7 ms·

I found a missing "possibly" and a spot where I clarified that something was my perception, but to be honest nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a

by nirvana 14y ago

I found a missing "possibly" and a spot where I clarified that something was my perception, but to be honest nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a "may" or a "it appears" or some other similar language. Nowhere did I give a single bit of legal advice. I merely illuminated a variety of ways that he could do some research that might show that he has more of a case than the lawyers he originally talked to concluded, towards the goal of getting a lawyer interested in the case. ---- Edit to add: The opposition continues to dishonestly claim that I am giving legal advice. I have not. I have merely suggested avenues of the law that could be researched and then discussed with a lawyer. There is zero risk in someone reading the law and then talking it over with a lawyer. There is zero liability in me suggesting someone get a lawyer and offering suggestions for how they might get one. I find it astounding that this comment has been down voted by %75 because persistently dishonest people have continued to claim that I'm "giving legal advice" when I am not, and have convinced people to punish me for trying to help this guy. I mean, I actually went to the USPTO and pulled up the relevant mark and read the examiners comments! Yet on HN, lying about me and attacking me carries 3 times the weight, apparently. That's a shame.

jsprinkles 14y ago
> nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a "may" or a "it appears" or some other similar language. That's called weasel wording. > Nowhere did I give a single bit of legal advice. Uh, your entire comment is how to respond to this legal threat, which is legal advice. The only advice anyone on Hacker News should ever give to someone in legal trouble is "consult an attorney", not how to consult an attorney, research to do ahead of time, bupkis.
- nirvana 14y ago
  I do not apologize for responding on the topic and attempting to help this guy. I brought up a lot of possible avenues that could be useful for him building a case. You have merely engaged in ad hominem and quite successfully derailed the discussion. Thanks for the down vote brigade, by the way. I must conclude that actually trying to help people on HN is not tolerated if the person attempting to help has offended someone who feels comfortable in the level of dishonesty you are.
  - cube13 14y ago
    >Rather than considering possible ways that he might build a case, as I am attempting to do, you are successfully derailing and discussion of the actual topic with your attacks and dishonesty. It is not the author's responsibility to build the case. That's what lawyers are for. They're the ones that are supposed to build the case.
  - jsprinkles 14y ago
    Wow. Let me respond point by point: > You have merely engaged in ad hominem That's the second time I've been accused of ad hominem attacks in this thread, and the second time it's been flatly wrong. An ad hominem is me refuting your point by implying that you personally are not qualified to give it. I am not refuting your point, at all, and I have been careful to do so except to generally label some of your advice bad. I am telling you to shut up and stop giving advice on a case you're not personally familiar with. You are aware that there is legal liability for YOU being created as we speak, right? > and quite successfully derailed the discussion Good. It needs it. Your comment in particular. > Thanks for the down vote brigade, by the way. This is a tall accusation, and I do not have a "down vote brigade". I downvoted your parent post and nothing else. I suggest, since you have been around the block of Hacker News a few times, that you step back and take a few breaths and think about what you're saying. > I must conclude that actually trying to help people on HN is not tolerated if the person attempting to help has offended someone who feels comfortable in the level of dishonesty you are. Fuck you. I seriously have no other response to that, and I'm ashamed that I've gone there, but really: fuck you, and everything you stand for, with that little remark.
    - nirvana 14y ago
      > Let me respond point by point: I wish you had. >An ad hominem is me refuting your point by implying that you personally are not qualified to give it. Your claim that I am not a lawyer and therefore shouldn't be giving legal advice is, by definition "implying that you personally are not qualified to give it." Now add to that ad hominem the fact that I wasn't giving legal advice, and your repeated insistence that I am, is a dishonest characterization of the argument, akin to claiming I'm not qualified to beat my wife and therefore should stop. The fact that I'm not actually beating my wife means that your dishonesty about this is an attempt to characterize me in a derogatory fashion. Thus, personal attack as well. >Good. It needs it. Your comment in particular. Glad to have you on the record admitting that your intention is to block productive discussion. >Fuck you. I seriously have no other response to that, and I'm ashamed that I've gone there, but really: fuck you, and everything you stand for, with that little remark. It is a simple fact that you have been completely dishonest about my remark. You have been