Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmabram | Hacker News Reader

I've been through similar situations. The "find a lawyer" comments are less than helpful, since you probably don't know where to begin and most lawyers will happily take your money without necessarily having an expedient path to resolution for a small one-person company. So here's what you do:

Write to each of your competitors, explain the situation and ask for a referral to their lawyers. You'd be surprised how many are more than willing to make a referral against a troll Also search around for any other attorneys who have filed against this troll and contact them as well. They should all be willing to do an initial call for free.

You are trying to find an attorney who has a successful blueprint for dealing with this particular troll, ideally this particular claim. If the attorney is able to leverage their prior work or knowledge, your costs are greatly reduced. Also, if the troll has unsuccessful experience with a particular attorney they may just give up. Good luck!

View on HN

Also, just to add to that: a lot of the “good” lawyers will just ghost a one man operation or small business.

Dealing with this kind of thing is a nightmare. You have to find someone who does EFF type stuff.

> will just ghost a one man operation or small business

I didn't understand this phrase. Does that mean the "good" lawyer is just a false front and the real business is handled by somebody else?

Ghosting means to avoid or stop responding to someone. So he's implying that lawyers may just not even respond since such a small company isn't worth their time, or possibly even just take their money and then "ghost" them after that.

Ah, got it. As in, to disappear like a ghost. Thanks!

To "ghost" someone is to avoid them without a response. The term probably came from personal relationships (e.g., a woman you were dating starts "ghosting" you). It was previously considered rude but is now appropriate to avoid potentially toxic personal or professional relationships.

Pretty sure it's still considered rude.

You're obviously not a woman who has had to deal with potentially threatening people in your love life. Among women ghosting is 100% a legitimate way to refuse a second/third/etc. date. In business, companies routinely ghost candidates they're not interested in because of the hassle and risk in interacting with candidates who are clearly no-hires. You don't owe anyone with whom you do not have a solid established relationship an interaction.

I think there is a fine line between 'rude' and 'appropriate' in this case.

- Simply stopping to respond to requests without signaling in any way, that you are not interested in continuing the interaction is rude (aka ghosting).

- Signaling even just once that you would not like to continue the interaction (as clearly and polite as possible) and ignoring the other side from that point on is appropriate.

Even though you might not 'owe anyone' anything, humans typically have socially accepted behavior patterns. So the argument is less about what you must do and more about what the majority of people around you consider good style. However, these things might differ between cultures and social circles.

Rational as it may be, it's still rude.

> Among women ghosting is 100% a legitimate way to refuse a second/third/etc. date.

Even back in the prehistoric times of my dating days, which was before I recall the term "ghosting" existed, it wasn't an uncommon thing. It might have been disappointing on occasion, but I never found it "rude". It wasn't very hard to take the hint and move on.

It's a word we need to stop using. Along with "Flexing".

I had this one English teacher who squashed any interest in writing after I took his class. He was known as Red because that's what color our papers were when he was finished grading them.

He did say a few thing that felt right. One was just don't use cliches. The other was don't use slang.

Shakespeare would probably have some strong, formerly slang, words to say about your English teacher's take on using slang. Today's synonyms are yesterdays slang, and arguing against embracing the fluidity of language is just saying dead old white guys have a monopoly on inventing words.

I have never met a single person in my life who didn't ghost multiple people especially in business and dating. Like I receive 10 messages from LinkedIn everyday from recruiters trying to hire me when I'm not on the job market and trying to focus on my job and hobbies. What am I supposed to do?

It's clearly rude to ghost friends, acquaintances, business partners etc. But if someone reached out to you with the intention of doing business with you, I think it's ok to ghost them if you're 100% not interested. Am I wrong?

Ignoring some recruiter you've never heard of isn't 'ghosting'. 'Ghosting' is when someone you know, and have a reasonable expectation will take your calls, suddenly stops taking them, without explanation.

It's a discourteous and lazy way of dumping a romantic interest.

>It's a discourteous and lazy way of dumping a romantic interest.

Language isn't fixed, the meaning of words, especially "new" words (and ghosting is a new verb) changes over time. That was the original meaning, but it's now applied to all relationships.

