121–130 of 228 posts
If you can get inexpensive representation, just call their bluff. This is not a big corporation you are dealing with. I'll put money on dropped case or some type of amicable settlement that doesn't cost you anything financially, which is your goal.
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…
OK, one data point is just an anecdote, but I saw a good example of a lawyer using some basic strategy a while back. I had a legal situation of my own, hired a lawyer and went to court with the lawyer. The situation wasn't settled the first day, so my lawyer looked at the court schedule, figured out that if we asked for a continuance we'd come back to court when a different judge was presiding, who he believed - based on his knowledge of the judge's personal life - would be more favorable to our position.
We came back two weeks later, sat in front of the new judge, and the judge came down pretty clearly on our side, and the situation was resolved amicably. Had we tested our luck with a different judge, things might not have turned out so well (then again, maybe they would). But, anyway, is struck me as a fairly subtle, but effective technique.
That said, I understand that - in general - the courts don't like it when lawyers try to "pick their judge" to YMMV.
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.…
We obviously also only know part of the story, and from his perspective. Still, something here smells really, really bad.
As a media professional, my advice is to take this to the public if you can. That means Tech Crunch, AllThingsD, CNET, the Next Web, etc.
(I'll also include my own employer, Mashable, where I'm the entertainment editor but often end up being the defacto point person for stuff that's developer-centric)
Not knowing the facts around the situation, I'm inclined to say focus on getting public attention as early as possible, especially if you're worried about being able to get a response submitted to the court by the deadline.
On that note, I would ask your lawyer friends what would be involved in requesting an extension, because if you want to fight this, you will need more time.
Finally, even though this is a labor of love and not one of profit, after you get through the eye of the storm, it might be time to shit or get off the pot regarding the service. After all, if you're looking at wanting to invest a lot into the legal defense of this project, it might be time to start looking at how you can transition it from a hobby side-project into more of a real business.
If you aren't interested in making that transition, you need to evaluate the costs -- not just in terms of money, but in terms of time and effort -- in this particular hobby.
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. 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…
That sounds bogus to me, has anyone heard of any lawsuits of that type? That is, someone who is not a lawyer and is not presenting themselves as a lawyer being sued for giving bad legal advice?
- Who needs a lawyer when you can marshall the Internet Pitch Forkers!!!!!
Since we aren't lawyers, is there a possibility that this guy is actually at fault of infringing upon this startups trademark?
