As an engineer coming from a family of lawyers... engineers think they understand the law, but really they suck at it and when that shit does end up in court it looks really bad because it comes out in discovery.
that shit does end up in court it looks really bad because it comes out in discovery.
That's exactly my point. I'm asking whether or not an employer should write a contract that specifically states the employee should modify their behaviour to ensure things aren't discovered later - namely that the employer knew (or at least "was informed") that illegal things were going on. I don't think they should. If my employer wanted me to sign something that said "If you see things happening that you believe might be illegal, please keep quiet about it because you don't understand the law" I think I ought to say no.
> namely that the employer knew (or at least "was informed") that illegal things were going on
The problem is engineers lack a good grasp of how the law works compared to lawyers - sometimes the action is not illegal, but it will still looks bad after discovery. Leading to unnecessary settlements not as a matter of law, but of optics. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
> "If you see things happening that you believe might be illegal, please keep quiet about it because you don't understand the law"
That's not what they are saying - they are saying don't use email to do it. I mean would you appreciate it if your startup's first employee sends an email stating "We are infringing on these 18 Microsoft patents" on the record?
sometimes the action is not illegal, but it will still looks bad after discovery
So, are we discussing ethics or legality? If Google's official policy is one of "we like to skirt the law well into looking-bad territory, and that is fine" then they really need to abandon their "do no evil" motto.
I'll make an analogy: Engineers hate it when sales make commitments on behalf of engineering. Can you not imagine how lawyers might dislike engineers making legal commitments?
When dealing with people outside of the org, lawyers want from engineers what engineers want from sales - be vague and don't create obligations you do not fully understand. It is still perfectly fine for a sales guy to privately point out a bug - just don't shout it to the customer.
Can you not imagine how lawyers might dislike engineers making legal commitments
I think it takes a lawyer to believe "pointing out when the company you work for is breaking the law" is the same as "making a legal commitment", as if laws only apply if you acknowledge them. I'm realise that is essentially how the world lawyers live in works, but I think it sucks and I wouldn't want to sign a contract that forces me to be a part of it.
Most people in most areas don't know the law, so you can't point it out, you can only speculate.
Assuming you know the law when you never studied it is the problem. The idea is that you should be asking if something you think is questionable is legal or not. That's why companies have lawyers. It's about bringing it to the attention of the right people who can make the call and keep the company out of trouble, without saying something incorrect that you might have to testify about later.
You are being obtuse. The point is that an engineer can't authoritatively conclude that the company is breaking the law, so they shouldn't write it down.
How is it skirting the law? It seems more like "We (like everyone else) like to win court cases we may be in, and engineers providing unneeded or unfounded legal opinions over email makes it harder to win cases"
Your inability to understand this goes to OPs point about engineers not understanding law. I'm guessing you're an engineer(or at least - not a lawyer)
It's about the language used. You can absolutely cover yourself without directly implicating the company. Don't say "we're violating this and this patent", because even if you're technically not, it would look bad if that email were to come up in a patent lawsuit.
