3 ms·

IANAL but I really don’t see anything problematic here, it’s all standard boilerplate digitally distributed software stuff. Maybe he thought the ownership claus

IANAL but I really don’t see anything problematic here, it’s all standard boilerplate digitally distributed software stuff. Maybe he thought the ownership clause was a little too broad? https://tableplus.io/blog/2018/01/license-agreement.html https://tableplus.io/blog/2018/01/license-agreement.html

JshWright 8y ago
> neither TablePlus nor any TablePlus’s provider makes any representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied: ... that the Application, its servers, the content, or e-mails sent from or on behalf of TablePlus are free of viruses, scripts, trojan horses, worms, malware, timebombs or other harmful components. Is that really standard boilerplate? I don't recall seeing a clause like that before.
- markn951 8y ago
  I mean, again I'm not a lawyer and I don't spend time reading EULAs, but to me that seems like a pretty uninteresting hold-harmless agreement that happens to specify the harms from getting hacked and distributing malware, like what happened to Transmission and Piriform.
joekrill 8y ago
My wife is an attorney and if there is ONE thing she wishes she could make everyone understand it's that there is no such thing as a "standard" or "boilerplate" legal document.
- rb666 8y ago
  Well, that's also hardly in her best interests now is it? Not really a partial judge (hah).
- tluyben2 8y ago
  Ofcourse there is; multiple times have I gotten documents via-via that were identical to docs I received before and the lawyers billed hours for that copy/paste work making it sound, like your wife, that it is custom and a lot of work. It can be Ofcourse, but most, even complex company documents I have signed (and that's 100s) are indeed boilerplate and the lawyers are scammers trying to bill hours for 'writing' them. If they would say '$1000 - boilerplate document (c) OurFirm' that would be fine, but making out it took days to make while it is exactly boilerplate/template with changed names is what all lawyers (at least the Corp ones we deal with) do (and they also spend > 1 week delivering these templates because 'so much work') but it is a scam imho. Akin to me selling a software application and charging all buyers 1000 hours and deliver it after 2 months instead of a license and an immediate download. Obviously ymmv and I might have just encountered crappy ones, but 100s of signed legal docs in my career from at least 30 different lawyers show me that actually 95% is boilerplate of the docs we get.
  - joekrill 8y ago
    But you're just proving my point: if 95% is boilerplate, 5% is not. Plus you have to consider the circumstances. The same exact document might have vastly different ramifications depending on what else is involved - the work, product, other parties, etc. I'm very happy for folks who haven't run into issues by not using a lawyer. But having had documents reviewed and realizing that things are pretty much never what they appear on the surface to a layman, I would never consider signing a legal document without having it reviewed by a lawyer. Nor would I assume some "boilerplate" document is going to cover what I, as a non-lawyer, assume it will.
    - tluyben2 8y ago
      I did not mean that of the documents 5% of every document was custom: I mean that of the say 100 docs I signed, 5 were not just standard out of the drawer with only the parties changed. Disclaimer here is that I am not from the US and as I understand legal things are different there: many things were you get sued over in the Netherlands where the contracts could be an issue in the US, are basically laughed out of court here in NL. Anecdotal; someone tried to sue us for damages because there was a misspelling in a contract with him. The judge told him literally to not waste his time as the intention was clear. Also indirect damages are not taken very seriously here (and should be nowhere imho, but I hear they are in the US). So I only made my comment based on my experience in NL, DE, HK, ES and UK and there I mostly saw copy/paste work while still being billed hours for that non-effort.
      - joekrill 8y ago
        Ah, very good point. It would certainly be great if things were that straight forward in the US.

JshWright 8y ago

> neither TablePlus nor any TablePlus’s provider makes any representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied: ... that the Application, its servers, the content, or e-mails sent from or on behalf of TablePlus are free of viruses, scripts, trojan horses, worms, malware, timebombs or other harmful components. Is that really standard boilerplate? I don't recall seeing a clause like that before.

markn951 8y ago
I mean, again I'm not a lawyer and I don't spend time reading EULAs, but to me that seems like a pretty uninteresting hold-harmless agreement that happens to specify the harms from getting hacked and distributing malware, like what happened to Transmission and Piriform.

joekrill 8y ago

My wife is an attorney and if there is ONE thing she wishes she could make everyone understand it's that there is no such thing as a "standard" or "boilerplate" legal document.

rb666 8y ago
Well, that's also hardly in her best interests now is it? Not really a partial judge (hah).
tluyben2 8y ago
Ofcourse there is; multiple times have I gotten documents via-via that were identical to docs I received before and the lawyers billed hours for that copy/paste work making it sound, like your wife, that it is custom and a lot of work. It can be Ofcourse, but most, even complex company documents I have signed (and that's 100s) are indeed boilerplate and the lawyers are scammers trying to bill hours for 'writing' them. If they would say '$1000 - boilerplate document (c) OurFirm' that would be fine, but making out it took days to make while it is exactly boilerplate/template with changed names is what all lawyers (at least the Corp ones we deal with) do (and they also spend > 1 week delivering these templates because 'so much work') but it is a scam imho. Akin to me selling a software application and charging all buyers 1000 hours and deliver it after 2 months instead of a license and an immediate download. Obviously ymmv and I might have just encountered crappy ones, but 100s of signed legal docs in my career from at least 30 different lawyers show me that actually 95% is boilerplate of the docs we get.
- joekrill 8y ago
  But you're just proving my point: if 95% is boilerplate, 5% is not. Plus you have to consider the circumstances. The same exact document might have vastly different ramifications depending on what else is involved - the work, product, other parties, etc. I'm very happy for folks who haven't run into issues by not using a lawyer. But having had documents reviewed and realizing that things are pretty much never what they appear on the surface to a layman, I would never consider signing a legal document without having it reviewed by a lawyer. Nor would I assume some "boilerplate" document is going to cover what I, as a non-lawyer, assume it will.
  - tluyben2 8y ago
    I did not mean that of the documents 5% of every document was custom: I mean that of the say 100 docs I signed, 5 were not just standard out of the drawer with only the parties changed. Disclaimer here is that I am not from the US and as I understand legal things are different there: many things were you get sued over in the Netherlands where the contracts could be an issue in the US, are basically laughed out of court here in NL. Anecdotal; someone tried to sue us for damages because there was a misspelling in a contract with him. The judge told him literally to not waste his time as the intention was clear. Also indirect damages are not taken very seriously here (and should be nowhere imho, but I hear they are in the US). So I only made my comment based on my experience in NL, DE, HK, ES and UK and there I mostly saw copy/paste work while still being billed hours for that non-effort.
    - joekrill 8y ago
      Ah, very good point. It would certainly be great if things were that straight forward in the US.