4 ms·

> It is a legitimate tactic; even those who succumb to it don’t really begrudge the approach. Maybe I just haven't given up yet, but what the f*ck? This is not

> It is a legitimate tactic; even those who succumb to it don’t really begrudge the approach. Maybe I just haven't given up yet, but what the f*ck? This is not a legitimate tactic, this is LITERALLY everything wrong with our present system.

BoysenberryPi 10y ago
She isn't wrong about it being a legitimate tactic. You might not like it, it might make you a piece of shit for doing it, but it is a completely legitimate tactic.
- gmac 10y ago
  'Legitimate' is too broad. Google defines it as: 1. conforming to the law or to rules. 2. able to be defended with logic or justification; valid. Definition 1: maybe, although even that may be borderline, since these unsubstantiated suits sound pretty vexatious (IANAL). Definition 2: no way that this is justifiable, or that this peculiarly broken aspect of the US legal system — where you pay your own costs even if you win — can be defended with logic.
- loco5niner 10y ago
  It's legitimately a tactic, but not a legitimate tactic.
- the_cat_kittles 10y ago
  legitimate, to my mind, connotes at least some moral rightness. so i disagree. maybe the literal definition is "legal", but i think it would be more clear to say "legal" than "legitimate"
sluggg 10y ago
the tactic is legitimate, sure. But do ALL those people who succumb to the tactic really not begrudge the approach? I highly doubt it. QZ found one guy who was not upset and uses that to justify the prior claim... booo qz booo
- NetMonkey 10y ago
  I have been the victim of this tactic, and yes it is terrible. But it's also completely understandable. It's an extremely easy way for a company with deep pockets to bury a smaller company. When you understand why someone does something - you can hate that they're doing it, but you also accept it in a weird way, because they're simply using the rules of the game. And while you hope you would do better if you ever got to be in that situation the truth is probably, that most of the people getting suid in these situations would do the exact same things if the roles were reversed.
  - goldenkey 10y ago
    Ah the ol' "everyone's a ruthless POS" narrative. Does it make your conscience feel better when you justify your bad blood by assuming everyone else has it too?
lordnacho 10y ago
The writer is conflating "legitimate" with "legal" and "reasonable", the latter two of which it isn't.

BoysenberryPi 10y ago

She isn't wrong about it being a legitimate tactic. You might not like it, it might make you a piece of shit for doing it, but it is a completely legitimate tactic.

gmac 10y ago
'Legitimate' is too broad. Google defines it as: 1. conforming to the law or to rules. 2. able to be defended with logic or justification; valid. Definition 1: maybe, although even that may be borderline, since these unsubstantiated suits sound pretty vexatious (IANAL). Definition 2: no way that this is justifiable, or that this peculiarly broken aspect of the US legal system — where you pay your own costs even if you win — can be defended with logic.
loco5niner 10y ago
It's legitimately a tactic, but not a legitimate tactic.
the_cat_kittles 10y ago
legitimate, to my mind, connotes at least some moral rightness. so i disagree. maybe the literal definition is "legal", but i think it would be more clear to say "legal" than "legitimate"

sluggg 10y ago

the tactic is legitimate, sure. But do ALL those people who succumb to the tactic really not begrudge the approach? I highly doubt it. QZ found one guy who was not upset and uses that to justify the prior claim... booo qz booo

NetMonkey 10y ago
I have been the victim of this tactic, and yes it is terrible. But it's also completely understandable. It's an extremely easy way for a company with deep pockets to bury a smaller company. When you understand why someone does something - you can hate that they're doing it, but you also accept it in a weird way, because they're simply using the rules of the game. And while you hope you would do better if you ever got to be in that situation the truth is probably, that most of the people getting suid in these situations would do the exact same things if the roles were reversed.
- goldenkey 10y ago
  Ah the ol' "everyone's a ruthless POS" narrative. Does it make your conscience feel better when you justify your bad blood by assuming everyone else has it too?

lordnacho 10y ago

The writer is conflating "legitimate" with "legal" and "reasonable", the latter two of which it isn't.