Path: Eric's Site / Law / Activision's Foul-Mouthed Lawyer (Site Map)

Activision's Foul-Mouthed Lawyer

Summary

Here is an exchange I had with Activision's foul-mouthed lawyer, Michael Hand. Hand was offered an opportunity to correct any errors in this report and did not respond.

Hand made a demand he had no right to make. He was acting like a bully full of himself because he went to law school. In the process, he said I had no right to use Activision's name at all. To show this was false, I gave Hand an example: Consumers have every right to tell their friends "I like this Activision product" or "I don't like that Activision product." I pointed out to Hand that people have a right to talk about Activision like this, so it demonstrates his statement that I cannot use their name is false.

What came from Hand's mouth next was the most astounding piece of astute legal reasoning I have ever heard. Using all the resources of his education at the University of San Francisco School of Law, his exact words were:

  • Michael Hand: "You're a fucking nut."
Isn't that brilliant? I would like to know how much Hand paid for that fine education, but I would like to know more what his grades were. Hand then proceeded to threaten me, but of course it is an empty threat. If the best argument he can present is obscenity, there is no merit to his position. Read on for the full story of how a thwarted corporate bully loses his temper.

How It Started

Lawyers are widely detested, and they bring much of it on themselves. This is the true story of one lawyer who brings shame to the profession.

The story began when I bought an Activision computer game, Zork Grand Inquisitor, and discovered it would not work on my laptop. The problem turned out to be, I suspect, overly aggressive anticopying techniques in the software, but that is another story. To get Activision's help with the problem, I entered a request through their web site. Where Activision's form asked for an email address, I asked Activision to use activision@edp.org. I usually assign each company its own email address to use. My domain is configured so they are all delivered to me. By doing this, I can detect when a company gives other parties my personal information without my permission. When I get spam to one of these email addresses, I know whom to blame.

Well, somebody in Activision's technical support noticed the address and relayed a message to me from their legal department. So, I called their legal department, left a message, and got a call back from Michael Hand.

The Action Begins

Here is how our phone conversation went. When I tell this to people, they laugh. Saying I do not need a way to detect companies giving away personal information because they have a policy is like saying we do not need police because we have laws. My customized email addresses allow me to police companies by giving me evidence when somebody misuses an address. A good lawyer should not make that kind of mistake. Hand made several mistakes here. First, a good professional should not make rude demands when polite requests are more likely to get the desired result, especially when they are working for a client to whom they have duties. Second, there is no legal basis for demanding a person stop using a company's name entirely. Everybody has the right to discuss the company—You can use a company's name anytime you are referring to the company. Third, I was not using Activision's name in any way that infringes their rights. I only asked them to use the address, not anybody else, so there was no chance anybody else would confuse me with Activision. As I noted above, that statement just is not true. So I gave Hand an example. This apparently upset Michael Hand, because he seemed to lose control of himself. Here are his exact words. I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure this is not a good legal argument. I looked through some law books and could not find anything like that.

I tried to ask Hand to speak to the issues and to ask him to state a legal theory supporting his position. Here is what he said then. This is either a direct quote or substantially so.

Hand Sends Threatening Email

Next, Hand sent me threatening email. In it, he made several false statements. Here is one of them. That is not true because the representative actually wrote something slightly but distinctly different. I would not make much of the distinction except these things are of legal significance, and it shows Hand is not making these distinctions. The representative actually asked that I stop using the Activision name, not that I stop using the word as an email address. This is like the difference between asking that somebody get off your property versus demanding that somebody get out of your town. The former is your right; the latter is not at all your right. Here are the representative's exact words, copied from his email message. In fact, at the time I write this, Activision has still not yet asked that I stop using the email address activision@edp.org. They have only made the improper demand that I stop using their name entirely.

Here is another false statement in Hand's email.

As we already learned, Hand did not advise (he demanded), and he did not advise me to stop using the name as an email address (he demanded I not use the Activision name at all). Actually, several phrases in the sentence suggest misconceptions in Hand's mind, but I will not get into those details. Let us just say he missed several distinctions I would expect a good lawyer to grasp.

Hand also wrote:

This is interesting, because lawyers are taught, I expect, to advise people without legal representation to consult lawyers. By doing so, they demonstrate to the court that they are not bullying a defenseless person, because they advised the person to seek a lawyer so the person would know their rights. But, as we saw above, Hand's intent was, as far as I could determine, exactly the opposite. He did not "advise" me to seek a lawyer; he angrily threatened to sue me for the purpose of causing me expense and/or nuisance, and, I infer from his tone and demeanor, emotional distress.

Hand then made his threat.

July 20 was two days after Hand sent that email. That pretty much proves to me he is a jerk, lost his temper, and was not thinking. As I noted above, a corporation might want to show the court they were playing fair with the opposing party, but giving a person just two days undermines that. Nobody can really consult a lawyer in that time, unless maybe they already have one. You would be lucky just to make an appointment in that time.

Since Then

I have not heard from Activision since I called their bluff. Hand's threat is empty, a puerile temper tantrum. By now, Hand has probably realized he has no legal position. If he has not, then his boss, George Rose, probably has. I sent Rose mail documenting Hand's mistakes and inappropriate and grossly unprofessional conduct. If Rose were a professional, he would have apologized for his subordinate's inappropriate behavior, but he has not.

From what I have seen, corporate lawyers are trained to bully people. Law school teaches lawyers how to make threats. There's a saying, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Lawyers who have only the tool of making threats see only nails to be pounded into submission.

A good professional builds a toolchest and acquires skill with each tool. For lawyers, that should include diplomacy, politeness, conflict resolution, negotiation, and knowing when and how to apologize.

The worst part of this is that corporate lawyers get results by threatening innocent people, and they do not deserve those results. Often, the small business or individual does not know their rights or is afraid of legal expenses, so they cave in to the undeserving corporation. Corporations that do this are bullies, they are bad citizens, and they should be exposed and boycotted.

Path: Eric's Site / Law / Activision's Foul-Mouthed Lawyer (Site Map)

© Copyright 2001 by Eric Postpischil.