characterizing it dishonestly from the beginning, and when I pointed out that I wasn't claiming what you said I was claiming you evade the fact that this proved you to be lying by claiming those were "weasel wordS". Yes, exactly the point of "weasel words" is to emphasize that you don't know all the facts at hand and you're providing possibilities. Which, in fact, shows your claim that I am giving legal advice to be a wholesale fabrication. You should be ashamed that you are willingly and proudly derailing a conversation whereby a poster to HN might get some advice for how to solve his problem of finding legal council. Notice that I was attempting to help him get legal council, not giving him legal advise that would render such council unnecessary as you claim. So, you have lied about what I have said, you have admitted trolling, and you have evaded every counter argument I have made to the point where all you're left with is "fuck you". I suggest you consider -- just for a second-- the fact that everything I've said is true, that you went off the handle at me for the "crime" of trying to help someone, and that the entire basis for your admitted attempt to derail this thread is false. I wasn't giving him legal advice, I was trying to help him get enough info to get a lawyer interested. Shame on you for opposing that!
- rprasad 14y ago
  Nirvana, the issue is that you are providing a specific application of laws and rules to the OP's facts and suggesting a specific course of legal action. That is, by definition, the practice of law in every state in America. (Though perhaps not necessarily rising to the level of unauthorized practice, which could result in fines or other penalties.) If you wanted to be on the safe side, you would have said "Generally, [Law X] says" or "Generally, in a situation like this, many people do [Y]." In your specific case, I would have said, "Prior to hiring to a lawyer, if you do the following research, you'll be well prepared to talk to whatever attorney you select to represent you in this matter." All of your comment is no longer legal advice, it's merely information about how to prepare to knowledgeably talk to a lawyer who will handle the actual representation. (This could be construed as legal advice. IAAL.)
  - jt2190 14y ago
    My understanding is that the "practice of law" is to essentially act as a lawyer. In the United States, every citizen is guaranteed the right to practice law in their own defense. "Practice of law" on someone else's behalf when you are not a lawyer may incur fines, as most jurisdictions try to protect their citizens from being represented by someone who has no idea what they're doing. The line between talking about someone's legal troubles and "practicing law" are somewhat fuzzy, however. Is it really that common for someone who has not represented themselves as an attorney to be held accountable for providing bad legal advice in a posting on a message board?
    - rprasad 14y ago
      Yes, in their own defense, but not in the defense of others unless they are licensed to practice. I have heard of a handful of cases (related to immigration law) where persons who offered legal advice were held accountable for providing bad advice online. They did not hold themselves out to be lawyers, but they did hold themselves out to be knowledgeable about immigration law. It's not common for people to be held accountable for this because not many people go so far as to cross the line into "unauthorized practice."
      - 14y ago
jarrett 14y ago
I'm not scolding or anything. Just trying to be helpful, honestly. So in that spirit, here's an example (not the only one) of something from your post that would likely be deemed legal advice: "Basically, if you have been using your name prior to 2008, and can prove it, then you are in good shape. If you stared your site between 2008-2010, and they cannot prove that they started in 2008 as they claimed then you're probably in good shape. If you started your site after 2010 then you're reduced to claiming that the marks are not confusing. But you also have the fact that you already have agreement with them (and their failure to attempt to enforce their trademark rights after you changed the name of your service per the agreement) to show they've abandoned it." In this instance, you're making a lot of conclusions about the OP's case. See for reference: http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-advice/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-advice/ You are, as per that definition, using "application of legal principles to facts" in order to "in effect [predict] a specific resolution of a legal issue." Again, I'm not trying to make you feel bad or anything like that. I respect that you put in a major good faith effort to help the OP by writing your initial comment.
- jt2190 14y ago
  From the definition you've linked to (emphasis mine): "The following is an example of one state’s definition of legal advice: "An _attorney-client relationship exists_ and one is deemed to be practicing law whenever 'one undertakes _for compensation_, direct or indirect, to advise another, not his regular employer, in any matter involving the application of legal principles to facts or purposes or desires.'" I'm unclear at what point nirvana entered into a client-attorney relationship with the OP, and at what point he was compensated for his legal advice.

