| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> Probably not more than another 8 or 9 hours. [...]
Actually, probably a few days. Just spoke with the LSI attorney who Brad
consulted with before sending the request, and I got the distinct sense that
this is a issue which LEGO wishes to address quickly and devote whatever time
and resources to that it can (meaning talking with Target about this, etc.).
In other words, if Brad happens to post about it anytime early this week,
I'll be surprised, because he's probably extra-extra busy in light of this.
> [...]
> If Brad doesn't give permission to repost his messages, or doesn't post
> something himself directly which is equivalent, I'll repost it without his
> permission (which, AFAIK, would be improper rather than illegal since his
> message contained no indication that the message itself was sensitive or was
> a privileged legal communication).
In light of the size of this discussion (wow) I can't actually imagine Brad
not making a post explaining things as soon as he gets time. When he does
that, he'll want to clear it with LEGO attorneys, which will also add to the
time. I probably shouldn't post a copy of it unless I have no other choice.
I can certainly paraphrase, though...give me a bit of time to put something
together.
> I've also asked for a more formal legal
> request, which I had proceeded yesterd under the good faith assumption that
> one would be forthcoming without having to ask.
I learned on the phone that a more formal legal request won't be coming.
I'm OK with that because Brad consulted with LSI Legal before sending his
message. Thus, it was truly a formal legal requst, and LSI Legal was cc'd.
Also, in the mind of the attorney I spoke with on the phone, Brad's message
accurately represented the legal point of view and noted that, as a general
rule of thumb, Brad consults with LSI Legal before making a public posting.
I asked if Brad's message was a polite request or a legal request and she said
that it was both. Thus, on the grounds of it being a legal request, it is
valid to carry out the request. I respect the polite aspect for what it is,
but I would also not ever remove a message based on solely a polite request;
I need legal reasons to remove a message. She said that I was welcome to call
and confirm anything with her prior to carrying out such a request if it ever
happens again. In this case I used my gut judgment and it was correct.
> If LEGO declines to provide a formal legal request stating that the articles
> about the 2001 product line contained legally sensitive information, then it
> may just come to pass that the articles get restored in their former glory
> and LEGO can then politely ask people to voluntarily cancel them or ask that
> they be canceled. LUGNET's policy is not to censor messages, but of course
> if something specifically has to be removed for clear (and well documented)
> legal reasons, then its removal is of course appropriate.
What I heard on the phone was sufficient to satisfy me that a legal request
had already been made. I asked if I could get an email from LSI Legal that
I could post publicly, and was told that one would not be coming. I can
understand that position, since it is not legally necessary that they do so,
and I can imagine that LEGO might be at least a tiny embarassed to admit that
this had happened. Anyway.
> In the future, it would probably be good for us to have a more formalized
> system for handling requests of this type. I would feel much less
> uncomfortable, for example, if a request came from a LEGO attorney via a
> public posting and identified specific messages and justified the request.
In the future, I think I will, as a matter of protocol, call LSI Legal and
confirm any email request, even if it comes from LSI Legal, as a formality,
prior to carrying out the legal request -- assuming they can be reached by
phone within a reasonable amount of time. Today was quick -- phone call was
returned within 20 minutes, and the action taken yesterday was the correct
one.
--Todd
p.s. LSI = LEGO Systems Inc. in Enfield -- these are the people we have met
in person and have an open channel with to discuss issues that come up.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I just received an email reply from Brad to my earlier message to him today. He reiterated that the original request was a formal legal request and noted that he could not give permission for me to post the contents of the message. He said (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Why are you so afraid of nuking posts on your own system? Do you really have a legal obligation not to delete posts without a formal legal request? I would only call to confirm if you *disagree* with the request, and want to see if they (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Probably not more than another 8 or 9 hours. I sent a polite request to Brad today asking for his permission to post a verbatim copy of his email, and cc'd the LSI attorney who he originally cc'd on his request, and also left a phone message (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
176 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
