. The poll surveyed 324 in-house lawyers, including 132 who ID’d themselves as general counsel. Of the members who responded to the geographically-limited survey, we learned the following about in-house jobs:

• Average 2007 Salary + Bonus for In-House Attorneys: $181,810 + $56,132
• Average 2007 Salary + Bonus for General Counsel: $220,164 + $82,640
• Male vs. Female Pay for In-House Jobs: Men were paid a cash salary of 13% more than women in 2007 (and men hold 60% of general counsel jobs.)
• Private Company vs. Public Company Pay: Counsel at private companies were paid slightly better than their public counterparts in 2007.

We called Zaharek to get his take on the firm/in-house debate. ‘An associate is getting grinded with billable hour requirements, and working weekends and late at night,’ said Zaharek, who was a bankruptcy attorney at Malcolm Cisneros before going in-house. ‘A corporate counsel doesn’t have that. Also, when you’re a litigator, you’re looking back at history and asking what should the parties have done. As an in-house lawyer, you’re looking ahead and asking how you can help the company avoid pitfalls.’

But it’s not all peaches and cream as a company lawyer. ‘At a law firm you have a book of business, which is maybe 10 clients,’ explained Zaharek. ‘At a corporation, you only have one client. So the risk is that if the company goes insolvent, or gets merged or bought, then there goes your client.’

“

(Via WSJ.com: Law Blog – WSJ.com.)

Mike Masnick at Techdirt.com is is running an interesting article on his blog dissecting the term “intellectual property” arguing that the term creates an inaccurate mindset regarding the rights afforded to copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret holders. A few possible alternatives mentioned by Mike: “Intellectual Monopoly,” “Intellectual Privilege,” and “Imaginary Property.” I am in strong favor of IP reform, but I don’t think referring to IP as “property” causes the problems that Masnick claims. The IP rights that authors (and their assignees) have are fairly well fleshed out in the law, and no matter what you call IP, the content owners are going to try to assert whatever rights they have. Calling the record companies’ ownership of compositions and recordings an “imaginary monopoly” is not going to stop them from suing infringers (or their customers for that matter). As long as Disney is able to keep convincing congress to extend the duration of copyright protection, they could care less what you call it. I do see Masnick’s point, that we need to change the way the public thinks about IP rights, but I don’t actually think the public is the problem, it is the law makers that need to come around, and it is hard enough to get the message thorough to them without worrying about teaching them a new vocabulary.

Mike’s article as TechDirt is well written and and enjoyable read. Despite my disagreement with his position, I recommend you give it a read. Excerpt below:

If Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property, What Is It?: “Continuing my ongoing series of posts on ‘intellectual property,’ I wanted to discuss the phrase itself. It’s become common language to call it intellectual property, but that leads to various problems — most notably the idea that it’s just like regular property. It’s not hard to come up with numerous reasons why that’s not true, but just the word ‘property’ seems to get people tied up. There are some who refuse to use the term, but it is handy shorthand for talking about the general space.

The main reason why I have trouble with the ‘property’ part isn’t just the fact that it leads people to try to pretend it’s just like tangible property, but because it automatically biases how people think about the concept. As I’ve written before, the very purpose of ‘property’ and ‘property rights’ was to better manage allocation of scarce resources. If there’s no scarce resource at all, then the whole concept of property no longer makes sense. If a resource is infinite, it no longer matters who owns it, because anyone can own it and it doesn’t diminish the ownership of anyone else. So, the entire rationale for ‘property rights’ disappears.

(Via Techdirt.)

Marcelo Calbucci at the Seattle 2.0 weblog has posted a very comprehensive list of Seattle startups in order of their respective page ranks on Alexa and Compete. I have been reading Marcelo’s blog lately and if you are involved in the Seattle startup community it is worth a read.

Here is a quick snapshot of the top ten. See all 260 at Marcelo’s site:

Seattle Startup Index January/2008: “Marcelo Calbucci”

(Via Seattle 2.0 Blog.)

Facebook Scrabble Rip-off Capitalizes on Mattel’s Lethargy: “mlimber writes ‘The Facebook app Scrabulous was written by two Scrabble-loving brothers in India, has over 700,000 users, brings in about $25,000 per month in advertising revenue, and is in flagrant violation of copyright law. The corporate owners of Scrabble, Hasbro and Mattel, have threatened legal action against the creators and have made deals with Electronic Arts and RealNetworks to release official online versions of the game. But according to an NYTimes article, ‘Scrabulous has already brought Scrabble a newfound virtual popularity that none of the game companies could have anticipated,’ and according to one consultant to the entertainment industry, ‘If you’re Hasbro or Mattel, it isn’t in your interest to shut this down.’ Hasbro’s partner RealNetworks is ‘working closely’ with the piratical brothers, but Mattel says that ’settling with the [brothers] would set a bad precedent’ for other board games going online.’

