4 ms·

> Twitter knows that these employees previously worked at Twitter; that these employees had and continue to have access to Twitter’s trade secrets [...] This s

> Twitter knows that these employees previously worked at Twitter; that these employees had and continue to have access to Twitter’s trade secrets [...] This sentence is clearly trying to establish liability by accusing Meta of wilful infringement of Twitter’s rights (i.e. it acted in full knowledge of these fact, even though they may lead to violation of the employees’ restrictive covenants, etc.), as evidenced by the context and indeed the rest of the letter. As such, the first instance of “Twitter” is surely a mistake; shouldn’t it say “Meta”? This would make sense given the next sentence (“With that knowledge, Meta [...]”). As this is supposedly from such a large law firm, I’m amazed a mistake like this could slip through; it completely changes the meaning of the entire sentence, even if the intent is recoverable from context. Does no one proofread Letters before Action? Am I misreading it? Is this fake?

codetrotter 3y ago
Doesn’t have to be a mistake. Twitter knows that people who used to work for Twitter now work for Meta. Seems perfectly fine to me.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- denotational 3y ago
  Maybe, but in that case the writer should just state it as a fact rather that saying that their client knows something. Whether Twitter knows that employees previously worked for Twitter (etc.) should not have any bearing on Meta’s liability; whether Meta knew this or not absolutely has an impact on liability. The fact that the next sentence refers to Meta’s knowledge of the the facts in the preceding sentence seems to justify my reading.
- medler 3y ago
  The next sentence is “With that knowledge, Meta deliberately assigned these employees to develop, in a matter of months, Meta’s copycat Threads app.” This sentence doesn’t follow logically unless it was Meta who had the knowledge in the previous sentence.
  - whateverman23 3y ago
    I think it's supposed to be saying "With that knowledge, [we are claiming that] Meta deliberately assigned these employees to develop, in a matter of months, Meta’s copycat Threads app." I wouldn't be surprised if Elon insisted on more aggressive language and it was hastily edited.
- sroussey 3y ago
  Meta purposely had ex-Twitter employees that it hire not work on Threads.
add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
This is the same general culture of conspicuously boasted competence that brought us Four Seasons Total Landscaping.
- heartbreak 3y ago
  Alex Spiro in particular acts like a clown. The firm itself is fine. I know some very smart attorneys who work there, same as any biglaw firm.
blitzar 3y ago
> As this is supposedly from such a large law firm Is it the same law firm that went with the 'offering to buy twitter and signing a purchase agreement was just a prank bro' defence? If you find yourself standing up in court making the prank bro argument, then I hope the amount of money you got was a fair price for your dignity.
- tjalfi 3y ago
  > Is it the same law firm that went with the 'offering to buy twitter and signing a purchase agreement was just a prank bro' defence? Yes. He was represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP for the Twitter lawsuit[0]. The threat was written by a Quinn Emanuel partner. > If you find yourself standing up in court making the prank bro argument, then I hope the amount of money you got was a fair price for your dignity. I'm not sure whether he has equity, but the average profits per equity partner at Quinn Emanuel are $5.22 million[1]. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/07/twitter-gets-ready-to-sue-elon-musk-hires-elite-merger-law-firm/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/07/twitter-gets-rea... [1] https://www.law.com/law-firm-profile/?id=1830&name=Quinn-Emanuel-Urquhart-%26-Sullivan-LLP&slreturn=20230607191010 https://www.law.com/law-firm-profile/?id=1830&name=Quinn-Ema...
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
  > a fair price for your dignity IANAL but my dignity's for sale at pretty low prices. Hell, get a few tequila shots in me and you can have it for free.
mandeepj 3y ago
> As such, the first instance of “Twitter” is surely a mistake; shouldn’t it say “Meta”? This would make sense given the next sentence (“With that knowledge, Meta [...]”). No! I think they wrote it correctly. The wording is confusing definitely as it’s written in first object. They are trying to tell them (Meta) - they (Twitter) are aware that they are hired our ex employees.

codetrotter 3y ago

Doesn’t have to be a mistake. Twitter knows that people who used to work for Twitter now work for Meta. Seems perfectly fine to me.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
denotational 3y ago
Maybe, but in that case the writer should just state it as a fact rather that saying that their client knows something. Whether Twitter knows that employees previously worked for Twitter (etc.) should not have any bearing on Meta’s liability; whether Meta knew this or not absolutely has an impact on liability. The fact that the next sentence refers to Meta’s knowledge of the the facts in the preceding sentence seems to justify my reading.
medler 3y ago
The next sentence is “With that knowledge, Meta deliberately assigned these employees to develop, in a matter of months, Meta’s copycat Threads app.” This sentence doesn’t follow logically unless it was Meta who had the knowledge in the previous sentence.
- whateverman23 3y ago
  I think it's supposed to be saying "With that knowledge, [we are claiming that] Meta deliberately assigned these employees to develop, in a matter of months, Meta’s copycat Threads app." I wouldn't be surprised if Elon insisted on more aggressive language and it was hastily edited.
sroussey 3y ago
Meta purposely had ex-Twitter employees that it hire not work on Threads.

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago

This is the same general culture of conspicuously boasted competence that brought us Four Seasons Total Landscaping.

heartbreak 3y ago
Alex Spiro in particular acts like a clown. The firm itself is fine. I know some very smart attorneys who work there, same as any biglaw firm.

blitzar 3y ago

> As this is supposedly from such a large law firm Is it the same law firm that went with the 'offering to buy twitter and signing a purchase agreement was just a prank bro' defence? If you find yourself standing up in court making the prank bro argument, then I hope the amount of money you got was a fair price for your dignity.

tjalfi 3y ago
> Is it the same law firm that went with the 'offering to buy twitter and signing a purchase agreement was just a prank bro' defence? Yes. He was represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP for the Twitter lawsuit[0]. The threat was written by a Quinn Emanuel partner. > If you find yourself standing up in court making the prank bro argument, then I hope the amount of money you got was a fair price for your dignity. I'm not sure whether he has equity, but the average profits per equity partner at Quinn Emanuel are $5.22 million[1]. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/07/twitter-gets-ready-to-sue-elon-musk-hires-elite-merger-law-firm/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/07/twitter-gets-rea... [1] https://www.law.com/law-firm-profile/?id=1830&name=Quinn-Emanuel-Urquhart-%26-Sullivan-LLP&slreturn=20230607191010 https://www.law.com/law-firm-profile/?id=1830&name=Quinn-Ema...
HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
> a fair price for your dignity IANAL but my dignity's for sale at pretty low prices. Hell, get a few tequila shots in me and you can have it for free.

mandeepj 3y ago

> As such, the first instance of “Twitter” is surely a mistake; shouldn’t it say “Meta”? This would make sense given the next sentence (“With that knowledge, Meta [...]”). No! I think they wrote it correctly. The wording is confusing definitely as it’s written in first object. They are trying to tell them (Meta) - they (Twitter) are aware that they are hired our ex employees.