48 ms·

SO SO stupid (both sides). The original threatening email seems pretty silly. The response, by adopting that tone, making it public, etc., is a big "I DARE YO

SO SO stupid (both sides). The original threatening email seems pretty silly. The response, by adopting that tone, making it public, etc., is a big "I DARE YOU" to the lawsuit-happy moron. The problem is, it's challenging to know just how rich or insane this person is, and they just publicly started bumping chests with him like a drunken teenager. Other than feeling smug, why is it a smart move to make this personal/emotional? Respectfully indicate that you disagree and request that further communication come from a lawyer. Also, by saying "We don't have a company, we're just a bunch of guys", you've said, "We don't have a corporate veil-- you can sue us DIRECTLY as individuals." Way to expose the jugular.

gavinballard 16y ago
I think there's a time and a place for public dissemination of emails like this. To take an example, TechCrunch does it all the time - sometimes I think it goes too far (every single internal email AOL sends out), sometimes I think it's appropriate (eg the "snark" email from Moviefone http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/15/snarketing/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/15/snarketing/). In this case, where there is virtually zero chance of legal proceedings actually resulting, and the protagonist is simply venting / bullying / baiting the recipient, I think publishing an email publicly is a decisive statement that you think they're silly, ridiculous, and should go away (it's also a good read and nice publicity). From a legal perspective, you don't really lose much, if any, ground. Also, for what it's worth, even if this guy is considering the "corporate veil" (that's a big if), and even if he has a shred of a cause of action (even bigger if) then knowing he's going after individuals is even less appealing that going after a nascent company (much harder to extract money and legal fees from a 22 year old student).
- webwright 16y ago
  "In this case, where there is virtually zero chance of legal proceedings actually resulting...." Dunno about NZ's legal system-- you're probably right. In the US, a rich person with an axe to grind could make your life hell. They might gleefully spend $20k to teach some snotty kids a lesson, even if they knew they would lose. Meanwhile, the kids are maxing out credit cards to cover the cost of their out-of-his-league lawyer and are horribly distracted from actually building stuff. Even the spectre of a lawsuit could scuttle fundraising hope. Investors don't want to touch people with enemies. If you had early acquisition interest, what happens in the reps and warranties phase when you disclose that there MIGHT be a lawsuit on the horizon? Could it scare a suitor off? All this for 5-10k pageviews on your blog, tops?
  - SupremumLimit 16y ago
    It's exactly the same in NZ - if you have money, you can make somebody's life hell even without a trace of wrongdoing on their part.
    - oreilly 16y ago
      NZ does have a major point of difference from the US - the courts will often "award" the costs of the case from a successful defendant to the originator. This tends to discourage abuse of the legal system for intimidation, as there is a risk it will backfire on you and you will end up paying for all lawyers involved.
      - SupremumLimit 15y ago
        It's a much smaller risk to the side with money. If you didn't have that much money to begin with, you may not even be able to afford defense, or you have to rack up huge lawyer bills for an uncertain outcome. And in the case of companies you can't even represent yourself, you have to have a lawyer. Also, awarding costs may or may not happen and is separate from the outcome of the case. So it might discourage _some_ abuse, but not much.

gavinballard 16y ago

I think there's a time and a place for public dissemination of emails like this. To take an example, TechCrunch does it all the time - sometimes I think it goes too far (every single internal email AOL sends out), sometimes I think it's appropriate (eg the "snark" email from Moviefone http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/15/snarketing/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/15/snarketing/). In this case, where there is virtually zero chance of legal proceedings actually resulting, and the protagonist is simply venting / bullying / baiting the recipient, I think publishing an email publicly is a decisive statement that you think they're silly, ridiculous, and should go away (it's also a good read and nice publicity). From a legal perspective, you don't really lose much, if any, ground. Also, for what it's worth, even if this guy is considering the "corporate veil" (that's a big if), and even if he has a shred of a cause of action (even bigger if) then knowing he's going after individuals is even less appealing that going after a nascent company (much harder to extract money and legal fees from a 22 year old student).

webwright 16y ago
"In this case, where there is virtually zero chance of legal proceedings actually resulting...." Dunno about NZ's legal system-- you're probably right. In the US, a rich person with an axe to grind could make your life hell. They might gleefully spend $20k to teach some snotty kids a lesson, even if they knew they would lose. Meanwhile, the kids are maxing out credit cards to cover the cost of their out-of-his-league lawyer and are horribly distracted from actually building stuff. Even the spectre of a lawsuit could scuttle fundraising hope. Investors don't want to touch people with enemies. If you had early acquisition interest, what happens in the reps and warranties phase when you disclose that there MIGHT be a lawsuit on the horizon? Could it scare a suitor off? All this for 5-10k pageviews on your blog, tops?
- SupremumLimit 16y ago
  It's exactly the same in NZ - if you have money, you can make somebody's life hell even without a trace of wrongdoing on their part.
  - oreilly 16y ago
    NZ does have a major point of difference from the US - the courts will often "award" the costs of the case from a successful defendant to the originator. This tends to discourage abuse of the legal system for intimidation, as there is a risk it will backfire on you and you will end up paying for all lawyers involved.
    - SupremumLimit 15y ago
      It's a much smaller risk to the side with money. If you didn't have that much money to begin with, you may not even be able to afford defense, or you have to rack up huge lawyer bills for an uncertain outcome. And in the case of companies you can't even represent yourself, you have to have a lawyer. Also, awarding costs may or may not happen and is separate from the outcome of the case. So it might discourage _some_ abuse, but not much.