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

(Via Slashdot.)

If you negotiate lots of contracts I am sure you are familiar with the guy who thinks it is a great idea to lock the contract down so that it can’t be edited. It is incredibly frustrating when you go to markup and agreement only to find that it has been “Protected.” Fortunatly there is an easy hack that will get you around this frustration and will save you or your assistant from having to retype the agreement. Dependeing on the governing law in your jurisdiction, this may be a violation of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, so be sure to only use it on your own documents that you have accidentally locked yourself out of

To unprotect a Word document that has been locked:

1) With the document open press F11 while holding down shift and alt (Alt-Shift-F11). This should launch the script editor in Word;

2) Next select the find option (or hit ctl-f), and run a find for the word “password.” This should highlight something like this “<UnprotectPassword>32943208</w:UnprotectPassword>”;

3) Delete the letters and numbers between the tags (in the above example this would be the 32943208);

4) Save the document in the script editor and close the window. You should now be back in your Word document;

5) From the “Tools” pulldown menu, select “unprotect.” Your document should now be unprotected.

Local Seattle CEO Kevin Meritt has an interesting article in his blog at Blist.com about when it is time for a startup to move into its first office. If you aren’t familiar with Blist you should check out their website. I have been participating in the beta program for a little while now and the product is impressive. It is a online database, but the interface is as easy to use as excel. What is most impressive is the user interface. Blist doesn’t feel like a web application. It is intuitive and polished, something that certainly can’t be said for all web applications. Here is some of Kevin’s advice. Check of the Blist website for the rest of the article.

blist blog » Blog Archive » When to Take an Office: “When to Take an Office
March 2, 2008 by Kevin Merritt

In November blist moved into a nice new office suite in Pioneer Square. Before that we subleased some office space in Kirkland. We took our first office 2 weeks after incorporating and 2 weeks before our first employee joined. The company was entirely self-funded by me.

There’s a lot of talk that startups can and should operate virtually instead of taking an office. I couldn’t be more strongly opposed to the idea. In fact, I think an entrepreneur should take an office even before the first employee is hired, or worst case coincident with the first employee joining. I know my opinion isn’t unanimously supported, but I thought it’s worth sharing my thoughts as both an entrepreneur and angel investor. Here are some of the reasons why I think taking an office should be an early priority:

*) Paying for an office is a forcing function that clearly draws an end to the pre-startup ‘I’m thinking about it’ phase and commences the ‘I’m all in’ phase. There’s something about having your name on the roster in the lobby and a sign outside your door that says you’re serious about making a go of it.

*) There is no substitute for face-to-face collaboration. Yes, tools like email, IM, Skype, cell phones and Basecamp are great. They play a role in startups, but they can’t replace in-person collaboration. I can count somewhere between 5 and 10 entrepreneurs who started virtually then took an office who have shared with me ‘We should have taken an office much earlier. It was such a boost to productivity.’”

(Via Blist.)

If you are interested in the Blist product, I have embedded a video from the Blist website of Kevin demoing the product. Pretty slick:

from blog.blist.com

Grading curves were always a big topic of conversation when I was in law school. This article in the Wall Street Journal Law Blog cites a survey of Hastings law students indicating that close to 80% were unhappy with the school’s curve. The students argue that C’s on their transcripts will hurt their chances of working at a big firm. While not entirely sympathetic, I do agree. I don’t see many applicants coming through with C’s on their transcripts. Then again, I don’t see grades much at all once a candidate has made it past a screening interview as part of on campus recruiting. As a Hastings grad, I can attest that grading was very harsh when I was there. I distinctly recall emphasizing my class rank when applying with firms.

Grading the Law School Grading Curve: ”

Ah, the almighty law school grading curve, a never-ending source of controversy, consternation and confusion.

But do curves — whether they have low or high C distributions — even matter? That was the question being tossed around at LB headquarters this morning when this story, about a recent student survey at Hastings law school, came across our desk. The survey determined that nearly 80% of respondents were unhappy with the school’s grading system. The reason? Under the Hastings curve, only 20% of students can receive A’s.

