| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | When forced to agree upon deduction, what should we do? Thread poster: Thomas Kim
|
|---|
| Great for us, but what about the OP? | Jul 26, 2015 |
Dan Lucas wrote: Preston Decker wrote:
I'm guessing that most of us would agree that the true nightmare agencies are largely of the non-paying variety, so if the agency really pays you, I don't think you need to feel bad about not warning other translators This sounds like a nightmare to me if the original poster's description is accurate. This is an agency unprofessional enough and incompetent enough to tackle the notoriously complex process of trying to file a patent in a foreign country without using a local lawyer. That's a bad sign. The original poster would be doing service to the community by reporting this one. Next time it could be one of us. I do, however, wonder if the OP asked about the absence of a patent lawyer before he started the translation. I would not get involved in a for-filing patent translation without an assurance in writing that my translation would be reviewed by a patent attorney before being used in the application process. If the agency were unable to supply contact details of the lawyer they had retained to shepherd the patent application that would be a huge red flag. Regards Dan
Thomas seems to be concerned that there is something in his NDA that could prohibit him from making negative comments about this firm on Proz. If so, he could face legal consequences if he does comment, which is the main reason I advised him not to.
Additionally, the agency IS going to pay him. The only scenario in which I would even consider risking a violation of a NDA to post about an agency is if I felt very strongly that other translators would be risking nonpayment or legal action by working for them. Neither seems to be the case here.
Helping the community by posting a negative comment is a great thing to do if it carries little risk to the poster. Doing the same for this sort of incident while taking the risk of retaliatory measures (or litigation) would IMHO be a poor business decision for Thomas.
| | | | Dan Lucas 
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:53
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
| Issue of jurisdiction | Jul 26, 2015 |
Preston Decker wrote:
Thomas seems to be concerned that there is something in his NDA that could prohibit him from making negative comments about this firm on Proz. If so, he could face legal consequences if he does comment, which is the main reason I advised him not to.
Sure, I understand that. Nevertheless, NDAs are the norm these days yet there are hundreds of recent negative reviews on the Blue Board, maybe thousands.
Even large, lawyered-up organisations such as thebigword and WordPerfect who insist on NDAs and "master service agreements" are apparently unable to prevent low LWA scores. That's the general point in his favour.
The specific point in his favour is the issue of personal jurisdiction. Unless Thomas has strong contacts to the country (UK or US?) of the agency, such as by residency, a court in either of those two countries would simply conclude forum non conveniens and kick the case out. Countries don't generally tackle overseas defendants except in very limited cases.
So the agency would have to try legal action against him in South Korea based on him having signed a non-local English contract simply for expressing an opinion that he would not work with the agency again.
And that opinion would be the result of some pretty nasty behaviour from a foreigner - and nationality does generally matter in Asia, as you know - towards a South Korean national. That would be a case that probably falls at the first hurdle.
On the other hand, this agency doesn't even have enough street smarts to hire a lawyer to do its patent application, so the likelihood of it being committed enough to do anything is extremely small, in my opinion.
Still, as you say, I am not the one in the firing line if things go wrong...
Regards
Dan
| | | |
Dan Lucas wrote: Preston Decker wrote:
Thomas seems to be concerned that there is something in his NDA that could prohibit him from making negative comments about this firm on Proz. If so, he could face legal consequences if he does comment, which is the main reason I advised him not to. Sure, I understand that. Nevertheless, NDAs are the norm these days yet there are hundreds of recent negative reviews on the Blue Board, maybe thousands. Even large, lawyered-up organisations such as thebigword and WordPerfect who insist on NDAs and "master service agreements" are apparently unable to prevent low LWA scores. That's the general point in his favour. The specific point in his favour is the issue of personal jurisdiction. Unless Thomas has strong contacts to the country (UK or US?) of the agency, such as by residency, a court in either of those two countries would simply conclude forum non conveniens and kick the case out. Countries don't generally tackle overseas defendants except in very limited cases. So the agency would have to try legal action against him in South Korea based on him having signed a non-local English contract simply for expressing an opinion that he would not work with the agency again. And that opinion would be the result of some pretty nasty behaviour from a foreigner - and nationality does generally matter in Asia, as you know - towards a South Korean national. That would be a case that probably falls at the first hurdle. On the other hand, this agency doesn't even have enough street smarts to hire a lawyer to do its patent application, so the likelihood of it being committed enough to do anything is extremely small, in my opinion. Still, as you say, I am not the one in the firing line if things go wrong... Regards Dan
And perhaps I'm making a bigger deal out of the NDA than I should. After all, the OP never actually provided the relevant NDA terms or a summary of the terms for us to look at, so for all we know there's nothing in there expressly prohibiting a post.
| | | |
Thomas Kim wrote:
Do you insist that you have made no errors whatsoever in your translation?
That's for them to prove. And I don't understand why the person would switch to 'no errors whatsoever' mode upon being asked to justify the allegations made against you.
Do you assert that the suggested fixes from our patent translator are not appropriate?
You don't have to assert anything, they have to prove it.
Are you willing to take any blame in the problems of translation?
Oh sure, you have you to be the big person and take the blame just because they say your translation was bad, with no proof.
By contrast, the person who criticized your Korean syntax sounded like a native speaker of English, hence not likely to have had the kind of command of Korean to correct a native writer.
