Fortunately for him, EFF decided to support him afterwards. But do not count on EFF paying for your legal defence.
Links:
https://twitter.com/Linkletter/status/1385004344903290883
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26900217
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-sues-proctorio-behalf...
If you sue me, I’ll just say “ok, see you in court, let me know if you need anything for discovery“. You’ll be spending lots of money and I’ll be spending nothing. It’s only expensive for me if I get an attorney, and I don’t need one. What happens if we go to court and lose? I have to take down my website? If there’s one lawyer in town, they drive a Chevrolet. If there’s two lawyers in town, they both drive Cadillacs.
It's easy to stand on the sidelines and criticize this person for not being a martyr to the cause of our terrible legal system - but, while such a lawsuit would never throw you out of your home, it could very quickly drain your personal savings which, if you have a family that's reliant on that savings for future education, could be devastating.
It is 100% reasonable and a good idea to reach out to the EFF if you're being cyber-bullied by a corp with an axe to grind, but standing on your own in this sort of a scenario is certainly going to inflict a fair bit of pain on the aggressor - but it's likely going to inflict a whole lot more pain on you. Lawsuits like this can be tied up in appeals essentially until we die of heat death given our legal system unless you get extremely likely.
Additionally I feel like you're making the assumption that the work a lawyer does is essentially busy work - discovery is an insanely expensive process to comply with and messing something up during discovery and accidentally deleting a key piece of evidence won't get you a "Well, you're just a rando - we'll let it slide" from the judge.
Lastly - if the trial actually did end up going to court, it's extremely likely you're going to lose without the assistance of a legal professional, US law is insanely complicated and I can almost guarantee that your current employer is breaking some law on a technicality currently, I have no idea what it is - but without legal council neither will you.
Another good aspect of Texas bankruptcy code for farmers and ranchers is the specific delineations of property that are allowed to be kept during bankruptcy: 2 horses, mules or donkeys and a saddle, blanket and bridle for each, 12 head of cattle, 60 head of other types of livestock, 12 fowl and pets. If you’re a farmer or rancher considering bankruptcy, Chapter 12 could be a better option—a bankruptcy allowed specifically for the debts of a family farmer or fisherman.
[1] https://www.chancemcgheelaw.com/sanantoniobankruptcyblog/tex...
what is the maximum damages that a judge would award if replit won this case? $1k? Maybe?
I mean, it's not like Anthony Levandowski put millions of self-driving cars in the streets and took business away from Waymo's self-driving cars. Just by copying Google's intellectual property, not even publishing it for the whole world to see, he committed an offence that cost 18 months in prison and more than 100 million dollars in fines.
Of course, this lawsuit may not have gotten that far, as it seems quite baseless. But it would have taken years of mental turmoil and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for that to be established. And that is if the threat of the unfavourable outcome did not cause another tragedy like Aaron Swartz's.
Only issue? The Nintendo Switch can't play copies of a game unless you painstakingly modify it.
So every person who visited his site had already decided not to purchase games and exploited gaps in Nintendo's DRM on their personal devices, yet our justice saw fit to permanently ruin him with the incredibly nonsensical argument Nintendo presented.
Our justice system is broken in more ways than are apparent.
If there was trade secret - then there's no minimum, it's all however much a lawyer can convince the judge that the company is loosing.
If it goes to a legal proceeding, it is about convincing a stranger and lay-person (i.e. Judge, or perhaps even worse a group of jurors), that you didn't violate the law. You have to do this while the other side is doing their very best to convince the same stranger that you are a devious thief who did irreparable harm to their company and cost them millions in damages (or some other absurdly large number). They will paint everything you did and say as part of your plan to steal from and damage their company. They will have highly qualified experts submit very convincing reports, and testify, that what you did was trade secrete theft, and caused immense damage. Your only defense will be to push your own narrative that can counter all of this, sufficiently to get you off the hook. You'll need at least a lawyer, perhaps experts of your own, and all the cost that this entails. This will be a big deal to your life, but will be a business expense (i.e. before taxes) for the company suing you.
