The lawyer didn't care... they just used their power to block the release. Since it wasn't something that mattered to them, they likely never gave it a second thought. This isn't terribly uncommon (it's not just an issue with lawyers, but with any corporate gatekeeper) in the business world.
Usually you can, but it better be worth it. You’ll have to get an officer to say they’re willing to accept the risk with a high level legal counsel.
If you tossed this idea up to that level, you’d piss the officer off for wasting his time and burn the relationship with the lawyer.
Also, this team was pretty infamous at that point for not playing nice with the corporate structure (eg naming the OS Plan 9). Sure, they were rockstars to nerds, but Unix, etc. never made Bell/AT&T real money. Wasn’t their fault, but they never got internal clout and were just a small, weird group in a giant company.
My current role is the first where I've extensively worked with counsel. My biggest misconception going into these discussions was that it'd be a transactional, approval-gated thing: I make a request, they kick it around, then come back and say "yes" or "no" and that would be the end of it.
What I've found is exactly what you describe: if I come to legal asking for a "no" – which I've done more than a handful of times – that's an easy answer that comes out of an email. But when I come wanting their approval, if I can get past the first meeting with counsel the next one is with officers, you are pitching the benefits while the lawyers are talking about risks, and if you can convince everyone to take the risks you get what you want. Just be sure to write down meeting minutes and send them around; no one at that level was taking notes ;)
"We want to distribute a ton of IP with unclear/insufficient releases" has almost no benefit and a mountain of risk for any company. It's no wonder the lawyers said no.
Probably not, no; because to cross the corporate power broker is to invite their wrath. It will make future asks of them impossible, or at least costly.
Yeah I am doubting this too. The lawyer identifies a potential legal problem (clearances) that would have been trivial to solve. For about $50 you can file a copyrighted work with the librarian of Congress and get an officially USA-branded certificate of copyright ownership, and it only takes a couple of weeks. This is a norm in the creative industry because if you have filed your copyrighted work and it is later infringed, you can claim punitive damages as well as recoup your loss.
I don’t think you have experienced the politics of high level executives in mega corporations. This is exactly the most plausible part of the story. Some legal executive likely jumped to some conclusion before talking to Rob to get all the facts, and didn’t want to walk back his position because he is so much more important than the tiny Unix group that it was easier to just kill it.
Remember Plan9 was not going to make money enough for any executive to care.
I read it as not a clearance problem, but that the lawyer didn't know who Lou Reed and Debbie Harry were and didn't want to release music from some randos the developers had found.
Yeah, because actual randos could be people doing cover versions of music they don't own. But one could respond to this with 'they're successful recording artists, I can get the documentation you need right away.'
