Two Years After Issuing Ridiculous Threats and Choosing a Law Firm in Debt (Probably Desperate for Clients) Matthew J. Garrett Gets Help ('Bailout') From Microsofters
Microsoft is in a rather dire situation and the last thing it needs right now is legitimate critics. It basically rides a giant Ponzi scheme, built upon debt rather than real assets, so a bunch of catspaw it can 'throw under the bus' can be rather handy. Consider who it chose to lie about LLMs, which are worse than worthless: Scam Altman.
Scam Altman's sister recently sued him for sexual abuse* (as the Technology section at the Journal of Record put it, "Sam Altman's Younger Sister Files Lawsuit Claiming He Sexually Abused Her").
Since even the New York Times covers it and it was good enough to publish (they checked a lot before going live with this) it's going to be a big problem for Microsoft if it's seen as a sexual predator or facilitator of several (even Bill Gates). How much more terrible would it be if Streisand Effect got invoked?
Similarly, to cite this recent report, who the heck wants to associate with Putin's mercenaries and Prigozhin? Well, apparently some law firms are this desperate and the article states that "[one l]aw firm [is] OK to represent Russian warlord against UK editor" as "Bellingcat editor Eliot Higgins lost £70,000 defending against the spurious claim."
So the sole intention there was to waste his time and money. The article names the law firm that decided to represent war criminals. How about people who strangle women in the United States? Any British law firms willing to play ball? That's Brett Wilson LLP**.
Enjoy your client. The karma won't be good. It's not even good for business. █
____
* A lot of the media that appeases the current US administration seems to be gaslighting women, fearing SLAPP from the people whom they accuse of sexual crimes (or worse).
** This actually started last year when Nick Brett and Iain Wilson (or Brett Wilson LLP) were willing to put at risk the already-terrible reputation of their firm by acting on behalf of a serial strangler of women, who decided to wage a war against the person who merely reported that it happened (while he worked for Microsoft; there was an arrest and crime report that Microsoft wasn't aware of... the arrest was in the public domain though). What does that say about their views on justice or of women? It certainly seems true that they'd take aboard anyone - even aggressive misogynists on drugs and alcohol - as clients and act for them as long as they're able to pay - just what we heard a year ago when their logo first popped up (their notoriety had been well earned).
What might outsiders think of Wilson attacking an innocent woman - a British woman of a minority group - about his age (one year apart)?
They had a tough year of debt and depleted funds (notice balance and debtors). This is from the public domain:
Well, now there is some Microsoft money in those bank accounts (notice how much money was lost and borrowed).