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

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#71

Post by YawningAngel »

jackvalentine wrote: post #45
humanrebar wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

""" ...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?

You can independently reinvent it, you just can't steal it.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#72

Post by watwut »

pimmen wrote: post #56
watwut wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Both are really responsible. The idea that there must be single responsible party instead of multiple people responsible for their partial contributions is fallacy.

You can excuse peon when he trully has no other choice and does bare minimum to survive/protect familly/etc. These went above and beyond what was necessary to prove themselves, make their careers or out of conviction.

You can excuse boss when the soldiers disobeyed, he lost control and truly attempted to stop the situation. Not when it is smirk smirk we all know what is expected/tolerated what is going to happen. And these knew what will happen and wanted it happen.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#73

Post by alexasmyths »

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…

"Where’s your professional integrity is what I’m asking."

There are millions of happy Uber drivers and 10's of millions of happy Uber customers, it's beyond pale for you to even ask this question.

Uber treats is drivers reasonably well or else nobody would be driving for them.

"to mess with people’s lives in likely illegal ways?"

99.9% of Uber is just connecting drivers and riders, that's not 'messing with people's lives, likely in illegal ways'.

Facebook, Google/Youtube and Twitter are literally active channels for literal terrorists to promote mass murder - and you're worried about Uber?

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#74

Post by alexasmyths »

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?

Tell us who is getting 'screwed over' by Uber?

It's 100's of millions of riders who come back day after day for more rides?

The drivers who actively come back to work for Uber but could stop at any moment?

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#75

Post by pimmen »

alexasmyths wrote: post #74
pimmen wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Tell us who is getting 'screwed over' by Uber? It's 100's of millions of riders who come back day after day for more rides? The drivers who actively come back to work for Uber but could stop at any moment?

If I were to present to you individual cases of people being knowingly screwed over by Uber, is your argument then that if millions of other people benefit it's all worth it?

Lets say many people are angry that Uber kept it hidden that their personal information was hacked and feel knowingly screwed over, to start with. Are you going to let Uber off the hook because a nice ride at a nice price is more than enough compensation?

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#76

Post by alexasmyths »

pimmen wrote: post #75
alexasmyths wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell us who is getting 'screwed over' by Uber? It's 100's of millions of riders who come back day after day for more rides? The drivers who actively come back to work for Uber but could stop at any moment?

If I were to present to you individual cases of people being knowingly screwed over by Uber, is your argument then that if millions of other people benefit it's all worth it? Lets say many people are angry that Uber kept it hidden that their personal information was hacked and feel knowingly screwed over, to start with. Are you going to let Uber off the hook because a nice ride at a nice price is more than enough com…

There are tons of 'individuals' who have been screwed over by most large organizations. Does that make them all evil.

Many organizations have kept hacks secret. We also don't know about hacks which have not yet been made public or won't be. We don't know what was compromised - moreover - this is something that probably a very, very small team in Uber will contend with - it's not necessarily systematic.

Google steals my personal information all day long and sells it to the highest bidder - I'd much rather privacy from Google than anything from Uber.

I can ride another cab any time, Google is not easy to change away from.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#77

Post by pimmen »

alexasmyths wrote: post #73
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…

"Where’s your professional integrity is what I’m asking." There are millions of happy Uber drivers and 10's of millions of happy Uber customers, it's beyond pale for you to even ask this question. Uber treats is drivers reasonably well or else nobody would be driving for them. "to mess with people’s lives in likely illegal ways?" 99.9% of Uber is just connecting drivers and riders, that's not 'messing with people's l…

I care about the 0.1& too. I don't believe in knowingly messing with people for the benefit of everyone else.

And if the last part of your argument is "why care about anything less than the worst things in the world?" I don't agree with that thinking, plain and simple. A company that big and influential being that completely disrespectful towards regulators, tax payers, riders, female engineers, drivers, competitors and investors is something we need to seriously mind.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#78

Post by pimmen »

richardknop wrote: post #70
pimmen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you implement any of this shit as an engineer and you try to Nuremberg your way out of responsibility, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Comparing Uber engineers to Nuremberg trials is little bit too much.

Comparing the severity of the crimes, sure, that's very unfair.

Comparing the defenses I don't think is too much. If that is what engineers who did any of this shady stuff are telling themselves, that is. For all I know, they're high-five:ing each other over a drink.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#79

Post by nabla9 »

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.

No. Inventing the same thing independently does not violate trade secret. Reverse engineering is lawful methods to discover trade secret. Industrial espionage is unlawful.

Unlike registered intellectual property, trade secrets can be kept indefinitely.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#80

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN