It's great that Inman won, but he won not in small part because he's a famous personality that helped gather internet rage--and then the EFF--to his side. But what if he was a nobody? EFF would have very likely told him they were too busy, Carreon would have pressed on, and lots and lots of hard-earned money would have gone down the drain. It makes me so mad that the legal system is so one-sided. Surely Carreon at least must be paying Inman's attorneys' fees!
Not, unless Inman decides to sue.
> It's great that Inman won
Inman did not really "win", he did get intimidated in not withdrawing the money (he took a picture of his own money instead) and Carreon filed a "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal" without prejudice (as the court ended up not being involved) so he could always pick it up again later.
> Ars called Carreon to comment and found him declaring the lawsuit a success. "Mission Accomplished," Carreon announced on the phone with Ars.
A number replied demanding their day in court and, in the same way, the complainant withdrew the case.
However, the judge in the case refused the application and demanded they come to court, so he could enforce judgement, and punish the complainant for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
If i remember correctly, the complainant went bankrupt, dispanding his company, in an attempt to avoid going to trial.
He's actually claiming he won, and essentially that it's thanks to him the money went to the charities and Inman did not take a picture of it.
Also, because he dismissed his own suit he can re-file at will later on.
Mr Carreon has a history of actions that could be considered frivolous, antisocial or abusive. It is unlikely that his character has suddenly changed, so it's quite possible that he will behave in the same way again.
(I've said the same thing elsewhere, but I used more cuss-words)
It's one of those funny things that people never seem to notice. We believe in competition and a marketplace but look past the obvious monopolies!
I dunno if this is the only way to solve the problem...but, right now, our legal system strongly favors the wealthy (this can be seen in convictions and sentences of rich folks vs. poor folks). Some of the disparity is legislative (i.e. cocaine possession having a vastly shorter sentence than crack), but a lot of it is simply in the difference in quality of representation.
Not to mention that when it comes to lawsuits, only rich people have the money to play at those games. Which may be why the worst polluters always seem to end up in the backyards of poor people. Rich people would sue them out of existence. Poor people have no recourse, unless some ambulance chaser sees an opportunity for a class action suit (where he'll make millions and the people affected will get a few measly bucks). I dunno if removing the bar as an impediment to representing someone in court would solve this problem (probably wouldn't; there are lots of things stacked against poor people in our court system, not just the lack of affordable representation), but it might be a start.
Whew...I didn't know I had such strong feelings on this issue until I started ranting about it. I guess that's how a lot of folks are...never thinking about the bar (or the medical association), or what unintended consequences it might have.
* If a company misbehaves then people can boycott it and/or protest against it. It can be punished in a way that affects it's competitiveness. Public pressure can't be applied in the same way to an organisation without competition.
* If we had multiple bar associations then hypothetically certain bars would preferentially attract good lawyers and others would attract bad. Good lawyers would transfer from a bad bar to a good bar (Please excuse simplistic use of good/bad). So there would indeed need to be an overreaching feedback mechanism that would punish a 'bad' bar association full of bad but cheap lawyers.
I suppose a simplistic solution could be:
* Enforcing multiple bar associations that are not allowed more than (say) 15% of the total number of lawyers
* A mechanism for banning any of these associations if they don't keep there members in check.
A thought just jumped into my head that the Bar Association and the AMA are essentially organisations that are, 'Too Big to Fail'. If you (The public through your elected reps) can't punish something then you can't control it or force it to enforce standards.
Ultimately though, it comes down to the laws/regulations. If they leave room for an association that doesn't care about its reputation, the lawyers who would be kicked out of the reputable associations will simply transfer to it and nothing is solved.
A court may:
- Order one side pay for the other side's attorney's fees
- Order one side to pay for the court's wasted time
- Dismiss the case
- Issue a public reprimand
Also, an attorney may violate professional responsibility laws which could have other penalties, such as being disbarred.
Enough is enough, and Carreon saw fit to realize this.
From the Popehat's excellent coverage of this sordid issue:
"2. Dismissal is, without court intervention, without prejudice, meaning that Mr. Carreon could re-file if he wanted. Will he? Who knows."
The whole post here : http://www.popehat.com/2012/07/03/oatmeal-v-funnyjunk-chapte...
At least, the charities will get the money - for all the drama and time wasted, something good came out of it
People like these only fuel my misanthropy.
This isn't the last we'll hear of Mr. Carreon, rest assured. He hasn't hit bottom yet.
We will all hear about this, unless we live under a rock. And for those of us under a rock, it's probably for a good reason.
News items like this and a lack of community discipline to disregard them are how I remember reddit beginning its slide in quality.
The comments this story will attract on HN will not likely add anything to the discussion that's been going on across the Interwebs.
In that time I've consistently found that people who try to set meta rules are a bigger drag on communities like this than occasional offbeat stories with no strong tie to the community. The remit of this site is supposed to be things of interest to hackers. Clearly a lot of hackers find this story interesting, and are interested to hear the end of it.
Speaking personally, I don't follow a lot of news aggregators at the moment, and so am glad that it appeared here.
It seems like we have an equal number of decades of experience, and it also doesn't matter either way. It's irrelevant and a logical fallacy in itself.
And that is enough navel gazing for me tonight.
For those folks, it's possible they won't hear much about this story elsewhere, and certainly not the interesting opinions of the HN folks.
The reddit point is appropriate, but still, I'm actually interested in the spin HN folks put on these types of non-startuppy stories.
Please share where these magical communities can be found and I'll leave Hacker News. As far as I'm concerned, the HN community as a whole is extremely diverse, intellectual, and inquisitive - something I have yet to find elsewhere. That's why I'm still here. The quality discussions are exactly why I stick around.
If this isn't mainstream, then very few things are. Trending on Twitter, frontpage of reddit, it's had coverage in many newspapers, and so on. I think a weak test of it being 'mainstream' on the Internet, assuming that is the optimal way to determine, has been met.
While there has been an almost farcical air around this whole case, there are important legal matters underlying it. Those matters, relating to freedoms of speech and copyright, are very important to our audience here on HN. I submit the argument that this particular posting is valid based on those terms.
I am happy that there are still those of us who wish to continue the high quality of content and commentary we have grown to expect on HN, so I do salute you for your opinion and shared ethics.
He will, however, have trouble being taken seriously as a lawyer.