3 ms·

I was wondering, if a legal trick can be used to limit these C&D letters that have no merit. Effectively, the lawyer on the other side of the letter is making

by derekp7 11y ago

I was wondering, if a legal trick can be used to limit these C&D letters that have no merit. Effectively, the lawyer on the other side of the letter is making a legal claim, that the law says what you are doing is wrong. If that claim is clearly baseless, then shouldn't the their lawyer be held on malpractice charges? After all, they are licensed and certified experts, and have a duty to not mislead the public.

jacquesm 11y ago
This strategy works as long as the other party doesn't call your bluff. Which is a very large number of instances compared to the number of instances where the other party decides to tell you to sue or get lost. It's kind of amusing if you call a legal bluff, the other party now has two bad choices: either they will have to go away quietly and the issue will remain or they have to actually sue and will most likely lose (that's never guaranteed). The real downside is not that these lawyers make dubious or baseless legal claims (it's up to you to respond or take them serious or not), the problem is that most people will not feel qualified to make that call and so will either comply or run up some legal expenses. So for small entities (private individuals for instance) folding is usually the only option. In this case Ars was a pretty dumb target of such a C&D, they're part of the media and will of course use it to maximum effect.
- derekp7 11y ago
  That's where it would be nice to be able to counter sue for legal expenses, under the theory that the C&D lawyer is abusing his position as an officer of the court in writing a baseless C&D letter (thereby causing the target to have to hire a lawyer to review the issue). So even if this wouldn't happen that often, it would be something they would have to consider prior to writing a letter with baseless claims. Of course, being lawyers, they would probably put in some fine print that states that no legal threat is implied, or something like that.

by derekp7 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago

This strategy works as long as the other party doesn't call your bluff. Which is a very large number of instances compared to the number of instances where the other party decides to tell you to sue or get lost. It's kind of amusing if you call a legal bluff, the other party now has two bad choices: either they will have to go away quietly and the issue will remain or they have to actually sue and will most likely lose (that's never guaranteed). The real downside is not that these lawyers make dubious or baseless legal claims (it's up to you to respond or take them serious or not), the problem is that most people will not feel qualified to make that call and so will either comply or run up some legal expenses. So for small entities (private individuals for instance) folding is usually the only option. In this case Ars was a pretty dumb target of such a C&D, they're part of the media and will of course use it to maximum effect.

derekp7 11y ago
That's where it would be nice to be able to counter sue for legal expenses, under the theory that the C&D lawyer is abusing his position as an officer of the court in writing a baseless C&D letter (thereby causing the target to have to hire a lawyer to review the issue). So even if this wouldn't happen that often, it would be something they would have to consider prior to writing a letter with baseless claims. Of course, being lawyers, they would probably put in some fine print that states that no legal threat is implied, or something like that.