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

A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

abovethelaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 172 posts

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#101

Post by mathattack »

the_watcher wrote: post #92
mathattack wrote: post #21

Worked ok in Safari browser. One wonders why more lawyers aren't humorous. Is it because it causes their clients harm? Or because they are afraid they can't generate fees if they don't look professional? Here is another great example, between the Cleveland Browns and a fan. I cite Snopes, otherwise I wouldn't believe it to be true. http://www.snopes.com/business/consumer/browns.asp

It's because lawyers are often (to make a broad generalization), terribly risk-averse. Judges can sometimes disapprove of not giving the law it's "proper respect" (see Chad Johnson's recent stint in jail after being let off). Also, oftentimes lawyers can just drop the relevant facts at hand into a template. I'd bet the lawyer sending the C&D has sent a huge number of other C&D's worded pretty much identically.

The joys of using Word templates at $500/hour. :-)

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#102

Post by mikeash »

jarrett wrote: post #49
kevinalexbrown wrote: post #43

This reminds me about how important it is to have a solid lawyer, and an understanding of the legal ecosystem. Even in cases like this with typos, "respond in ten (10) days" can be quite intimidating, especially when there's a money/legal power asymmetry. In one such case, Monster Cable issued a C&D to a much smaller, Blue Jeans Cable. The founder actually worked in litigation for 19 years and I found this portion of…

> On the other hand, it always, locally, makes sense not to challenge claims and let some other small company deal with it. I would argue in favor of fighting back in most cases, even from a local standpoint. "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." How you behave towards bullies sends a powerful signal to other bullies. Your response can either encourage more bullying, and thus a cycle that ends in your…

It's an excellent example of the prisoner's dilemma. We are all better off if we all cooperate, but any one of us is better off if we defect.

When you start to iterate it, the equation changes. But it can be hard for people to look beyond the immediate lawsuit.

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#103

Post by larrys »

kevinalexbrown wrote: post #43

This reminds me about how important it is to have a solid lawyer, and an understanding of the legal ecosystem. Even in cases like this with typos, "respond in ten (10) days" can be quite intimidating, especially when there's a money/legal power asymmetry. In one such case, Monster Cable issued a C&D to a much smaller, Blue Jeans Cable. The founder actually worked in litigation for 19 years and I found this portion of…

From the quoted letter, and to some of your points as well:

"I would rather spend fifty thousand dollars on defense"

There are other costs, it's not just money. There is time (even if someone else is footing the legal bill), uncertainty, aggravation, stress for a process that can take years. Involvement in legal matters is not trivial. While I think that anyone who has been involved in the psychological aspects of litigation is well aware of the point that I am making I believe that it is felt by some that Microsoft's antitrust problems in the 90's caused them to miss many opportunities on the internet.

You really really need to understand the entire impact of decisions to litigate and it should not be taken lightly.

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#104

Post by jelled »

larrys wrote: post #40

Don't agree with the humor and tact of this letter even though "it worked". "Shmucking" someone can backfire in many cases and cause a bigger problem. To be spiteful (I mean do we really know the mental state of the attorney writing the c and d?) maybe he would decide pro bono to file some action even knowing it might fail, on his own time, to defend his honor. Which this attorney would then have to defend pro bono.…

Agreed, I think he took it too far. I wouldn't want that letter to end up in front of a judge if this thing did end up in court.

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#105

Post by Tloewald »

wiredfool wrote: post #61
kevinalexbrown wrote: post #43

This reminds me about how important it is to have a solid lawyer, and an understanding of the legal ecosystem. Even in cases like this with typos, "respond in ten (10) days" can be quite intimidating, especially when there's a money/legal power asymmetry. In one such case, Monster Cable issued a C&D to a much smaller, Blue Jeans Cable. The founder actually worked in litigation for 19 years and I found this portion of…

The best line of that letter: Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.

If quoted verbatim, the semicolon is used incorrectly. It should be a comma.

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#106

Post by hobs »

endgame wrote: post #56
mitchty wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also unreadable where i work where scribd is basically useless. Would be nice if people linked to pdfs instead of scribd.

Has scribd been useful anywhere?

Hear hear, I dont understand why people do it either, it just seems like all it adds is pagination and embedding for their pdf document which already has readers custom built for the task?

If you want to make something for presentation on the web dont make a pdf.

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#107

Post by Tloewald »

jelled wrote: post #104
larrys wrote: post #40

Don't agree with the humor and tact of this letter even though "it worked". "Shmucking" someone can backfire in many cases and cause a bigger problem. To be spiteful (I mean do we really know the mental state of the attorney writing the c and d?) maybe he would decide pro bono to file some action even knowing it might fail, on his own time, to defend his honor. Which this attorney would then have to defend pro bono.…

Agreed, I think he took it too far. I wouldn't want that letter to end up in front of a judge if this thing did end up in court.

I don't think such letters have much weight in court except insofar as they might involve breaches of professional conduct. I assume the writer has something to back his claim of excessive property tax, so it seems pretty safe. It also seems like there's some history involved.

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#108

Post by Tloewald »

RKoutnik wrote: post #74
mherdeg wrote: post #60

There was a confusing bit in the "P.S." section in this letter which read like some kind of veiled threat to expose the city for tax fraud, or for some kind of tax-related misdeeds. What was that all about? Is it generally a good idea to put veiled threats in responses to cease-and-desist letters?

The amount was the same as the town paid for their web site. ($5,000/yr for hosting? Ludicrous.)

The mayor's son-in-law's old PC isn't cheap!

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#109

Post by sk5t »

Pitarou wrote: post #90
rosser wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Years ago, someone taught me a very handy trick for determining whether to use the subject or object form: rephrase the sentence somehow so instead of who/whom, you're using he/him (or she/her, if you're so inclined). If "she" sounds right, use "who"; if "him" sounds right, it's "whom".

I learnt an even better trick: don't use it. Or rather, only use it if you intend to go the whole hog and comply with all the pedantic, pseudo-latinate prescriptions of traditional formal English grammar. "It is I." "Bad grammar is something up with which I shall not put." "This is an historic occasion." And so on....

That's an okay strategy if you're going for "maximin": the best possible worst result. More refined speakers of English will notice and take umbrage at your mistakes, but a wrong "who" is so much less irritating than a wrong "whom."

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#110

Post by sethrin »

bane wrote: post #85
qu4z-2 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whom is fine, but so is using "who" in its place. If in doubt, use who. On that note, it reminds me of a company I did some work for recently. They never used "me", only "myself": "Yes, he gave it to myself on Tuesday." I doubt anyone would argue that "myself" is archaic, but people using it incorrectly is definitely jarring.

> Whom is fine, but so is using "who" in its place. If in doubt, use who. Probably better advice. There's a bit of research literature on the death of "whom". I can't remember when exactly, but I want to say around the beginning of the 20th century it pretty much died out from the language. It's a nice progression, English doesn't use thee, thine, thy or thou anymore either. re:myself. That's just plain weird.

People do however use "y'all" and "you guys", and others. Just because we don't have the words doesn't mean that they're unnecessary.
Post reply on HN