>Ghosting is by no means limited to long-term romantic relationships. Informal dating relationships, friendships, even work relationships may end with a form of ghosting.

https://www.psycom.net/what-is-ghosting

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ghosting

I was unclear (in the interest of brevity:-)

For clarity, I didn't mean that ghosting was only to do with dumping partners. I suppose I was suggesting that that's the canonical example.

Ah alright. I thought you didn't know. Have a good one.

I think it's only ghosting if you break off a conversation, not if you never start one. If I send you Viagra spam and you don't reply that's clearly not ghosting.

I think "ghosting" is also used when one person breaks off a conversation, but the other person continues the conversation despite the conversation being broken off. At that point, an obnoxiously persistent person may conclude that that are being ghosted, rather than noticing that the conversation was over.

Yep. Got injured/poisoned by a mega company. Gross negligence. But it’s a complicated case. No lawyer will touch it. Sometimes your just screwed.

Don’t law firms avoid taking on competing companies as clients to avoid any form of conflict of interest?

Law firms cannot act for a party they've acted against (and vice-versa) without a waiver from their existing client. It can be costly for a firm if they make that mistake.

They can, however, take on competing companies for a single action if they all agree. It's probably best if the firm didn't have a prior relationship with any of them.

(Not a lawyer but I am a software developer who's built a legal conflict of interest search system)

Yes, this is a key difference between the US "law firm" system and the UK barrister "chambers" system. The first is focused on profits (and survival). The second seeks to reduce the inherent commercial conflict of interest during difficult cases.

I think most law firms would represent competing companies in separate cases. Conflict of interest is more representing multiple parties in the same case or issue.

E.g. I once had a lawyer review a severance agreement before I signed it, since it had non-compete language in it. He had to be sure that his firm didn't already have a relationship with the employer.

If there's no common interest in the case, lawyers are expected to be able to maintain confidentiality. Same as an accountant who might have two competing businesses as clients.

But, IANAL.

On top of that, setting a shared google doc on how to deal with it would be helpful for future folks.

This is the modern equivalent of a laywer chasing an Ambulance down the street.

I generally appreciate the altruism of this advice but there's a huge risk in that the competitors likely won't set aside the spirit of competition, whatever they've spent/done to deal with this, etc to help out a competitor.

I, personally, would not risk this approach.

Honestly if a competitor came to me for help with a patent troll who'd previously targeted me, I'd bend over backwards to assist. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

> The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This could also mean that the patent troll (the enemy of your competitor) is your friend.

simple but insightful... never thought of it this way!

As I've noted in other comments many people see business as war. There are good examples in business but the history of war has even better examples. Time and time again "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" can work until one enemy is vanquished.

In WW2 Stalin initially made a pact with Hitler while all the while knowing Hitler would violate it and invade anyway. Stalin just used it to buy time to ramp up the Soviet military. From what I recall it's likely Hitler assumed this as well and used the pact to delay dealing with the Soviets militarily and focus on his Western front to snatch up as much of Europe as possible.

Obviously a very dramatic example but as it applies here there's a very good chance that even if a competitor seems helpful, etc at first they could very well leverage the entire scenario to their advantage eventually (somehow).

I think it really depends on the size here. In my personal experience most small businesses aren't ruthlessly competitive. That seems to happen once you grow to a size where there are clear lines between the management classes (upper, lower) and worker class.

It's a roll of the dice for sure, but I'd take that roll over a cold call of a lawyer.

> Time and time again "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" can work until one enemy is vanquished.

That is partly true, but in this case the patent troll is not vanquished and so doesn't apply.

Often competition is not that cutthroat. It's not usually a zero sum game. There are definitely outcomes where your competitors even add net value by legitimizing the market, educating potential customers, providing a source of ideas, etc. My general philosophy here is the world is big enough for all of us, I don't treat it as war, and don't seek to crush competitors - I seek to make my users and employees happy. That's it. Being competitor focused is an error, at least in a high margin business.

> In WW2 Stalin initially made a pact with Hitler while all the while knowing Hitler would violate it and invade anyway.

