Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 297 posts

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#121

Post by smelendez »

impossiblefork wrote: post #98

I think it's a mistake to have rules about filings. Maybe it's distracting, but if the filing has been done, there should be no reason for the court not to read it and make a decision based on the text. Procedure or order can't be more important than deciding cases.

But it's simple enough to regenerate it without the watermark. Also, if it's actively annoying the judge, it's in the lawyer and client's best interest to fix it once and give the judge time to clear his head instead of repeating the issue.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#122

Post by striking »

impossiblefork wrote: post #107
striking wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you allow one person to get away with this, others may see it as an invitation to do worse. Filings are often a matter of immutable public record and it makes sense that there should be rules as to what goes into them. What is the act of deciding cases if not a carefully constructed procedure meant to keep order? What is the harm of telling a lawyer to try again, this time following the rules?

You hear the case, however it's presented, and then you decide. In Swedish courts the court evaluates evidence as it likes. If the judges and sort-of-half-judge-half-jury-Nämdemän agree that something can be concluded, then they're allowed to conclude that. Obviously procedure is useful, but hearing the complaint is more important.

It's not about procedure for procedure's sake. It's about establishing a precedent that unnecessary content should be left out, so that complaints are always conveyed and heard sincerely.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#123

Post by lapetitejort »

cperciva wrote: post #32
wiradikusuma wrote: post #4

Also, sometimes we (developers) like to use wacky data for testing purposes. For example, I like to put Batman as a dummy user, and my QA likes to upload cat pictures when testing uploads/images. We do it so it's obvious it's test data, and also we're lazy to think of more "real" data. Just say some users expect real(ish) data for testing. I had a client who was totally not happy when he saw Batman and Superman in th…

For example, I like to put Batman as a dummy user I can't remember the details, but I've heard a story multiple times about a fake-sounding name being used in testing -- I think US military payroll? -- and causing problems when a real person had that name. Can anyone here remember this? In any case, "batman" is just about plausible enough that it could be real. I tend to use names like "Mr. Testy Testalicious" which…

DOGE is going to delete Jon Tester [0] from the list of historical senators

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Tester

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#124

Post by cornhole »

lores wrote: post #52
jbverschoor wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world has gone from substance to optics. You see it in every industry or field.

Heh, optics have been important since the dawn of man, and probably even before. Ziggurats are all about optics, and so are mating displays. A cynic might say "more important", but that's hard to ascertain.

people say you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, but first impressions are everything

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#125

Post by RajT88 »

wiradikusuma wrote: post #4

Also, sometimes we (developers) like to use wacky data for testing purposes. For example, I like to put Batman as a dummy user, and my QA likes to upload cat pictures when testing uploads/images. We do it so it's obvious it's test data, and also we're lazy to think of more "real" data. Just say some users expect real(ish) data for testing. I had a client who was totally not happy when he saw Batman and Superman in th…

A friend of mine uses a scraped list of heavy metal band names for QA testing how well systems deal with weird characters.

He is, himself, a weird character.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#127

Post by bluGill »

watwut wrote: post #74
thinkingemote wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is like my great grandpa scolding us at the dinner table for laughing and talking It's more like a non-familial, formal dinner setting. Think about a job interview where the CEO and interviewer take you and another interviewee to dinner in a fancy restaurant. You turn up in jeans and sneakers with your buddy and you laugh and crack jokes together, the other interviewee turns up in smart clothes and talks soberly. I…

I would say that job interview in the fancy restaurant is the first "unprofessional" step in this chain. The place to conduct serious interviews is called the office.

At my company when we bring you onsite for an interview takes you to lunch. The person who takes you to lunch is not allowed to talk to the people making the hiring decisions. You can thus talk about whatever you want. It is a relaxing situation where you can safely press about what work is like. If you talk about something that in an interview is illegal (likely family) it doesn't matter because that person doesn't have a say on if you are hired.

(I encourage anyone who does interviewing to have a similar policy - if someone flys in to talk to you that means you are buying them meals anyway. Ensuring there is time to talk about things that might or might not matter is important)

For engineers we wouldn't go to a fancy restaurant. However I'd expect executives probably would.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#129

Post by bluGill »

demarq wrote: post #12

The whole point of a judicial process is to make judgments on the merit of a case not personal prejudice. What if someone comes to court wearing tattoos are they more guilty?

> What if someone comes to court wearing tattoos are they more guilty?

That question is for the jury to decide for better and worse. There are lots of good points to a jury trial which is why free societies usually (always?) have them in some form. However one downside is you will once in a while get someone on the jury who judges you not on the facts of the case but on things that shouldn't matter.

Overall it is still better than the alternatives in my opinion, but it does mean you need to figure out what your local cultures are and avoid offending them (note cultures is plural - figure out them all).

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#130

Post by duskwuff »

cookingmyserver wrote: post #77

Question - is watermarking legal filings even common? How about the law firm logos in the footer?

No; this filing is very unusual. Typical practice is for legal filings to be submitted in a standardized and very plain format.
Post reply on HN