A while ago I needed to briefly retain a lawyer to navigate a complex contract with my employer, there may be terrible lawyers out there but the person I reached out to was exceedingly thorough in explaining things (and I, as a dev, had lots of rules-lawyery questions to throw at them), quite prompt in their response and charged a modest fee.
Speaking to a lawyer will absolutely cost you more than a coffee, but it's not that pricey in the scheme of things compared to getting in legal hot water.
Without a writ, you have little idea what the substance of their legal claim is; there's no purpose in hiring an attorney, because there's nothing for him to work on. So you are saying: "I don't fold to hollow threats and bullying. If you have a proper legal claim, make a proper legal claim."
If you then get a writ, show it to a lawyer.
If you have no substantial assets, it might be worth pointing that out (once the writ arrives). Nobody wants to sue a man of straw.
I do agree with those who say get a lawyer to send your response. However you should still do the research yourself - to the best of your ability. You can save yourself some expensive lawyer time by knowing the basics and having a potential draft (be careful: make it clear that you do not have any emotional ties to it so the lawyer is free to tear it up) of your response.
You are really underestimating how petty a lot of people are. I was sued for way less than this and the company suing me stood to gain nothing. Companies often have lawyers on retainer for this reason.
You also underestimate the massive stress a lawsuit entails.
The replit case is especially interesting since it could be a lot more personal (because the dev behind it previously worked for them and people hold grudges) and also because it might actually be a lot more valid then a lot of other frivolous C&Ds we see (since they were a former employee and it would be impossible to claim they were unaware of how replit worked at a very basic level). I think this lawsuit is a lot riskier than most and replit certainly does have a leg to stand on in open court.
the comment you replied to was saying that there is no nation-wide law protecting victims of unnecessary or unjust lawsuits, and there isn't. you simply cannot count on getting your costs paid for if you win in any case.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-13/when-elon...
(I originally didn't want to mention the name of the company since you always get very aggressive comments when you post about this company on HN)
> always get very aggressive comments when you post about this company on HN
I wouldn't be surprised, I suppose some/many people here work there, or have such c*rs
No. What happens if you lose is you pay up to $150,000, plus costs and attorney fees, plus possible criminal penalties. (Here in the US, anyway.)
I guess the main point I’m trying to say that one doesn’t have to fold the second someone threatens you with legal action, even if you don’t have an attorney. A porcupine doesn’t automatically shed all its quills and throw themselves in a mountain lion’s mouth as soon as the mountain lion eyeballs it with a hungry look. You can f*!with people who f* with you. They may just go away when they realize you’re not going to make it easy for them.
The kid who posted this website could get a notarized affidavit saying he didn’t steal any IP, here’s how he got all the stuff, provide links to all the publicly available information, that he simply state that he built a hacky weekend project I good faith, and that no matter how much they pursued him or time they wasted on him, it wouldn’t change the facts of the case. The more time the attorneys spend going after him, the more they’re just gonna waste their own time and look super dumb. Say they are free to pursue whatever legal action they want, just like you’re free to stand up to a frivolous, insecure bully with too much money and free time. Take all the fun out of it for them, don’t roll over and take it because you’re afraid of being potentially bankrupted.
Sure. He could. It would mean absolutely nothing, but he could.
> Say they are free to pursue whatever legal action they want, just like you’re free to stand up to a frivolous, insecure bully with too much money and free time.
Great. Are you going to pay for it? (And pay for it when he loses since it isn't even slightly frivolous?)
The quantity and the length of emails sent by the author, in addition to the writeup, suggest they spent considerable time worrying about the situation.
And it’s only been a few days. Imagine if this becomes a multi-year case.
