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

51–60 of 89 posts

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#51

Post by brian-armstrong »

tajen wrote: post #36
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…

I personally had to leave a company because women were promoted all the time and men were ostensibly discriminated against. Both ends of the spectrum are annoying, those who don’t care about progressism (Uber), and those who give all power to accusers (90% of SV). If given the choice, I’d work for the workplace that gives me equal chances of promotion and recognizes presumption of innocence against the one which disc…

You know that Google overwhelmingly hires and promotes men, right?

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#52

Post by wallace_f »

leggomylibro wrote: post #34
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…

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…

>pretty disillusioned these days.

OJ Simpson's prosecutor posted a similar idea on Reddit:(1)

>Most of the prosecutors I know are good people who are committed to protecting us from those who would prey on us. But these days, I sometimes run into prosecutors who just don't seem to have the character we used to have 20-30 years ago. People need to understand that prosecutors are lawyers, and like my grandmama once told me, a law degree is a license to lie.

Personally I am sad to think we're currently in a slide away from constitutional rights and individual liberty, and how this relates to our cultural ideas about integrity.

Unfortunately, it's nobody's actual job to worry about this.

1 - https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/6oybbr/hi_reddit_i_am...

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#53

Post by pimmen »

SilverSlash wrote: post #50
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.

So they tell themselves they have a right to a well paying job and that their right to a good livelihood is more important than the rights of the people Uber screws over?

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#54

Post by ajkjk »

pimmen wrote: post #53
SilverSlash wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So they tell themselves they have a right to a well paying job and that their right to a good livelihood is more important than the rights of the people Uber screws over?

...yes? people have done ethically questionable or outright evil things for money for all of history. Why would it stop now?

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#55

Post by watwut »

MBCook wrote: post #33
tajen wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, what is that debate about Nuremberg? Did it allow to escape responsibility ? Genuinely interested.

Nurenberg is where they held the trials for Nazis after World War II. Many of them claimed that they were only following orders, which quickly became known as the “Nuremberg defense”. I honestly don’t know to what degree it worked. It’s obviously quite clear that it’s seen as a cowards way out; that people should have done the right thing in spite of orders.

It did not worked. And big names were not just following orders anyway. But it was not just covardly way out. The prewar German culture really thought that way. It was heavily militarized state and following orders was valued. In that culture, if you followed orders you should be fine and not following then was something very bad.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#56

Post by pimmen »

watwut wrote: post #55
MBCook wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nurenberg is where they held the trials for Nazis after World War II. Many of them claimed that they were only following orders, which quickly became known as the “Nuremberg defense”. I honestly don’t know to what degree it worked. It’s obviously quite clear that it’s seen as a cowards way out; that people should have done the right thing in spite of orders.

It did not worked. And big names were not just following orders anyway. But it was not just covardly way out. The prewar German culture really thought that way. It was heavily militarized state and following orders was valued. In that culture, if you followed orders you should be fine and not following then was something very bad.

Yes, the reason the Allies had jointly agreed not to allow that defense was because they knew the Germans would use it like they did after WWI in Leipzig.

But, the Allies also had to reconcile this with the Yamashita standard; that commanders have to take responsibility for what their subordinates are doing even if they haven't explicitly ordered it to convict other war criminals, most famously Tomoyuki Yamashita for the crimes his soldiers committed in the Philippines.

Which leads to this back and forth tennis game at every ethical discussion of who's really responsible; the boss or the peon? IMHO, convict them both.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#57

Post by tialaramex »

skarap wrote: post #47

> 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?

No. Lawyers are officers of the court. Especially in civil cases which are just about the balance of evidence, their role is to put their side of the truth in the best light. Not to just make up whatever bullshit they think might win.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#58

Post by tajen »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #51
tajen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally had to leave a company because women were promoted all the time and men were ostensibly discriminated against. Both ends of the spectrum are annoying, those who don’t care about progressism (Uber), and those who give all power to accusers (90% of SV). If given the choice, I’d work for the workplace that gives me equal chances of promotion and recognizes presumption of innocence against the one which disc…

You know that Google overwhelmingly hires and promotes men, right?

« 50-50% of population » isn’t the correct way to measure equality...

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#59

Post by tialaramex »

chrismcb wrote: post #26
uiri wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, copyright infringement isn't theft even if it has been characterized as "stealing intellectual property". Intellectual property is a broad term without any real meaning. Copyrights don't have to be registered to have effect. Patents do. Trademarks can be either. If you don't defend a trademark, you lose it. If you don't defend against copyright or patent infringement, you can just wait. Patents last for 20 years.…

What do copyright, trademark and patents have to do with trade secrets? You accuse the op about not knowing anything about trade secrets then you proceed to talk about things that aren't related to trade secrets. Trade secrets aren't protected by copyright, as something needs to be published, therefore no longer a secret, to be copyrighted. Trademarks, well they just aren't a secret. Patents are the opposite of a tra…

Publication isn't needed for copyright protection in the modern era, essentially all countries including the United States signed Berne which says you have copyright in any work as soon as it's created, no need to publish, register, file, or whatever.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#60

Post by comex »

tialaramex wrote: post #57
skarap wrote: post #47

> 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?

No. Lawyers are officers of the court. Especially in civil cases which are just about the balance of evidence, their role is to put their side of the truth in the best light. Not to just make up whatever bullshit they think might win.

Even in criminal cases:

> the defense lawyer may not lie to the judge or jury by specifically stating that the defendant did not do something the lawyer knows the defendant did do.

[source: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/representing-client-...]

Post reply on HN