2 ms·

> Compare this account from a reporter at VentureBeat – who also happens to be a member of the California State Bar Not since 2007 - http://members.calbar.ca.g

> Compare this account from a reporter at VentureBeat – who also happens to be a member of the California State Bar Not since 2007 - http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/215049 http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/215049 And his CV suggests he only practiced any law at all between 2001 and 2004 - http://www.jhorwitz.com/jhresume.pdf http://www.jhorwitz.com/jhresume.pdf Disingenuous of both him and you to claim he has any authority to speak from a legal point of view on this, really, no?

gojomo 8y ago
Not really disingenuous; from looking at his resume, I hadn't noticed his bar membership had expired. (And, it's interesting that his resume reports him as active through 2017.) But still, a legal degree, one-time certification, and some legal practice are kind of relevant, compared to anonymous commenters who are just insisting by repetition "but that's not a 'contractor'!" Is it your reasoned argument that an individual receiving payment for services rendered to a corporation, under the terms of a mutually-agreed contract, is not a "contractor" in the eyes of the law?
- zimpenfish 8y ago
  > Not really disingenuous; from looking at his resume, I hadn't noticed his bar membership had expired. Ok, I'll remove you from the disingenuous. He stays though because he should definitely mention it on his CV. > a legal degree, one-time certification, and some legal practice are kind of relevant Yep, he's definitely probably got more standing than anonymous commenters. But that's a low bar. He didn't practice contract law (it was transactional IP) and it was 14 years ago - it's an almost certainty he isn't au fait with current contract or employment law. > Is it your reasoned argument I don't have one knowing nothing about US contract or employment law. My layperson viewpoint is that it's quite clear they weren't Facebook contractors in the terms of the Apple agreement.
  - gojomo 8y ago
    "Quite clear" is not an argument, it's an empty assertion. IANAL, but I know the rough outlines of US contract and employment law as a frequent party to contracts, occasionally to disputes, and as a US person who has both contracted others and been a contract worker. If you have a contract (which doesn't even have to be written), you're a contractor. Full stop. And, an agreement to provide payment in return for performing certain actions (like installing an app, leaving it running, answering questionnaires, maintaining confidentiality, etc) is a contract, even if it's a clickthrough agreement. Ergo, compensated research panelists are 'contractors' in the eyes of the law.
    - zimpenfish 8y ago
      > "Quite clear" is not an argument Yes, and I explicitly said I didn't have an argument but only my "layperson viewpoint". > IANAL, but I know the rough outlines of US contract Great. I don't care. Argue with other people about that. All I wanted to do was correct the perception that the journalist was a member of the bar and had some kind of legal standing.

gojomo 8y ago

Not really disingenuous; from looking at his resume, I hadn't noticed his bar membership had expired. (And, it's interesting that his resume reports him as active through 2017.) But still, a legal degree, one-time certification, and some legal practice are kind of relevant, compared to anonymous commenters who are just insisting by repetition "but that's not a 'contractor'!" Is it your reasoned argument that an individual receiving payment for services rendered to a corporation, under the terms of a mutually-agreed contract, is not a "contractor" in the eyes of the law?

zimpenfish 8y ago
> Not really disingenuous; from looking at his resume, I hadn't noticed his bar membership had expired. Ok, I'll remove you from the disingenuous. He stays though because he should definitely mention it on his CV. > a legal degree, one-time certification, and some legal practice are kind of relevant Yep, he's definitely probably got more standing than anonymous commenters. But that's a low bar. He didn't practice contract law (it was transactional IP) and it was 14 years ago - it's an almost certainty he isn't au fait with current contract or employment law. > Is it your reasoned argument I don't have one knowing nothing about US contract or employment law. My layperson viewpoint is that it's quite clear they weren't Facebook contractors in the terms of the Apple agreement.
- gojomo 8y ago
  "Quite clear" is not an argument, it's an empty assertion. IANAL, but I know the rough outlines of US contract and employment law as a frequent party to contracts, occasionally to disputes, and as a US person who has both contracted others and been a contract worker. If you have a contract (which doesn't even have to be written), you're a contractor. Full stop. And, an agreement to provide payment in return for performing certain actions (like installing an app, leaving it running, answering questionnaires, maintaining confidentiality, etc) is a contract, even if it's a clickthrough agreement. Ergo, compensated research panelists are 'contractors' in the eyes of the law.
  - zimpenfish 8y ago
    > "Quite clear" is not an argument Yes, and I explicitly said I didn't have an argument but only my "layperson viewpoint". > IANAL, but I know the rough outlines of US contract Great. I don't care. Argue with other people about that. All I wanted to do was correct the perception that the journalist was a member of the bar and had some kind of legal standing.