by nirvana 14y ago

jsprinkles 14y ago

> nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a "may" or a "it appears" or some other similar language. That's called weasel wording. > Nowhere did I give a single bit of legal advice. Uh, your entire comment is how to respond to this legal threat, which is legal advice. The only advice anyone on Hacker News should ever give to someone in legal trouble is "consult an attorney", not how to consult an attorney, research to do ahead of time, bupkis.

nirvana 14y ago
I do not apologize for responding on the topic and attempting to help this guy. I brought up a lot of possible avenues that could be useful for him building a case. You have merely engaged in ad hominem and quite successfully derailed the discussion. Thanks for the down vote brigade, by the way. I must conclude that actually trying to help people on HN is not tolerated if the person attempting to help has offended someone who feels comfortable in the level of dishonesty you are.
- cube13 14y ago
  >Rather than considering possible ways that he might build a case, as I am attempting to do, you are successfully derailing and discussion of the actual topic with your attacks and dishonesty. It is not the author's responsibility to build the case. That's what lawyers are for. They're the ones that are supposed to build the case.
- jsprinkles 14y ago
  Wow. Let me respond point by point: > You have merely engaged in ad hominem That's the second time I've been accused of ad hominem attacks in this thread, and the second time it's been flatly wrong. An ad hominem is me refuting your point by implying that you personally are not qualified to give it. I am not refuting your point, at all, and I have been careful to do so except to generally label some of your advice bad. I am telling you to shut up and stop giving advice on a case you're not personally familiar with. You are aware that there is legal liability for YOU being created as we speak, right? > and quite successfully derailed the discussion Good. It needs it. Your comment in particular. > Thanks for the down vote brigade, by the way. This is a tall accusation, and I do not have a "down vote brigade". I downvoted your parent post and nothing else. I suggest, since you have been around the block of Hacker News a few times, that you step back and take a few breaths and think about what you're saying. > I must conclude that actually trying to help people on HN is not tolerated if the person attempting to help has offended someone who feels comfortable in the level of dishonesty you are. Fuck you. I seriously have no other response to that, and I'm ashamed that I've gone there, but really: fuck you, and everything you stand for, with that little remark.
  - nirvana 14y ago
    > Let me respond point by point: I wish you had. >An ad hominem is me refuting your point by implying that you personally are not qualified to give it. Your claim that I am not a lawyer and therefore shouldn't be giving legal advice is, by definition "implying that you personally are not qualified to give it." Now add to that ad hominem the fact that I wasn't giving legal advice, and your repeated insistence that I am, is a dishonest characterization of the argument, akin to claiming I'm not qualified to beat my wife and therefore should stop. The fact that I'm not actually beating my wife means that your dishonesty about this is an attempt to characterize me in a derogatory fashion. Thus, personal attack as well. >Good. It needs it. Your comment in particular. Glad to have you on the record admitting that your intention is to block productive discussion. >Fuck you. I seriously have no other response to that, and I'm ashamed that I've gone there, but really: fuck you, and everything you stand for, with that little remark. It is a simple fact that you have been completely dishonest about my remark. You have been characterizing it dishonestly from the beginning, and when I pointed out that I wasn't claiming what you said I was claiming you evade the fact that this proved you to be lying by claiming those were "weasel wordS". Yes, exactly the point of "weasel words" is to emphasize that you don't know all the facts at hand and you're providing possibilities. Which, in fact, shows your claim that I am giving legal advice to be a wholesale fabrication. You should be ashamed that you are willingly and proudly derailing a conversation whereby a poster to HN might get some advice for how to solve his problem of finding legal council. Notice that I was attempting to help him get legal council, not giving him legal advise that would render such council unnecessary as you claim. So, you have lied about what I have said, you have admitted trolling, and you have evaded every counter argument I have made to the point where all you're left with is "fuck you". I suggest you consider -- just for a second-- the fact that everything I've said is true, that you went off the handle at me for the "crime" of trying to help someone, and that the entire basis for your admitted attempt to derail this thread is false. I wasn't giving him legal advice, I was trying to help him get enough info to get a lawyer interested. Shame on you for opposing that!
rprasad 14y ago
Nirvana, the issue is that you are providing a specific application of laws and rules to the OP's facts and suggesting a specific course of legal action. That is, by definition, the practice of law in every state in America. (Though perhaps not necessarily rising to the level of unauthorized practice, which could result in fines or other penalties.) If you wanted to be on the safe side, you would have said "Generally, [Law X] says" or "Generally, in a situation like this, many people do [Y]." In your specific case, I would have said, "Prior to hiring to a lawyer, if you do the following research, you'll be well prepared to talk to whatever attorney you select to represent you in this matter." All of your comment is no longer legal advice, it's merely information about how to prepare to knowledgeably talk to a lawyer who will handle the actual representation. (This could be construed as legal advice. IAAL.)
- jt2190 14y ago
  My understanding is that the "practice of law" is to essentially act as a lawyer. In the United States, every citizen is guaranteed the right to practice law in their own defense. "Practice of law" on someone else's behalf when you are not a lawyer may incur fines, as most jurisdictions try to protect their citizens from being represented by someone who has no idea what they're doing. The line between talking about someone's legal troubles and "practicing law" are somewhat fuzzy, however. Is it really that common for someone who has not represented themselves as an attorney to be held accountable for providing bad legal advice in a posting on a message board?
  - rprasad 14y ago
    Yes, in their own defense, but not in the defense of others unless they are licensed to practice. I have heard of a handful of cases (related to immigration law) where persons who offered legal advice were held accountable for providing bad advice online. They did not hold themselves out to be lawyers, but they did hold themselves out to be knowledgeable about immigration law. It's not common for people to be held accountable for this because not many people go so far as to cross the line into "unauthorized practice."
    - 14y ago

