I wish your comment was the only one, frankly, and we could really use a "you are not a lawyer, stop pretending to be one" guideline.
Edit: I've made a "Ask PG" to ask for just that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055661
Edit: I've made a "Ask PG" to ask for just that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055661
Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects.
You're being down voted because you are lying about what I said and attacking me for the "crime" of trying to suggest areas of investigation for this guy... who's primary problem is that he has been UNABLE to get a lawyer.
So, yeah, shame on me for trying to help him get a lawyer. I won't sleep tonight.
Technical subjects do not carry the risk of legal consequences in the general case, now do they?
Programming and law are two completely different fields, each with its own sets of requirements, regulations, practice, and repercussions. Please don't try to make them out to be the same.
The fact that each field has its "own set of requirements, regulations, practice, and repercussions" is obvious to everyone.
Perhaps a better way to respond to such an analogy is to explain how the similarities and differences make his analogy valid or invalid. That could be interesting and informative.
It is elitist and shitty, but also true. It's not because lawyers are smarter than the rest of us. It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines.
Dealing with these situations does not just involve legal knowledge. It also involves strategy as well as some practical examples of what others have done in the same situation.
Lawyers (with obvious exceptions) tend to be pretty weak on common sense strategies and tend to frame things totally based upon their legal knowledge and training. This can be a trap that prevents them from seeing a very obvious solution to a problem that a non-lawyer can come up with.
A layman on the other hand can engage in different types of manipulation that an attorney can't do even if they had the same idea.
OK, one data point is just an anecdote, but I saw a good example of a lawyer using some basic strategy a while back. I had a legal situation of my own, hired a lawyer and went to court with the lawyer. The situation wasn't settled the first day, so my lawyer looked at the court schedule, figured out that if we asked for a continuance we'd come back to court when a different judge was presiding, who he believed - based on his knowledge of the judge's personal life - would be more favorable to our position.
We came back two weeks later, sat in front of the new judge, and the judge came down pretty clearly on our side, and the situation was resolved amicably. Had we tested our luck with a different judge, things might not have turned out so well (then again, maybe they would). But, anyway, is struck me as a fairly subtle, but effective technique.
That said, I understand that - in general - the courts don't like it when lawyers try to "pick their judge" to YMMV.
But that's not the issue here. The issue here is whether one can suggest possible legal avenues of investigation that could be used to get a lawyer interested in the case.
There is zero risk in reading the law and then talking to a lawyer about what you find there.
Here's how you get a lawyer interested in the case:
1. Find the phone number of a lawyer. Contact the EFF, or the local bar association for a lawyer that's listed as knowledgeable with the part of law that you're dealing with(in this case, copyright and trademark law).
2. Call the lawyer, arrange a meeting. Gather up everything they ask for when you call them.
3. Meet with the lawyer. If it doesn't go well, go back to step 1. Repeat until done.
4. There is no step 4.
This should be the only piece of advice in this thread.
A few days ago there was this post #1 on YC News about a guys whose kid had this super-rare genetic disorder. Now, what, this guy should only listen to the Doctors and forget about turning on his own brain?
I think that a good lawyer will listen to his Client and appreciate the Client who is interested enough in his case to propose solutions based on this readings/understanding of the Law. Or even discuss the stuff he saw here.
Why on Earth everybody such a pain about legal advise and when it comes to much more important thing in life - health, life threatning disease - nobody's complaining when questions are asked and resolutions proposed.
HN as I understand it is to exchange and share information. Not to censor it. Go to Cuba with your attitude dude. Or just relax.
Should they both just shut up and let the big boys handle it? Or should he take another person's input and use his head to determine it's value? People are capable of offering valuable input without expertise and full details.
As PG said, "Don't trust stuff you read on forums." He didn't say ignore it. It might even save his son's life. I'm strongly inclined to believe this can work in law as it can work with extremely rare medical conditions.
> The idea that only lawyers can know anything
> about the law, and therefore nobody else can
> suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly
> elitist.
You certainly can share what you know about these things, but advice given to me in the past about similar situations is that by doing so you can be regarded by some as taking some of the responsibility for the advice you think you haven't given.
The law is complicated, and while you may share what you know, doing so can put you personally at serious and considerable risk. Further, it doesn't always make sense to those who have not studied it (and sometimes even to those who have), so while what you have said may seem perfectly sensible, a lawyer may disagreed strongly with several of your suggestions, and following them may put the person you are trying to help in more trouble.
So despite the fact that you are trying to help, and despite the apparent soundness of your advice, you are not a lawyer, and there are very likely to be implications of which you are unaware. I applaud your willingness to take on the personal risk of what you said, but I am concerned that you are not helping, and may be making things worse.
Edited for clarity
That sounds bogus to me, has anyone heard of any lawsuits of that type? That is, someone who is not a lawyer and is not presenting themselves as a lawyer being sued for giving bad legal advice?
> Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
> for you are crunchy, and taste good with
> ketchup.
Certainly in this case, no, I can't quote cases where this has happened. But, you know, like, I'm not a lawyer. There are things that happen in legal circles that I don't know about, but which I have been given legal advice about.
So feel free to ignore it all and take a chance that you're right, and the advice given to me was misplaced. Heaven forbid that you should think I'm advising you.
Also: I doubt that you can talk about the specifics of the case, but there should be nothing stopping you from quoting the court case so we could look it up ourselves.
Incidentally, it appears that are providing us with legal advise here. The legal advise is that we shouldn't provide legal advise.
(edit: The rules are different if you are an attorney.)
(2nd edit: This debate seems to be about whether one can be held legally accountable if someone acts on your naive legal opinions and whether it's a good idea to share your legal opinions when--admit it--you really have no idea what you're talking about.[2] Then again, is it a good idea to follow free legal advice provided by a non-lawyer?)
[1] http://meta.answers.onstartups.com/questions/113/do-i- need-to-add-a-disclaimer-when-i-answer-a-question-on-this-site
[2]http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/293/A...
On the other hand, jsprinkles and I, when we offer comments about our personal experiences, and pass on to nirvana advice that we received from our actual lawyers, we're somehow in the wrong.
Just wanted to be clear. I will now be much more literal about the advice I got from my lawyers and comment no further on these matters.
That does not mean you cannot be sued; anyone can be sued. But it does mean that you would win any lawsuit against.
I am a lawyer. (In my particular field, the magical disclaimer is the Circular 230 Notice regarding tax advice.)
Thank you for being clear and specific.
However, based on your comment, it sounds more like you are referring to "hedging language" about the reliability of advice offered rather than an explicit disclaimers that the content is not legal advice.
"Don't trust stuff you read on forums", as PG said; use your head and maybe you'll find something worth pursuing.