In that case, I wouldn't even bother to try to defend myself, if he doesn't have any proof that something is copied as it seems, no way he will win. Worse case scenario and you are guilty, fine, you will have to take down your project? You will have to pay a compensation? How much can this be quantified? 100$? 1000$? I don't think more than that. And if you refuse to pay? They have to do another trial just to have your money. In the end, they will end up spending a lot of money and maybe in 10 years they hope to get something back (most probably nothing).
Linkletter has a gofundme here: https://ca.gofundme.com/f/stand-against-proctorio
I've donated, and would recommend others do the same.
this depends on where the case is brought really. and if they can get any money from you there. Which is often partially effected by where you live.
It doesn't matter what the value proposition was, this will be a stain on his name "the guy who open sources the stuff he likes in our design/projects"
> Default judgment is a binding judgment in favor of either party based on some failure to take action by the other party. Most often, it is a judgment in favor of a plaintiff when the defendant has not responded to a summons or has failed to appear before a court of law. The failure to take action is the default. The default judgment is the relief requested in the party's original petition.
Why? If you are 100% legally in the right then why wouldn't an entity with sufficient resources whose agenda is in line with that of yours support you? They will get all the expenses compensated after you+they win, won't they?
Anecdotally, there were a lot of lawsuits claiming fraud & etc in the recent US president elections and I haven't heard of a single case where they had to pay for losing them.
[1]: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-l... [2]: https://www.medialaw.org/topics-page/anti-slapp
Also, can only field X amount of cases per period, unless they want to be dealing with burnout etc
Lawyers may not like losing cases, but they like billable hours even more. So as long as their client is paying, they will follow their wishes as best they can.
Even "meaningless actions" such as "cease and desist" letters or "demand" letters probably need consultation with a lawyer for a proper response. This "admit no wrong" advice can actually be tricky. What may seem like an innocent or innocuous comment could make your situation worse.
By the time you have an actual civil action against you, you may have missed the opportunity to end the matter without getting to this point.
If you're unable to pay for it, you will not receive justice.
I am aware that this is not the 1950's superman definition of justice. It is the "welcome to America" version of justice, that you often can't even get if you can pay for it, depending on who you are.
So, you pick that fight. I've got a family and a life I need to protect; I'll stand on the sidelines and watch, thank you very much.
It’s not any definition of justice, its simply the rule of the powerful over the weak.
Be that as it may, it likewise does no one any good to pretend it has any connection to justice.
> Be that as it may, it likewise does no one any good to pretend it has any connection to justice.
...because someone on HN is going to be confused by the witty criticism of justice, and experience actual moral or intellectual confusion? Does this not strike you as linguistic pedantry?
But... other than those allowances... Yea, money is pretty important in the US justice system.
People that buy into that ideal fund those organisations so they can provide legal support to enact those principles.
The existence of those organisations (or pro bono work) is not a counterpoint to the premise that the US justice system is predicated upon money (and the implied corrolary that the level of justice you receive is proportional to the amount you pay for it).
(having said that, I don't necessarily agree with the flippant comment that you are replying to, but still).
Not really. The things this country has done since its inception are deplorable, and yet we have people in this country that want to prevent people from learning more accurate history to keep fake, nationalist "patriotism" at an all time high. They want the system to be cruel and hurtful. What is there in America to even be proud of nowadays?
There's no way you can know what this person's legal exposure might be without seeing their employment contract. They may well be completely in the right and this CEO is all bluster, but it's unequivocally bad advice to suggest that there's nothing to be concerned about based on the information you have.
Even beyond that, I've (unfortunately) known companies that were entirely willing to dump money into lawsuits they knew they had no hope of winning just to set the precedent that you should not cross them or they'll bury you in legal expenses.
In the end your advice may be exactly right, but it's definitely not reasonable to make these kinds of blanket assumptions.
In the end, this was a hobby project for the author, and I can understand he might not want to deal with the stress involved with possible legislation. The bully is the aggressor here and lets try not to blame the victim.
