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

A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

brianhama.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 228 posts

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#61

Post by law »

dollar wrote: post #13

The adage "An attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client" has some relevance, but in the information society self represeration can have major advantages. The best way to be a Pro Se is to hire outside counsel to advise you, but to do all the dirty litigation work yourself. If this company has hired an outside attorney to litigate, this person could make that a very, very expensive proposition for them.…

> My advise is hire counsel to advise you, educate yourself of self representation and court procedures, and rake these fuckers over the coals.

This is terrible advice. Unless you're a duly licensed attorney in OP's jurisdiction, don't offer legal advice. You're practicing law without a license, which is a crime. Moreover, were OP to rely on that advice to his detriment, you may find yourself named as a defendant in a civil suit.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#63

Post by jsprinkles »

nirvana wrote: post #57
jsprinkles wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate what you're doing, but you just wrote an essay full of legal advice, including conclusions on how the proceedings will go -- something you really shouldn't predict. By putting the words "this isn't legal advice" before your comment, you aren't magically making it okay to give your opinion in the guise of advice. Just be aware of that.

I found a missing "possibly" and a spot where I clarified that something was my perception, but to be honest nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a "may" or a "it appears" or some other similar language. Nowhere did I give a single bit of legal advice. I merely illuminated a variety of ways that he could do some research that might show that he has more of a case than the lawyers he originally talked to…

> nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a "may" or a "it appears" or some other similar language.

That's called weasel wording.

> Nowhere did I give a single bit of legal advice.

Uh, your entire comment is how to respond to this legal threat, which is legal advice. The only advice anyone on Hacker News should ever give to someone in legal trouble is "consult an attorney", not how to consult an attorney, research to do ahead of time, bupkis.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#64

Post by swalsh »

jwarzech wrote: post #15
logical42 wrote: post #4

Put up something to accept donations, I'd be happy to kick back a few bucks to the cause.

"It's a Kickstarter for legal fees" in 1...2..

People will eventually become cynical, and stop contributing after they realize there are two sides to each story. I find often that the sob stories you read on the internet exaggerate the tragedy of the situation.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#65

Post by amosson »

I am not a lawyer - so don't take this as legal advice. But if I read your post correctly, you said you were never properly served. Since it sounds like you have access to all the court documents, if you search through them some where in the documents you will probably find a place where the plaintiffs swear under penalty of perjury, that you were served with notice. If you were truly never served (make sure to check with a lawyer to see what constitutes service) and they claimed you were - you may have grounds for a counter suit. Check into Small Claims Court as well - you can sue for up to $10,000 and abuse of process is a valid claim there. Forms are available online, your opponent can't bring a lawyer and there is only one appeal allowed.

But if you do nothing and if they choose to press this, they will go to court to ask the judge to put liens on any assets they can and to garnish your wages.

In any event contact a lawyer to see if I am correct about this.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#66

Post by jarrett »

jsprinkles wrote: post #44
throwaway1979 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've posted two negative comments thus far. Your point is valid that one must hear both sides. Are you affiliated with either party? Disclaimer: I'm a random HN reader who has done work in the area of location aware computing. I have no connection with either party.

It concerns me that I'm attacked personally for advocating for common sense when it comes to the law. Being sued? Shut up. Don't post to HN. Don't comment on the case. Don't challenge the other party to Quake 3 on Twitter. Don't give people legal advice after saying "I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice". Stop being stupid. This advice transcends my allegiance, which is to nobody involved in this discussion (…

I too am perplexed by the negative reactions you've received.

I've often been known to comment on legal matters on HN, but I always steer clear of giving legal advice. (At least I hope I've never slipped up and done so.) And, as you well know, that's the proper course for anyone, regardless of whether they're a lawyer or not.

So just to echo and build on jsprinkles' various comments: It's OK to discuss the law in a general sense. I.e. you can talk about how things work, without giving an opinion as to the case at hand. But it's irresponsible and generally illegal to advise an individual on how s/he should proceed.

Example of a comment that's OK: "Trademark disputes often depend in part on the likelihood of consumers being confused by the respective marks."

Example of a comment that's not OK: "Trademark disputes often depend in part on the likelihood of consumers being confused by the respective marks. Since the OP's mark isn't going to confuse anyone, the plaintiff will probably lose."

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#68

Post by MiguelHudnandez »

jsprinkles wrote: post #58
MiguelHudnandez wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, personal attacks (a.k.a. ad-hominem arguments) are discouraged here. Here are the guidelines, for your convenience. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Your objections could be worded in a way that is not a personal attack and could be just as informative, or more so.

FYI, what I wrote is not an ad hominem argument, and "ad-hominem argument" is not an a.k.a. for "personal attack" (neither of which my comment is, for what it's worth).

Thanks for the clarification on "ad hominem" versus personal attacks. Now I understand that it's only ad hominem if the basis of the argument relies on the personal attack.

All that aside, your comment above, reproduced here, is clearly a personal attack:

> Not only are you surprisingly easily manipulated, apparently, don't you have better things to hack on?

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#69

Post by nirvana »

jsprinkles wrote: post #63
nirvana wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found a missing "possibly" and a spot where I clarified that something was my perception, but to be honest nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a "may" or a "it appears" or some other similar language. Nowhere did I give a single bit of legal advice. I merely illuminated a variety of ways that he could do some research that might show that he has more of a case than the lawyers he originally talked to…

> nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a "may" or a "it appears" or some other similar language. That's called weasel wording. > Nowhere did I give a single bit of legal advice. Uh, your entire comment is how to respond to this legal threat, which is legal advice. The only advice anyone on Hacker News should ever give to someone in legal trouble is "consult an attorney", not how to consult an attorney, r…

I do not apologize for responding on the topic and attempting to help this guy. I brought up a lot of possible avenues that could be useful for him building a case.

You have merely engaged in ad hominem and quite successfully derailed the discussion. Thanks for the down vote brigade, by the way.

I must conclude that actually trying to help people on HN is not tolerated if the person attempting to help has offended someone who feels comfortable in the level of dishonesty you are.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#70

Post by jarrett »

smattiso wrote: post #56
jarrett wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The short answer is this: It's possible, but hard to pull off. First, you would have to do some basic research on court filing procedures. It's not rocket science, but you can't just pop an envelope in the mail addressed to the judge. Once you figure out how to file documents for the case, you need to determine what type of documents to file. E.g. a motion to dismiss might be appropriate if you think the claim is utt…

What a screwed up system. Seemingly there should a vetting process where the court system determines a claim at least has merits before the defendant has to waste his/her resources fighting it. As it stands it is way too easy to use as a weapon to sue people into submission. Although I think this is already well known.

That might not be a terrible idea. It might help weed out some truly frivolous lawsuits.

But consider this: To be fair to plaintiffs, the bar for "not frivolous" would have to be fairly low. I suspect that a fair pre-vetting system would only weed out a tiny fraction of lawsuits. Probably, even most lawsuits that end with a successful motion to dismiss would make it past the type of preliminary review by the court that you're proposing.

So it's a good idea, but I think something more would be needed to help protect the little gal/guy from legal bullying. (BTW, I'm not saying this particular case is an instance of legal bullying. We only have one party's perspective.)

Post reply on HN