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

101–110 of 228 posts

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

#101

Post by ColinWright »

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.…

  > The idea that only lawyers can know anything
  > about the law, and therefore nobody else can
  > suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly
  > elitist.
My personal experience is that disclaimers such as you gave have very little legal standing, and that what you said can be regarded as legal advice, regardless of the "if"s, "but"s, "possibly"s, and "maybe"s that you so carefully sprinkled throughout.

You certainly can share what you know about these things, but advice given to me in the past about similar situations is that by doing so you can be regarded by some as taking some of the responsibility for the advice you think you haven't given.

The law is complicated, and while you may share what you know, doing so can put you personally at serious and considerable risk. Further, it doesn't always make sense to those who have not studied it (and sometimes even to those who have), so while what you have said may seem perfectly sensible, a lawyer may disagreed strongly with several of your suggestions, and following them may put the person you are trying to help in more trouble.

So despite the fact that you are trying to help, and despite the apparent soundness of your advice, you are not a lawyer, and there are very likely to be implications of which you are unaware. I applaud your willingness to take on the personal risk of what you said, but I am concerned that you are not helping, and may be making things worse.

Edited for clarity

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

#102

Post by ajross »

adamt wrote: post #43
krrose27 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trademark wasn't filled until February 2010. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:5a...

I am not a lawyer but have been involved in various trademark registrations and disputes. The trademark is for the concatenation 'whoshere'. Given that both are common words obvious to the topic I would have thought the interpretation would be very narrow and 'who's near me' is suitably different. I certainly don't think you should give in to their somewhat extortionate demands.

Even given a very narrow interpretation, "here" and "near me" are basically synonyms. And as I understand it the apps are very equivalent too, they're selling the same product under a near-identical name.

"Red" and "Hat" are common words too, but you'd never get away with trying to sell a linux distro named "Red Cap".

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

#103

Post by jsprinkles »

daeken wrote: post #90
jsprinkles wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Ignoring the rest of this (very, very sad) thread, this stuck out to me: > 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? Not everyone cares about creating legal liability for themselves if they believe they're doing the right thing. I've built my career (and life, for that matter)…

True enough. I'm more concerned with the welfare of the person who blindly follows this advice, and the liability being created for people giving him advice is a close second.

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

#104

Post by law »

jarrett wrote: post #95
law wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to do any work to find a lawyer beyond calling your county bar association's lawyer referral service (or the ABA lawyer referral service). Lawyers are obligated to turn down cases on which they would be unable to provide competent representation. They will ask you for information, you will provide it, and they will determine whether they can competently provide representation. Trust them.

But surely you're not suggesting that all lawyers are equally effective, have the same style (level of aggressiveness, etc.), or would have the same opinion about a given case? I can say with certainty, from firsthand experience, that none of these three things is true. I've also seen lawyers replaced because their performance was inadequate. Given that, how could one possibly avoid having to carefully and deliberate…

I'm not sure what you're asking that isn't already addressed by the model rules of professional conduct. Read http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibilit... -- it'll answer many of your questions.

Consider finding a lawyer like dating: if the first date (initial consultation, which is generally free) leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth, move on.

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

#105

Post by nirvana »

daeken wrote: post #90
jsprinkles wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Ignoring the rest of this (very, very sad) thread, this stuck out to me: > 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? Not everyone cares about creating legal liability for themselves if they believe they're doing the right thing. I've built my career (and life, for that matter)…

Plus there's the fact that I wasn't giving legal advice, by any stretch.

Further, like you, I'm quite comfortable with what I've said, and I am supremely confident that no liability has attached to me in this discussion.

The claim that he's trying to protect me from such liability is a rationalization. His real intent is that he's offended that someone is talking about legal issues and he want's to shut it down.

If that weren't his motivation, why lie and claim I was giving legal advice?

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

#106

Post by daeken »

nirvana wrote: post #105
daeken wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the rest of this (very, very sad) thread, this stuck out to me: > 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? Not everyone cares about creating legal liability for themselves if they believe they're doing the right thing. I've built my career (and life, for that matter)…

Plus there's the fact that I wasn't giving legal advice, by any stretch. Further, like you, I'm quite comfortable with what I've said, and I am supremely confident that no liability has attached to me in this discussion. The claim that he's trying to protect me from such liability is a rationalization. His real intent is that he's offended that someone is talking about legal issues and he want's to shut it down. If t…

I think what you're missing is that he's not lying. What you're doing could be construed as giving legal advice, with the way US laws work. That doesn't mean he's right, but I doubt he's thinking "pfft, of course it's not advice", thus lying about it. You guys may differ in opinion, but he's not lying.

Honestly, you guys are talking (screaming) past each other on about a dozen things here. Please, step away from the keyboard. Cool down. Think it through and then if you want to from there, engage in a rational discussion. Both of you are doing a disservice to this thread.

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

#109

Post by brianhama »

Thank you everyone for all your feedback and suggestions. The response has been really overwhelming, but I will try and respond to all of your comments. Also, in response to some of your requesting it, I have added a donation button to the bottom of the blog post. Thanks again for the really amazing response!

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

#110

Post by nirvana »

jsprinkles wrote: post #100
nirvana wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let me respond point by point: I wish you had. >An ad hominem is me refuting your point by implying that you personally are not qualified to give it. Your claim that I am not a lawyer and therefore shouldn't be giving legal advice is, by definition " implying that you personally are not qualified to give it. " Now add to that ad hominem the fact that I wasn't giving legal advice, and your repeated insistence that I…

You are intentionally being disingenuous, now, because you're upset. That's fairly transparent in your reply. Multiple people have told you that you are giving legal advice, and suggested that you stop, and pointed out how I am correct, and yet you're sticking to your guns that I'm a troll. I can't even begin to attack the amount of stupid in this comment, so I'm cutting my losses, adding your name and company mental…

>You are intentionally being disingenuous, now, because you're upset.

I think curious is the appropriate word to describe my mental state. HN is populated by people who should be able to think fairly logically-- I would assume more logically than the general population.

I understand why you made the false claim originally, and why you have chosen to characterize me in a derogatory fashion at every turn, including this last missive.

What I cannot fathom is why you feel so compelled to prevent productive discussion that you would impeach your own integrity with a lie? Or why, having never supported that lie, failed to provide even a single quote from my post showing me giving legal advice?

Or why, having had this refuted repeatedly you are sticking to your guns. Surely an understanding of logic must compel you to recognize that you cannot provide any evidence of me giving legal advice, let alone attaching liability to myself.

I think its hilarious that your thesis has that lawyers can say "this is not legal advice" as a disclaimer but non-lawyers cannot. But maybe I'm wrong? If you're right, you should be able to provide evidence. You have never done so, as you have never done so for any of your claims.

Again where you have an opportunity pursuade me by providing evidence you choose not to. Hell, even if I rejected that evidence you could have more confidence in your own position.

Why have you not even meet such a low bar for evidence as that, yet you feel comfortable characterizing me?

I am having to guess that you are not equipped to engage in logical debate. I'm curious as to why this is, and why this seems to not be uncommon on HN. I don't observe this phenomena among people of my age group.

----

Responding to your deleted response:

Here's what you actually said: " you just wrote an essay full of legal advice, including conclusions on how the proceedings will go"

All of which is false. Making your claim that the disclaimer is toothless irrelevant. Further, post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

Post reply on HN