We hope, but this is what we got:
> As a matter of principle, when someone goes into your home and steals from you, even if it's not material, you have to respond.
They don't need to push it very far to cause a lot of harm to an individual and relatively bury them in costs.
It's true, the US legal system can be hopelessly expensive, but it is still possible to push back before it gets to that point if you're sure you're in the right.
Dude, move on already.
1. What if I'm considering working for Replit? This behaviour would give me second thoughts. 2. Imagine I'm a VC firm deciding whether or not to invest in them. I don't want me money being used to pursue a frivolous lawsuit against a website that isn't a commercial threat and probably isn't using their IP anyway.
Very immature behavior on Amjad's part. I'm considering pulling our corporations subscription and moving to Stackblitz now....
Until, curiously enough, today...
My guess is, his "top lawyers" and other advisors gave him instructions which amounted to - in layman's terms - "Dude, STFU."
Edit: disregard, he did show up and start commenting here.
Not that that's stopped Amjad from commenting anyway: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27428400.
https://twitter.com/pnegahdar/status/1402018604233732098
And tweeted this:
Radon interned at repl.it and asked a lot of questions. To be clear, asking a lot of questions is a good thing for career development in that it results in learning a ton, and typically something you definitely want your full-time employees to do, but not necessarily what you're expecting from an internship/temp worker arrangement.
Amjad apparently had some awareness of Radon being a particularly curious intern. Again, nothing wrong with that!
Radon then published an open-source hobby project which seemed to build on many of the teachings from repl.it. Based on what we can see of the discussion, it's likely that Radon wouldn't have had the exposure to the problem domain in order to build the solution he did, as fast as he did, had he not spent time at repl.it and asked a lot of questions.
Radon then showed this to Amjad, and as all of the above dawned on Amjad, he reacted incredibly poorly. The analogy he's using in his tweets ("someone goes into your house and steals from you, even if it's not material") suggests he's likening it to inviting a friend over to a dinner party at your mansion, having the guest ask a bunch of questions about the design, excuse themselves to use the restroom, and poke around in all the closets along the way. Next week they invite you over to the 1-bedroom flat that they regularly livestream from, and you see they've applied lessons they learned while asking questions and wandering around your place, to their interior design.
You don't feel robbed, but you may certainly feel a bit slighted. If you're a private person you might be a bit miffed about how your years of hard work has been distilled into something more spartan and put on display for others to copy.
Even if I think Amjad's response was quite over the top, I do think it's fair to be a bit surprised to learn that your guest spent a significant portion of their visit poking around in your closets instead of focusing on the dinner company. In the context of an internship, it comes across as mildly jarring to point out that you were actually just after interior design lessons rather than enjoying dinner for the sake of dinner.
I'm not proposing this is in reality close to what happened; Radon seems highly motivated and prolific, and was probably an amazing intern. I also don't think he did anything legally in the wrong, even if unconventional and potentially offensive.
Amjad's reaction was totally inappropriate, but based on his tweets there is at least some reason to the rhyme.
What repl.it is doing that is unique is the amount of investment into all of the "extra" stuff around it.
The "number of languages" thing isn't secret sauce either...clearly once you have the base repl working, iterating more languages is pretty straightforward.
(And honestly - most HNers would just take the opportunity to bash him if he showed his face, so for his mental health as well I am happy he's keeping to the shadows)
I'm speaking from a UK perspective, so perhaps in the US it's different. While ignoring lawyers is stupid, waiting until they actually get in touch and looking at the merits of their case is not stupid, as the parent comment says. Then if they seem minded to pursue it anyway then fine, back down. But companies don't want to spend loads of money suing someone with no money either. The people who really lose are the people who entirely ignore the lawyers or are determined to take a case to court when they don't have the money for it out of some misplaced sense of righteousness.
If yes, please by all means reach out.
