Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

masslawblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#41

Post by trhway »

pimmen wrote: post #30

I just don’t get why engineers want to work for Uber. They have treated their drivers poorly (eg. under paying them and fighting benefits other cab companies have to pay), their riders poorly (eg. not telling them their personal data was stolen), their engineers poorly (eg. giving zero fucks about sexual harassment without the press getting involved), local governments poorly (eg. dodging law enforcement and regulato…

>Our profession is about solving problems that makes people’s lives better,

since then? Have you seen resume of Leonardo da Vinci:

https://www.theladders.com/p/1523/leonardo-da-vincis-resume

"and with these I can fling small stones almost resembling a storm; and with the smoke of these cause great terror to the enemy, to his great detriment and confusion. "

Duke's enemies, Uber competitors - at least in the latter case no people got killed nor were intended to be killed, looks like we're making progress. The technology has, primarily, always served the interests of the "Dukes", i.e. of the ones who pay. It probably has all the chances for the second oldest profession title.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#42

Post by solomatov »

mc32 wrote: post #19
lmkg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's technically a type of intellectual property, like a patent. If no agreements are in place, it's still infringement.

Does that mean someone can't independently come up with the formula for Coke (Pepsi or any knock off) because it's their intellectual property? [Or KFC's 13 spices] Or is Pepsi (and other knock offs) sufficiently different? Or something else working here.

IANAL, but for something to be a trade secret, it should be secret, economically useful and there should be some reasonable precautions preventing its disclosure.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#43

Post by pimmen »

trhway wrote: post #41
pimmen wrote: post #30

I just don’t get why engineers want to work for Uber. They have treated their drivers poorly (eg. under paying them and fighting benefits other cab companies have to pay), their riders poorly (eg. not telling them their personal data was stolen), their engineers poorly (eg. giving zero fucks about sexual harassment without the press getting involved), local governments poorly (eg. dodging law enforcement and regulato…

>Our profession is about solving problems that makes people’s lives better, since then? Have you seen resume of Leonardo da Vinci: https://www.theladders.com/p/1523/leonardo-da-vincis-resume "and with these I can fling small stones almost resembling a storm; and with the smoke of these cause great terror to the enemy, to his great detriment and confusion. " Duke's enemies, Uber competitors - at least in the latter ca…

I personally do not think weapons make people’s lives better, but if you would have the opinion that an armed defense force is a public good that’s a separate discussion.

What you have to ask yourself is ”Is this illegal? Could I tell my grandchildren 30 years later what I did as an engineer and feel proud?”

Don’t think I’m completely excluding the people who pay from all responsibility, however.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#44

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

placebo wrote: post #39
leggomylibro wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Integrity is a rare coin these days, but to be fair, it won't buy you much. I still think it's worthwhile because...you know, be nice to people. But I'm fortunate to be in a position where I can be a sucker like that without serious consequences. I know that having integrity in the current market hurts me a bit, but I can afford it. Maybe not everyone has that sort of option - maybe Uber's extra $20k keeps their mort…

Integrity is always an option, but it's definitely not always an easy option. I'm glad you're in a place where you don't have to test it and hope that I also won't find myself in a difficult place where it will have to be tested, but I do know that it's the only coin that is really worth anything.

> Integrity is always an option, but it's definitely not always an easy option.

Here's some anecdata:

I've been that shitbag without integrity, it's not actually any easier. (I actually think it's much harder.) Whatever energy you think you're saving by just going along with it, whatever profit you think you're getting out of it -- you're spending way more than that on maintaining the status quo.

I think a lot of the materialism and obsession with things like nice houses stems from the fact that when we step out of the shower and look in the mirror -- when we make eye contact with ourselves for that moment -- we're forced to admit that we just don't like the person we see. So we make the decorations around that moment nicer, obsessively, as if that will somehow change the encounter. This feeds into a cycle of needing every bigger fixes at ever greater expense to yourself, digging you deeper and deeper into dependence on it.

Whatever amount I'm "losing" in pay is worth it to change that reaction when I see myself -- to make the only required relationship in my life healthy and vibrant instead of toxic.

That said, I actually make more by being a trustworthy human that cares about the consequences of what he does, because it turns out that there's a) a need for that, since selfish behavior rapidly turns destructive in an organization and b) apparently a shortage of people willing to take the "easy" path.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#45

Post by jackvalentine »

humanrebar wrote: post #11
jackvalentine wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really true? Is there something I can read for a better understanding?