In any case, single paragraph quoted from one(!) review out of six doesn't prove anything.
Sounds like a scam.
We are facing the consequences of this translation problem with our customer, and you have not taken any level of responsibility in the issue to support us. Our possible loss of business far exceeds the potential payment discount that you could have accepted. We have done many patents over the years, and we have never had to engage six different Korean translators on a patent translation before.
Perhaps because they'd been acting professionally before, and not like idiots or scammers? The recurring 1 = 6 theme here obviously doesn't add up.
Had he been more professional in communication, and instead of insulting and humiliating me by accusing of "poor or bad quality", and detailed his situation and that extra expense engendered,
Of course. Dude sounds like either a non-native speaker of English or someone with a mental defect, as well as socially inept, any combination of which may be the reason he's been consistently failing to handle the matter appropriately.
He didn't know that Korean Patent Application should be edited and filed to KIPO(Korean Intellectual Property Office) by a Licensed Patent Attorney.
The filing is not your problem, you're a translator, not a patent lawyer.
What should we, private individual freelance translators, do if a translation vendor forces to accept deduction from translation fee, accusing us of "poor or bad quality?"
First of all ask which one is it.
'Poor or bad quality' is not the language of someone competent to do business in the language he's trying to conduct it in.
As a rule, I insist on communicating with people who are sufficiently fluent and proficient to discuss the matter at hand, otherwise no deal.
Concerning any errors, I want proof and reliable proof at that. Just because you're the client doesn't mean your reviewer's say-so decides the right or wrong of my translation. Proof, proof, proof. With adequate sources to support clearly formulated, objectively existing issues. No 'tit for that' kind of lengthy e-mail exchanges with people who aren't proficient in the language.
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 18:53
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Thomas Kim wrote:
So I asked him to be more specific about this, and asked him to pin-point any inaccurate, ambiguous, missing, or unclear sentence from my translation. Then he wrote me like this...
You say that he is a client from the USA. If that is so, then his refusal to provide you with specific answers to your requests for evidence of poor translation raises red flags, in my opinion. Such "evasiveness" is normal in certain cultures, but not in the US culture. You were right to play hard-ball with him.
Or... perhaps by the time the client asked for a discount, he had already lost faith in you completely, and regarded your replies not as honest requests for evidence by an honest translator, but as a stalling tactic by someone who knows he's in trouble. Unfortunately, without you seeing specific evidence of your errors, you can't respond to these allegations adequately.
Do you insist that you have made no errors whatsoever in your translation?
Do you assert that the suggested fixes from our patent translator are not appropriate?
Are you willing to take any blame in the problems of translation?
Yes, very odd. Are you sure he sent you no actual suggested fixes?
What should we, private individual freelance translators, do if a translation vendor forces to accept deduction from translation fee, accusing us of "poor or bad quality?"
You did the right thing: try to get examples of the bad quality, and then respond to them in a way that explains to the client that you are right and his proofreader is wrong. If the client refuses to provide evidence of the poor quality, then you must refuse to give any discounts.
I personally think most freelance translators may be willing to share the loss of the translation vendor, of a particular project in which he/she has been involving or involved, if he or she is going to work for the vendor on the long-term basis.
No, I think most translators would be afraid to admit any liability, because admitting that you did a poor job is unlikely to prompt the client into giving you more jobs. Being modest is a good trait, and accepting with humility if you misunderstood the instructions is a good trait, and even apologising if you had misinterpreted a deadline may be a good trait, but admitting that you did a poor translation (even if you did) is not going to win you the client's approval.
==
I want to report this vendor, without breaching NDA, how can I do that?
If your NDA says that you can't provide information about this client or his jobs to the public, then you can't post a Blue Board entry without the client's permission (unless there is good reason, e.g. he is a non-payer). But he did pay you, so he's not in breach of any agreements. He may be a bad client to work for, but you have no valid excuse for breaching the NDA.
There is nothing you can do to protect fellow-translators against this client.
[Edited at 2015-07-27 12:15 GMT]
| | | | 564354352 (X)
Denmark
Local time: 18:53
Danish to English
+ ...
| Never thought I'd say this... | Jul 27, 2015 |
But for once I actually agree with Tom...
Tom in London wrote:
So you got paid. What's the problem?
You were NOT forced to accept a deduction, even if you went through a nasty and lengthy exchange with your client.
As I see it, this basically boils down to the following:
1. A lack of agreement about what was going to happen with the patent translation after translation. It would have made very good sense to make sure the agency was aware that the translation would have to be checked and edited by a local patent lawyer, especially if that is not the case with patent translations worldwide (I don't know about this).
2. A lack of proof that your translation was not satisfactory. You asked for proof and, as far as I understand, you have not received this.
The rest is just semantics and hurt professional pride.
I imagine that after this unfortunate situation, you are not likely to get work from this agency again, nor will you want to work for them again. If you have signed an NDA stating that you are not allowed to criticise the agency in public, then don't get yourself into trouble by doing so. It is very noble of you to want to warn fellow translators, but it is not worth the risk for you.
My advice to you would be to put this one down to experience, then let it go. You got your money, and hopefully you will get over the unpleasant treatment and move on.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » When forced to agree upon deduction, what should we do? | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
