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

131–140 of 172 posts

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#131

Post by throwaway125 »

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…

This reply to monster seems a lot more productive than the one from the OP. It got me to look up blue jeans cables and I found a youtube video[1] where Kurt Denke (the person who wrote the C&D reply) talks about the difference between a $17 and a $150 HDMI cable. It's quite long but it's refreshing to see information about cables being spread without the usual marketing lies.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHjkb1m7Y7s

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#132

Post by TeMPOraL »

mikeash wrote: post #102
jarrett wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's not really an iterated prisoner's dilemma, as on each iteration one of the prisoner is replaced by a new one. Therefore if you don't consider the eventual consequences to all the replaced prisoners as a whole, it is reasonable for the one that is about to be removed from the game to defect.

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#133

Post by Jgrubb »

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.)

In fairness, $5,000 a year for hosting and maintenance, but $28k a year in property taxes? Good ole Jersey.

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#134

Post by gtirloni »

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…

If big companies would be made to pay for the costs of the other party when they lost, then small companies would be eager to fight back. The way it works in the U.S. is just crazy (for my third-world mind).

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#135

Post by phillc73 »

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....

> "This is an historic occasion."

What's wrong with this? I cannot think of another way in which to say this?

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#136

Post by phillc73 »

bane wrote: post #41
johnminton wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"ask who owned" not "ask whom owned". "whom" isn't just a word to put in to sound educated - it's used only when the "who" is an object. Here it is not.

"Whom" is archaic and generally not used in English anymore anyways. Overzealous and misguided efforts to save the word have scarred generations of youngsters.

We must speak with different people, because I hear it commonly used in the correct manner.

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#137

Post by brown9-2 »

Jgrubb wrote: post #133
RKoutnik wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In fairness, $5,000 a year for hosting and maintenance, but $28k a year in property taxes? Good ole Jersey.

I think that amount was across a few years.

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#138

Post by shawndumas »

Tloewald wrote: post #105
wiredfool wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

what are the rules of semicolon/colon use?

Re: A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

#140

Post by mikeash »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #132
mikeash wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not really an iterated prisoner's dilemma, as on each iteration one of the prisoner is replaced by a new one. Therefore if you don't consider the eventual consequences to all the replaced prisoners as a whole, it is reasonable for the one that is about to be removed from the game to defect.

It's iterated if there are multiple patent trolls or similar entities that might gun for you and your industry. It's probably hard to tell in advance whether this is true, though.
Post reply on HN