""" ...a trade secret is information that: * Is not generally known to the public; * Confers some sort of economic benefit on its holder (where this benefit must derive specifically from its not being publicly known, not just from the value of the information itself); * Is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. """ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret None of those criteria requires a contra…

Interesting... superficially it looks like patent protection without having to disclose the patent and have it eventually expire.

Is that an accurate statement?

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#46

Post by trhway »

pimmen wrote: post #43
trhway wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Our profession is about solving problems that makes people’s lives better, since then? Have you seen resume of Leonardo da Vinci: https://www.theladders.com/p/1523/leonardo-da-vincis-resume "and with these I can fling small stones almost resembling a storm; and with the smoke of these cause great terror to the enemy, to his great detriment and confusion. " Duke's enemies, Uber competitors - at least in the latter ca…

I personally do not think weapons make people’s lives better, but if you would have the opinion that an armed defense force is a public good that’s a separate discussion. What you have to ask yourself is ”Is this illegal? Could I tell my grandchildren 30 years later what I did as an engineer and feel proud?” Don’t think I’m completely excluding the people who pay from all responsibility, however.

>armed defense force

do you mean the force managed by Department of Peace which buys only defensive bullets, bombs, missiles, etc. built by engineers possessing true integrity who would never build offensive bullets, bombs, missiles? Or do you think Leonardo was going to build only "defensive" cannons and bombs for the "saint" Duke?

And weapons not necessarily should explode. Trade, political and economic actions can do a lot of damage and cause death and suffering. And now days one can do a lot of damage by actions in cyberspace.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#47

Post by skarap »

> Once a judge catches a lawyer in a lie the judge will question everything the lawyer says.

Not a lawyer, but isn't is taken for granted that lawyers (along with everybody else) are lying in courts and that it's the jurors and judge's job to find out who is lying?

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#48

Post by pimmen »

trhway wrote: post #46
pimmen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally do not think weapons make people’s lives better, but if you would have the opinion that an armed defense force is a public good that’s a separate discussion. What you have to ask yourself is ”Is this illegal? Could I tell my grandchildren 30 years later what I did as an engineer and feel proud?” Don’t think I’m completely excluding the people who pay from all responsibility, however.

>armed defense force do you mean the force managed by Department of Peace which buys only defensive bullets, bombs, missiles, etc. built by engineers possessing true integrity who would never build offensive bullets, bombs, missiles? Or do you think Leonardo was going to build only "defensive" cannons and bombs for the "saint" Duke? And weapons not necessarily should explode. Trade, political and economic actions can…

Working for an arms contractor is something I would never do because I don't want to make things that kill people, however if someone else thinks that the military is a necessary institution for public safety those engineers can also proudly tell their grandchildren 30 years from now what they did and why it was ethically justified to do so without resorting to "I had a mortgage".

When you just shrug and say "tragedy of the commons, I suppose" knowingly screwing people over in ways you wouldn't want to be treated yourself, then laugh all the way to the bank you're a part of the problem and the reason why some people feel the need of a defense force in the first place.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#49

Post by [deleted] »

pimmen wrote: post #43
trhway wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Our profession is about solving problems that makes people’s lives better, since then? Have you seen resume of Leonardo da Vinci: https://www.theladders.com/p/1523/leonardo-da-vincis-resume "and with these I can fling small stones almost resembling a storm; and with the smoke of these cause great terror to the enemy, to his great detriment and confusion. " Duke's enemies, Uber competitors - at least in the latter ca…

I personally do not think weapons make people’s lives better, but if you would have the opinion that an armed defense force is a public good that’s a separate discussion. What you have to ask yourself is ”Is this illegal? Could I tell my grandchildren 30 years later what I did as an engineer and feel proud?” Don’t think I’m completely excluding the people who pay from all responsibility, however.

[deleted]

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#50

Post by SilverSlash »

pimmen wrote: post #30

I just don’t get why engineers want to work for Uber. They have treated their drivers poorly (eg. under paying them and fighting benefits other cab companies have to pay), their riders poorly (eg. not telling them their personal data was stolen), their engineers poorly (eg. giving zero fucks about sexual harassment without the press getting involved), local governments poorly (eg. dodging law enforcement and regulato…

The same reason why most people work anywhere? It's hard to find a job these days, much less a well paying one.
Post reply on HN