Hacker News Reader

Comment by meepmorp | Hacker News Reader

Oh Jesus. The dumbass is trying to get IndieGoGo to shut down the fundraiser for a supposed TOS violation. I can't imagine what world you live on where, after the reaction that he's gotten from the legal threats, going after a $100k charity fundraiser seems like a good course of action.

View on HN

If all you have is a battle-axe, everything looks like hours of fun.

Lawyers bill by the hour and by the action (eg writing a letter). How exactly does the lawyer lose out?

Is the fundraiser a billable event to FunnyJunk? If I were FunnyJunk's accounts receivables department, I would not want to be paying for him going after something that isn't involved my case. The fundraiser is just a spite, it isn't tortuous towards FunnyJunk.

Did you mean AP? (Accounts Payable)

I guess you mean tortious (wrongful) rather than tortuous (winding, full of obstacles).

He loses out by looking like a dumbass in public and losing future business.

Free market version of ethics for ya, if nothing else.

This will elevate (lower?) him to Jack Thompson status quickly.

reference?

Linked-to from the article: http://digitallife.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/12/1218...

> He also explains that he believes Inman's fundraiser to be a violation of the terms of service of IndieGoGo, the website being used to collect donations, and has sent a request to disable the fundraising campaign.

Interesting, tortious interference might be a good counterclaim after an action like this.

The lawyer and his client don't have standing to interfere with the business relationship between IndieGoGo and Oatmeal. (eg. if there is a violation what does it matter to FunnyBusiness)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com