jarrett 14y ago

I'm not scolding or anything. Just trying to be helpful, honestly. So in that spirit, here's an example (not the only one) of something from your post that would likely be deemed legal advice: "Basically, if you have been using your name prior to 2008, and can prove it, then you are in good shape. If you stared your site between 2008-2010, and they cannot prove that they started in 2008 as they claimed then you're probably in good shape. If you started your site after 2010 then you're reduced to claiming that the marks are not confusing. But you also have the fact that you already have agreement with them (and their failure to attempt to enforce their trademark rights after you changed the name of your service per the agreement) to show they've abandoned it." In this instance, you're making a lot of conclusions about the OP's case. See for reference: http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-advice/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-advice/ You are, as per that definition, using "application of legal principles to facts" in order to "in effect [predict] a specific resolution of a legal issue." Again, I'm not trying to make you feel bad or anything like that. I respect that you put in a major good faith effort to help the OP by writing your initial comment.

jt2190 14y ago
From the definition you've linked to (emphasis mine): "The following is an example of one state’s definition of legal advice: "An _attorney-client relationship exists_ and one is deemed to be practicing law whenever 'one undertakes _for compensation_, direct or indirect, to advise another, not his regular employer, in any matter involving the application of legal principles to facts or purposes or desires.'" I'm unclear at what point nirvana entered into a client-attorney relationship with the OP, and at what point he was compensated for his legal advice.