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

71–80 of 228 posts

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

#71

Post by cube13 »

nirvana wrote: post #69
jsprinkles wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 so…

>Rather than considering possible ways that he might build a case, as I am attempting to do, you are successfully derailing and discussion of the actual topic with your attacks and dishonesty.

It is not the author's responsibility to build the case. That's what lawyers are for. They're the ones that are supposed to build the case.

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

#72

Post by larrys »

kvnn wrote: post #6

Ugh, this is crushing. Here's to hoping that someone like Grellas can find time to comment and tell you how to beat these guys. If that result isn't possible, than I ask you to keep your head up, move on, and keep building. Do your part to (soberly and safely) reduce the reputation of the founders and VC's behind this.

"Here's to hoping that someone like Grellas can find time to comment "

Facts matter. Grellas isn't going to offer any opinion without having a chance to review all the documents that have been filed as well as communications and that is going to take time.

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

#73

Post by law »

MiguelHudnandez wrote: post #49
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.

How messed up is it that someone can't share what they know (or think they know) because they don't have a credential? Edit: I'm convinced. Don't give or accept legal advice over the Internet. Establish a relationship with an attorney and only discuss it with them. If you don't like the answers they give you, you can find another attorney.

jsprinkles is 100% correct.

Federal courts generally aren't courts of equity (with bankruptcy courts being the sole exception); they're courts of law. They have a strictly enforced set of procedural rules the nonobservance of which can result in a claim being dismissed with prejudice or a judgment in your opponent's favor. You could learn anything that a lawyer knows--the material isn't difficult at all. What a lawyer provides, however, is insulation from procedural errors. When a lawyer misses a filing deadline, you might have a cause of action against the lawyer in malpractice. If you, a pro se litigant, miss a filing deadline, you're generally SOL. That's why you shouldn't share what you think you know: the consequences are serious and the nuances are subtle.

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

#74

Post by nirvana »

jsprinkles wrote: post #48
liber8 wrote: post #38

General advice for legal questions: it's fine to ask these sorts of questions, but please, for the love of god, don't listen to anyone who isn't a lawyer or who hasn't gone through something very similar to what you're going through. And, even in those cases, take their advice with a HUGE grain of salt. (If you disagree, please see below, where OP is variously advised to (1) commit unlicensed practice of law [serious…

I wish your comment was the only one, frankly, and we could really use a "you are not a lawyer, stop pretending to be one" guideline. Edit: I've made a "Ask PG" to ask for just that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055661

The idea that only lawyers can know anything about the law, and therefore nobody else can suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly elitist.

Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects.

You're being down voted because you are lying about what I said and attacking me for the "crime" of trying to suggest areas of investigation for this guy... who's primary problem is that he has been UNABLE to get a lawyer.

So, yeah, shame on me for trying to help him get a lawyer. I won't sleep tonight.

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

#75

Post by jsprinkles »

nirvana wrote: post #69
jsprinkles wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 so…

Wow. Let me respond point by point:

> You have merely engaged in ad hominem

That's the second time I've been accused of ad hominem attacks in this thread, and the second time it's been flatly wrong. An ad hominem is me refuting your point by implying that you personally are not qualified to give it. I am not refuting your point, at all, and I have been careful to do so except to generally label some of your advice bad. I am telling you to shut up and stop giving advice on a case you're not personally familiar with. You are aware that there is legal liability for YOU being created as we speak, right?

> and quite successfully derailed the discussion

Good. It needs it. Your comment in particular.

> Thanks for the down vote brigade, by the way.

This is a tall accusation, and I do not have a "down vote brigade". I downvoted your parent post and nothing else. I suggest, since you have been around the block of Hacker News a few times, that you step back and take a few breaths and think about what you're saying.

> 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.

Fuck you. I seriously have no other response to that, and I'm ashamed that I've gone there, but really: fuck you, and everything you stand for, with that little remark.

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

#76

Post by jsprinkles »

nirvana wrote: post #74
jsprinkles wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish your comment was the only one, frankly, and we could really use a "you are not a lawyer, stop pretending to be one" guideline. Edit: I've made a "Ask PG" to ask for just that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055661

The idea that only lawyers can know anything about the law, and therefore nobody else can suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly elitist. Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects. You're being down voted because you are lying about what I said and attacking me for the "crime" of trying to suggest areas of investigation for this guy.…

> Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects.

Technical subjects do not carry the risk of legal consequences in the general case, now do they?

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

#78

Post by jarrett »

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…

I'm not scolding or anything. Just trying to be helpful, honestly. So in that spirit, here's an example (not the only one) of something from your post that would likely be deemed legal advice:

"Basically, if you have been using your name prior to 2008, and can prove it, then you are in good shape. If you stared your site between 2008-2010, and they cannot prove that they started in 2008 as they claimed then you're probably in good shape. If you started your site after 2010 then you're reduced to claiming that the marks are not confusing. But you also have the fact that you already have agreement with them (and their failure to attempt to enforce their trademark rights after you changed the name of your service per the agreement) to show they've abandoned it."

In this instance, you're making a lot of conclusions about the OP's case. See for reference:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-advice/

You are, as per that definition, using "application of legal principles to facts" in order to "in effect [predict] a specific resolution of a legal issue."

Again, I'm not trying to make you feel bad or anything like that. I respect that you put in a major good faith effort to help the OP by writing your initial comment.

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

#79

Post by debacle »

jsprinkles wrote: post #34
nirvana wrote: post #30

I never went to law school so there's no way I could be a lawyer, I'm just giving my thoughts on things I would do in this situation. This isn't legal advice. I sympathize with your situation and I'm sure there are a couple lessons learned here- namely that they used negotiation with email to apparently cause you to forget that there was court case pending. But saying that doesn't help you. I've been in the situation…

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.

When you aren't a lawyer, it's a lot easier to tell someone you're not providing legal advice.

When you are a lawyer, it's generally best to just not give legal advice.

It's a strange system, but there are different rules for different people.

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

#80

Post by fijal »

law wrote: post #61
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…

Can you find some documents under which circumstances this is a crime? I find that you should not do that for money or in court on wikipedia, but I somehow fail to find that "giving advice" or even "drafting legal documents" can be a crime.
Post reply on HN