It can sometimes hard to tell frivolous vs. serious letters, and ignoring a serious one is not a good idea. Given any sort of emotional attachment to your business, and lack of legal experience, you might not be the best person to judge the situation.
Edit: nvm it's already happening: https://github.com/umesh-timalsina/riju
The OP doesn't have an operating business, he can decide to put it on hiatus, as a resulting of bullying or for any other reason.
They will if they get paid.
The judge will tell you all to go away and try to find an agreement. This agreement will either be Replit leaving you alone or Replit buying you out.
IANAL, but I was in a similar situation and I cannot see any circumstance where you get raked over the coals.
By this point, you have already lost (hundreds or thousands of dollars of lawyer fees and possibly countless sleepless nights).
"Stop letting people be bullies" is unfortunately hard unless you are sure that you can afford the cost.
You're only boned if it actually goes to court - and even in that case you're still free to settle until the judge announces a verdict.
Any settlement that doesn't consist of "the company withdraws their claims *and covers your lawyer costs" means you lost.
Not saying you're going to go bankrupt, just that you lost (financially) compared to just giving up a toy project and letting the bully win.
That is true, but most people don't have their "own lawyer" to ask.
Thankfully there are organizations that will take up your legal fight for free in the US.
Most lawyers don't care since they are getting paid anyway. And something like a website that could be easily transferred into another jurisdiction or throw-away company? Good luck. This is not real estate where you are a sitting duck.
(Annoyingly the reason I wouldn't have won that much in damages was that I had mitigated my damages by finding another contract within days)
I mean I've also suggested at no cost that a site could be built on Squarespace instead of hiring a software engineer too...
I think this impression is just a result of how lawyers are portrayed in the media, most folks are quite happy to sit down with someone and talk something through - moreso if it can be done entirely over email or the phone.
My attorney: Never respond ever.
Well, the US News coverage and TV made being really afraid of lawyers the norm. Especially when you are poor. In the countries in the EU where I lived, I do not even have to open the threat email, but if I lived in the US, I would be very afraid. No idea if that is true or not but the system seems geared for bullying the little guy over there.
Obviously the right thing to do is to stand up to this bullshit. I have massive respect for anyone with the balls to do that. Everyone else is better off doing things as anonymously as possible. Can't sue you if nobody knows who you are.
But this situation is terrible. I've seen multiple YC CEOs bring out the fancy lawyers that they got connected to through the incubator. In some cases, these were multi-million dollar arguments that really arose because the YC CEO screwed up (in very very basic ways!) and then the they got butthurt when things didn't go their way. And YC is connected with they very kinds of lawyers who are happy to make money off of bullying their way through "deals."
Why does YC keep funding CEOs who get their egos bruised so easily? If you're a CEO and you're using your legal leverage irresponsibly, just imagine what the company books must look like.
Specially in the US, where justice is mostly a rich man's game.
Same in Pakistan.
P.S. I looked at using them but 'loved' totally transparent demo.
So a CEO bullied you. He threatened to have lawyers look at something, accused you of behaving poorly, and accused you of being difficult. He is being manipulative. He is trying to guilt / scare you into stopping. And it worked.
For all readers... do not be afraid of lawyers. Especially if nobody has even talked to them yet. Lawyers do not like to lose cases, so will not push a losing agenda. Yet they also must do what their client asks, so lawyers looking into a concern, or even sending nastygrams... those are meaningless actions. It only becomes meaningful if and when if their lawyers indicate they believe they really have a case, or if your own lawyer believes they have a case. Everything before that is posturing and bullying.
If I were in the same situation as OP, I'd state that my intent was positive, ask to be informed of the results of discussions with attorneys, and wish them to have a nice day. Admit no wrong, make no apologies, ignore irrelevant statements (in particular personal attacks), and just let it slide until they take a real action of some kind.
Once they do take an action, then it might be appropriate to do what they want. But seriously... stop letting people be bullies.