A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by wglb » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:05 PM UTC

law wrote: post #84

jarrett wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with jsprinkles for the most part. There is a great deal of legal advice packed in there. The OP needs a lawyer. But on the other hand, I have to agree with nirvana about one thing. A certain amount of work must necessarily fall on the OP to find the right lawyer for the case. As nirvana says, there will be plenty of lawyers who aren't really interested and just say "roll over," while there will be others who…

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 isn't it true that if any lawyer were to take the case, the legwork suggested will advance the cause?

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

#132

Post by ColinWright » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:09 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #127

ColinWright wrote: post #101

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. 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…

> you can be regarded by some as taking some of the responsibility for the advice you think you haven't given 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?

  > Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
  > for you are crunchy, and taste good with
  > ketchup.

I am passing on, almost verbatim, the advice I was given most strenuously. Included in that advice was the comment that not everything in legal circles passes the "That sounds right" test.

Certainly in this case, no, I can't quote cases where this has happened. But, you know, like, I'm not a lawyer. There are things that happen in legal circles that I don't know about, but which I have been given legal advice about.

So feel free to ignore it all and take a chance that you're right, and the advice given to me was misplaced. Heaven forbid that you should think I'm advising you.

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

#133

Post by logjam » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:09 PM UTC

jsprinkles wrote: post #75

nirvana wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

> You are aware that there is legal liability for YOU being created as we speak, right?

You keep asserting this repeatedly without citation (and are now doing so in a separate HN post you made on the issue). Kindly cite cases where damages have been successfully litigated around someone posting friendly advice in a web forum.

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

#134

Post by jsprinkles » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:11 PM UTC

logjam wrote: post #133

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…

> You are aware that there is legal liability for YOU being created as we speak, right? You keep asserting this repeatedly without citation (and are now doing so in a separate HN post you made on the issue). Kindly cite cases where damages have been successfully litigated around someone posting friendly advice in a web forum.

I have mentioned several times that I have firsthand involvement with unsolicited advice being given on the Internet resulting in consequences for people. I am simply not legally permitted to talk about it, nor will I say if I was the person found legally responsible.

Remember, a liability does not require a law, and there are such things as torts.

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

#135

Post by shasta » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:11 PM UTC

jarrett wrote: post #70

smattiso wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

It seems reasonable to me that the plaintiff would have to establish the elements of their case before requiring any response from a defendant (though of course response should be allowed). Only after a court has found that the defendant needs to mount a defense should he need to hire a lawyer. Instead, our courts generally work the other way -- if you don't show up, you lose no matter how ridiculous the other guy's claims are.

The legal system would benefit greatly from being framed as a cost/benefit optimization problem instead of as reasoning in a byzantine para-consistent logic.

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

#136

Post by jsprinkles » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:14 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #127

ColinWright wrote: post #101

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. 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…

> you can be regarded by some as taking some of the responsibility for the advice you think you haven't given 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?

I'll reiterate this for the benefit of context at this very location, but I have personal experience with a very similar scenario that I am not legally permitted to discuss; it was a situation of unsolicited advice resulting in consequences for people. I cannot say who. I think you'll find if it's a common experience, most people are (wisely) not going to discuss it.

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

#137

Post by guelo » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:25 PM UTC

jsprinkles wrote: post #76

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.…

> 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?

Sure they do, you can make technical decisions that ruin a company and that causes lawsuits (as many business deaths seem to). You can make technical decisions that get you sued for copyright, patent stuff, privacy violations, indecency laws, on and on. We all make legal decisions every day without having to consult a lawyer all the time.

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

#138

Post by larrys » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:26 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #120

larrys wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Lawyers being officers of the court have to act in ethical ways. And most importantly they have something to loose which is their law license. That's a powerful motivator to not take any chances.

A layman on the other hand can engage in different types of manipulation that an attorney can't do even if they had the same idea.

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

#139

Post by chuinard » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:28 PM UTC

I hate to be negative about this, but it sounds like you've had a successful product for 2 years. Why are you still working on it if you're sacrificing time, sleep, and a social life to 'break even'? At some point (and I would think well before 400,000 users), why didn't you go out, seek $1.25m for yourself, and win your market over with a better quality product? I do think what is happening is wrong, but why are you so intent on fighting this if you've spent 2 years just to be breaking even, even with a half million users?

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

#140

Post by Aaronontheweb » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:28 PM UTC

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…

This is the second time in two days I've seen really great advice from a lawyer on HN. I would really like a way to a do virtual "ask a lawyer" office hours on HN.

Edit: even better - do a virtual legal clinic.