In spite of only having one side of the story I'm going to decide to choose my ground and ask this:
What if we started a Kickstarter campaign to fund the legal fees to counter-sue this company? The precedence set in a success would be profitable to the builders of the startup community. And I'd sleep better at night.
You want to completely buy in to one side's story without any context or response from the other side, then start a Kickstarter to fund a legal assault upon that company? Really?
Not only are you surprisingly easily manipulated, apparently, don't you have better things to hack on?
FYI, what I wrote is not an ad hominem argument, and "ad-hominem argument" is not an a.k.a. for "personal attack" (neither of which my comment is, for what it's worth).
Thanks for the clarification on "ad hominem" versus personal attacks. Now I understand that it's only ad hominem if the basis of the argument relies on the personal attack.
All that aside, your comment above, reproduced here, is clearly a personal attack:
> Not only are you surprisingly easily manipulated, apparently, don't you have better things to hack on?
Yes. Try the following: "You are a moron who has no idea what they are talking about?", or an actual question "Are you a moron who has no idea what they are talking about?"
Both lower the tone. Both cause unnecessary battles and derail discussions.
"You want to X? Really?" typically carries an implicit, "How could you be so [some negative quality]?" This is not an ad hominem argument unless it's actually used in an argument ("Don't believe claim Y; this person even wants to X!" would be), but it is an oblique personal attack.
Hi. I've decided to completely buy in to the OP's side because there is nothing at stake for me except thinking of a way that this problem could be solved.
Having admitted this in the comment you replied to, I thought it'd be obvious enough that I agree I don't know enough about the situation to be an involved party.
To the insult: You don't think it would be cool to crowd source a legal case in order to upset the typical advantage that money brings into law?
Anyway, I'll let that attack brush off - I do have better things to hack on ;)
EDIT: No worries jsprinkles, thanks for the apology!
It concerns me that I'm attacked personally for advocating for common sense when it comes to the law. Being sued? Shut up. Don't post to HN. Don't comment on the case. Don't challenge the other party to Quake 3 on Twitter. Don't give people legal advice after saying "I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice". Stop being stupid.
This advice transcends my allegiance, which is to nobody involved in this discussion (and which doesn't matter at all, frankly), and I'm annoyed that you think I'm stupid enough to involve myself in something I'm personally vested in.
For someone who posts things like "Not only are you surprisingly easily manipulated, apparently, don't you have better things to hack on?", it takes a lot of temerity to act offended at personal attacks.
There's a difference between giving advice from a position of authority and exploring the subject from a variety of angles. It feels to me as though you're accusing folks doing the latter of engaging in the former. Playing around with an idea and throwing out possibilities--some of them foolish or ill-advised, certainly--is at the core of the hacker culture, and I'd like to discourage you from criticizing people for doing so, while still maintaining your healthy skepticism.
I too am perplexed by the negative reactions you've received.
I've often been known to comment on legal matters on HN, but I always steer clear of giving legal advice. (At least I hope I've never slipped up and done so.) And, as you well know, that's the proper course for anyone, regardless of whether they're a lawyer or not.
So just to echo and build on jsprinkles' various comments: It's OK to discuss the law in a general sense. I.e. you can talk about how things work, without giving an opinion as to the case at hand. But it's irresponsible and generally illegal to advise an individual on how s/he should proceed.
Example of a comment that's OK: "Trademark disputes often depend in part on the likelihood of consumers being confused by the respective marks."
Example of a comment that's not OK: "Trademark disputes often depend in part on the likelihood of consumers being confused by the respective marks. Since the OP's mark isn't going to confuse anyone, the plaintiff will probably lose."
It concerns me that I'm attacked personally for advocating for common sense when it comes to the law
I think that it's not as much that you're advocating for common sense, but that you're being really aggressive about it. Everyone can read and understand your point of view. Not everyone has to agree with it. You don't have a moral or ethical obligation to argue with people until they realize that you're right. Reasonable people can disagree, and on the internet, the standard of "reasonable" is often pretty low.
I personally agree with you in that I would never discuss pending legal matters with an online community. It seems too risky.
It also saddens me, as a tech-geek and business-geek and law-geek that we can't have transparent and "hackerly" discussions of these kinds of conflicts and possible ideas (not exactly full-on advice) for addressing and/or preventing them.
"Here's to hoping that someone like Grellas can find time to comment "
Facts matter. Grellas isn't going to offer any opinion without having a chance to review all the documents that have been filed as well as communications and that is going to take time.
Here's to hoping that someone like Grellas can find time to comment and tell you how to beat these guys.
If that result isn't possible, than I ask you to keep your head up, move on, and keep building.
Do your part to (soberly and safely) reduce the reputation of the founders and VC's behind this.