201–210 of 228 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He says he made the app 2 years ago, where as WhosHere is from 2008. If it is in fact a trademark issue, sounds to me like they beat him to the name.
This is what bothered me about the whole post. He never once said how old the other company is. A critical (purposeful?) omission.
I'd put some dollars to bomb these crooks back into obscurity they deserve.
The guy you're willing to BOMB other people for said to them, and I quote, "I was born wealthy; I have an obscene trust fund. I assure you that if required, I will obtain the best legal representation for corporate litigation in the Silicon Valley. After your last proposal, I will resist this legal action well beyond what makes any financial sense, simply out of principal."
Are you really sure you want to BOMB people to support him?
He mentions Lightbank is the vc, is it fair to judge them for this behavior? As an entrepreneur it does really put me off.
I think so, although there is always two sides of the story, so I would reserve judgement for the next couple days.
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.
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.…
https://whoshere.zendesk.com/entries/21514943-the-other-side...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nirvana, the issue is that you are providing a specific application of laws and rules to the OP's facts and suggesting a specific course of legal action. That is, by definition, the practice of law in every state in America. (Though perhaps not necessarily rising to the level of unauthorized practice, which could result in fines or other penalties.) If you wanted to be on the safe side, you would have said "Generally…
My understanding is that the "practice of law" is to essentially act as a lawyer. In the United States, every citizen is guaranteed the right to practice law in their own defense. "Practice of law" on someone else's behalf when you are not a lawyer may incur fines, as most jurisdictions try to protect their citizens from being represented by someone who has no idea what they're doing. The line between talking about s…
I have heard of a handful of cases (related to immigration law) where persons who offered legal advice were held accountable for providing bad advice online. They did not hold themselves out to be lawyers, but they did hold themselves out to be knowledgeable about immigration law. It's not common for people to be held accountable for this because not many people go so far as to cross the line into "unauthorized practice."
Put up something to accept donations, I'd be happy to kick back a few bucks to the cause.
I know the developer and I just let him know that he is getting attention here ... and to get a donation link up ASAP ... He is a good guy and this has been an awful experience for him ... I've told him to get an account and start posting to this thread, so hopefully he'll be here soon ...
https://whoshere.zendesk.com/entries/21514943-the-other-side...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimers have legal effect. If you include a disclaimer that you are not providing legal advice, and that your discussion is limited solely to specific issues (and may not include all issues raised by the fact pattern at hand), you will not be liable. That does not mean you cannot be sued; anyone can be sued. But it does mean that you would win any lawsuit against. I am a lawyer. (In my particular field, the magic…
I too am a lawyer and while I agree that disclaimers have legal effect, I disagree that including a disclaimer necessarily relieves one of liability. In my jurisdiction, what is more critical is whether the recipient of the information believes it to be legal advice and whether the giver of information should realize the recipient may so believe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimers have legal effect. If you include a disclaimer that you are not providing legal advice, and that your discussion is limited solely to specific issues (and may not include all issues raised by the fact pattern at hand), you will not be liable. That does not mean you cannot be sued; anyone can be sued. But it does mean that you would win any lawsuit against. I am a lawyer. (In my particular field, the magic…
Given that your advice is at odds with advice I have received in the past, I will now make no further attempts to share my experiences in these matters. Thank you for being clear and specific.
However, based on your comment, it sounds more like you are referring to "hedging language" about the reliability of advice offered rather than an explicit disclaimers that the content is not legal advice.
Even if you hire a lawyer, they will attempt to stall the case until you run out of funds.
It maybe hindsight now, but I would of created a corporation and move all your assets under it, (website, apps, etc).
Not sure if you can do that now before the default judgement on the lawsuit. I would still hire a lawyer to do that just in case.