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

111–120 of 228 posts

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

#111

Post by larrys »

nostromo wrote: post #83
nirvana wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. It is elitist and shitty, but also true. It's not because lawyers are smarter than the rest of us. It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines.

"It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines."

Dealing with these situations does not just involve legal knowledge. It also involves strategy as well as some practical examples of what others have done in the same situation.

Lawyers (with obvious exceptions) tend to be pretty weak on common sense strategies and tend to frame things totally based upon their legal knowledge and training. This can be a trap that prevents them from seeing a very obvious solution to a problem that a non-lawyer can come up with.

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

#112

Post by nirvana »

nostromo wrote: post #83
nirvana wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. It is elitist and shitty, but also true. It's not because lawyers are smarter than the rest of us. It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines.

You're absolutely correct when it comes to legal advice, as such would need to avoid such land mines.

But that's not the issue here. The issue here is whether one can suggest possible legal avenues of investigation that could be used to get a lawyer interested in the case.

There is zero risk in reading the law and then talking to a lawyer about what you find there.

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

nirvana wrote: post #110
jsprinkles wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by nirvana »

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.

An ounce of reason and facts should hold more sway than a pound of opinions from the chorus.

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

#115

Post by cube13 »

nirvana wrote: post #112
nostromo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that only lawyers can know anything about the law, and therefore nobody else can suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly elitist. It is elitist and shitty, but also true. It's not because lawyers are smarter than the rest of us. It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines.

You're absolutely correct when it comes to legal advice, as such would need to avoid such land mines. But that's not the issue here. The issue here is whether one can suggest possible legal avenues of investigation that could be used to get a lawyer interested in the case. There is zero risk in reading the law and then talking to a lawyer about what you find there.

>But that's not the issue here. The issue here is whether one can suggest possible legal avenues of investigation that could be used to get a lawyer interested in the case.

Here's how you get a lawyer interested in the case:

1. Find the phone number of a lawyer. Contact the EFF, or the local bar association for a lawyer that's listed as knowledgeable with the part of law that you're dealing with(in this case, copyright and trademark law).

2. Call the lawyer, arrange a meeting. Gather up everything they ask for when you call them.

3. Meet with the lawyer. If it doesn't go well, go back to step 1. Repeat until done.

4. There is no step 4.

This should be the only piece of advice in this thread.

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

#116

Post by kvnn »

jsprinkles wrote: post #25
kvnn wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In spite of only having one side of the story I'm going to decide to choose my ground and ask this: What if we started a Kickstarter campaign to fund the legal fees to counter-sue this company? The precedence set in a success would be profitable to the builders of the startup community. And I'd sleep better at night.

You want to completely buy in to one side's story without any context or response from the other side, then start a Kickstarter to fund a legal assault upon that company? Really? Not only are you surprisingly easily manipulated, apparently, don't you have better things to hack on?

Hi. I've decided to completely buy in to the OP's side because there is nothing at stake for me except thinking of a way that this problem could be solved.

Having admitted this in the comment you replied to, I thought it'd be obvious enough that I agree I don't know enough about the situation to be an involved party.

To the insult: You don't think it would be cool to crowd source a legal case in order to upset the typical advantage that money brings into law?

Anyway, I'll let that attack brush off - I do have better things to hack on ;)

EDIT: No worries jsprinkles, thanks for the apology!

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

#117

Post by kvnn »

larrys wrote: post #72
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.

You're right.

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

#118

Post by fla »

ajross wrote: post #102
adamt wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

You'd never get away with trying to sell a linux distro, anyway :)

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

#119

Post by mindcrime »

law wrote: post #94
fijal wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://www.google.com/search?q=unauthorized+practice+of+law "[A]s the term is generally understood, the practice of the law is the doing and performing services in a court of justice in any matter depending therein through its various stages and in conformity with the adopted rules of procedure. But in a larger sense it includes legal advice and counsel and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which…

And none of that mentions "posting offhand comments on a random Internet forum."

Here's some unauthorized legal advice for ya: Posting your opinion on random legal matters on HN has about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

probability of every resulting in any legal backlash for the commenter. And in a country which is supposed to cherish free speech as a principle, we should absolutely all feel good about giving our opinions, and if the courts have a problem with that, telling the courts to go fuck themselves.

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

#120

Post by nostromo »

larrys wrote: post #111
nostromo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that only lawyers can know anything about the law, and therefore nobody else can suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly elitist. It is elitist and shitty, but also true. It's not because lawyers are smarter than the rest of us. It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines.

"It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines." Dealing with these situations does not just involve legal knowledge. It also involves strategy as well as some practical examples of what others have done in the same situation. Lawyers (with obvious exceptions) tend to be pretty weak on common sense strategies and tend to frame things totally based upon their lega…

Right. One example strategy a lawyer probably wouldn't come up with: shame the company on HN.
Post reply on HN