‘I think the perception is, among many students, that having a C on your transcript harms your chances of competing,’ said Hastings 3L Andrew Ziaja, who authored the student poll. ‘The students responded very favorably to UCLA’s system’ — which dropped the C-curve from 40% to 20% — ‘and to Boalt’s. I think these systems are favorable because these are the schools that our students see themselves as competing with, and they want to appear on paper as close to these students as possible.’

Again, we ask, does it matter? The Law Blog has always believed that, when it comes to grades, class rank is the primary factor considered by employers. For speciality shops, like, say, a products liability firm, specific class grades (i.e. torts) may be important, but, overall, doesn’t rank and rank alone determine whether a student lands interviews?

In the article, Hastings’ academic dean, Shauna Marshall, acknowledged this: ‘If you were in the bottom half with a C and now you’re in the bottom half with B, the employer will still see that you’re in the bottom half. And changing our curve is not going to change that fact.’ Still, she said, ‘The curve should be relaxed because it’s the right thing to do and because the students become stressed about grades.’

What say you Loyal LB’ers? Where do you come out on The Curve?

(Via WSJ.com: Law Blog – WSJ.com.)

Matt Hulett, CEO of Seattle startup Mpire, posted an interesting article this week on his Startup Whisperer weblog. The message, “fire your PR firm.” I work with a number of startups here in Seattle and in the Bay Area, and the ones that seem to get the most traction with the media are those with founders that embrace the media. It also helps to have a good story to tell.

Fire your PR firm: ”

I have nothing against PR firms.’ I have worked with some fantastic firms in the past.’ At Expedia, I had a great experience with Edelman.’ When you have the budget and the time, PR firms can be a solid tactic.’ However, in startup mode, I have felt that the best salesperson is always the CEO.’ A lot of CEO friends of mine believe that hiring a top-notch PR firm is an essential part of their marketing mix in the early stage of their business.’ I do not.’ Startups change their operating direction frequently and move extremely fast.’ It is too difficult for a PR firm to keep up with you.’

Startups will get better results when a CEO takes the time to target a writer directly.’ There is so much noise that an authentic conversation from an executive does punch thru the sea of press releases being stuffed into inboxes by agencies.’ It reminds me when I decided to contact New York Times writer, Bob Tedeschi, directly versus spending several hours explaining how we were going to approach him.’ Bob emailed me back within 5 minutes and we got a stellar story out of it.’ Mpire hosted a little event recently where the Seattle Times’ technology reporter, Brier Dudley, echoed this sentiment of CEO’s being the best PR people.

(Via Startup Whisperer.)

Overlawyered.com reports that a class action lawsuit has been brought claiming promotions law violations in connection with Deal or No Deal’s “Lucky Case Game.” Sweepstakes violations are easy to trigger, since promotions law varies from state to state and changes rapidly. Traditionally companies have sought to avoid illegal lottery claims by allowing entrants to use an alternative means of entry that does not involve the purchase of a product or the paying of a fee. Typically promotions law claims are brought by a state’s attorney general. If this case in Georgia allows class actions to be brought directly on behalf of losing entrants, the risk profile for these types of promotions could rise significantly.

Read more at Overlawyered.com:

Deal or Raw Deal?:

Howie Mandel’s stunningly successful Deal Or No Deal television game show had an amusing little side-show.
Viewers were invited to play the ‘Lucky Case Game’ by choosing which of six on-screen gold briefcases was the lucky case. Viewers submitted their choice on the Internet for free or through a text message that cost 99 cents. At the end of the program, the winning briefcase was revealed, and the winners were entered into a random drawing. The winner of that drawing received a prize of as much as $10,000.

One enterprising Georgia lawyer claims that this amounts to illegal gambling and has filed a class action lawsuit to obtain refunds of the 99 cent text message fees (plus attorneys fees, of course):

When a Forsyth County couple sent 99-cent text messages trying to win a prize on the NBC game show ‘Deal or No Deal,’ they engaged in illegal gambling and should get their money back, a lawyer told the Georgia Supreme Court on Tuesday.

So should all other Georgians who sent text messages in the show’s ‘Lucky Case Game’ and lost, lawyer Jerry Buchanan said. A judge hearing the case has estimated the bounty could reach tens of millions of dollars.

The case has been report to the state Supreme Court for the answers to two questions:

1. Does Georgia law allow losers of an illegal lottery to recover the money they lost?

2. And, if so, may the losers recover that money from the lottery’s promoter or organizer?

No mention of the third question.

(Atlanta Journal & Constitution, ajc.com, Feb. 27)

Since the suit was filed, the game has stopped.

(Via Overlawyered.)