By accounts I've seen, Stalin was genuinely surprised and caught off guard by the invasion.

Not sure how this thread turned to Hitler so quickly. What's that internet law called?

> In WW2 Stalin initially made a pact with Hitler while all the while knowing Hitler would violate it and invade anyway. Stalin just used it to buy time to ramp up the Soviet military. From what I recall it's likely Hitler assumed this as well and used the pact to delay dealing with the Soviets militarily and focus on his Western front to snatch up as much of Europe as possible.

Not true at all. 1) Stalin was caught off guard by the invasion. We know this because he holded up in his private residence for a few days afterwards until the Politburo came visited him and asked him what he was going to do.

2) The Russian military was not tactically or strategically ready when the Germans attacked. We know this because the Russians lost millions of soldiers by encirclement in the days and weeks after the start of the war. If Russian military had been ready, it would have been in much better position(s).

3) Stalin had purged thousands of quality officers and NCOs from the Russian military. You can't have a good military without a professional, respected and well maintained NCOs core. If Stalin thought the Germans would really attack, he would have built up a professional officer and NCO core.

The three things that really saved Russia are January, February and the willingness of the Russian people to do anything for Russia, regardless of who is in charge.

So the theory he was Stalin is clearly not true.

It’s weird to me how people try to frame competitors as the enemy in the software industry. These are people just like you, probably going through the exact same problems you are at your company. Also, most companies (FAANG is not most companies) settle into a niche anyway, which leaves room in the market for competitors. Vilifying competition just makes no sense, and it’s honestly a little creepy to me.

I’m probably wrong, whatever, let me know I guess. I’m not running a company, I’ve just observed the SF companies I worked at for years. Opinions my own.

What's the risk here? That they would purposefully send you to a malicious lawyer? That seems kind of unlikely. Especially if the patent troll has also sued them

The risk, as I see it, is multi-fold:

- There's definitely no privilege with a competitor. The only people you should provide ANY detail or discussion on any of this are your attorneys. Full stop. That includes this post and discussion.

- You signal to your competitors the very weak and vulnerable position you're in. Many will be happy to dance on your grave...

- Business can be absolutely ruthless. I wouldn't put it past some Machiavellian type competitor to tip off the troll to let the troll take you out for them (or who knows what).

Business doesn't have to go full "Art of War" but to many people that's exactly what it is.

I think you're drastically overestimating the competitive nature of business. I don't know your personal experience, but this sounds like a naive perspective. The number one thing a business cares about is the bottom line. None of these options specifically help the bottom line, especially considering that OP is a one person shop. There is simply no way they are big enough to matter to a large company, (why would they worry about this if they had large pockets), and other small companies wouldn't take the risk of themselves getting sued. The advice was to see if the same troller targeted someone else, and I absolutely would help my competitor take down a patent troll.

I really enjoy and appreciate the sentiment expressed in posts like these. I wish my experience more closely matched the decency and reasonableness expressed here. Unfortunately it doesn't.

The OP has been provided with copies of lawsuits that sound like they may have been resolved one way or another. OP doesn't sound like they have any resources to assist in the matter.

This would likely incur additional expense on their part (as OP is unlikely to contribute much to the legal fight) and enable a competitor. One immediate impact to the bottom line and potential future impact by saving another competitor in the field.

Assuming the competitors are currently or have incurred expense in dealing with it, the only reason left (as I see it) would be altruism on their part in banding together with a competitor.

There aren't many examples of this actually happening for a reason.

>Assuming the competitors are currently or have incurred expense in dealing with it, the only reason left (as I see it) would be altruism on their part in banding together with a competitor.

Its not just altruism. If you expend resources on something, you want to get the most value out of it as possible. It would be extending the value of their investment into lawyers/settlement/etc. to band together and get a possible reversal of judgement/recompense. There is definitely something to gain from taking down the troll, including recouping any initial settlement.

There are multiple means of contacting a competitor, you don't even have to identify yourself or your business. You can have someone else do it on your behalf. All they have to say is "I know a company being sued by troll X over patent Y. I can see that your company was in a similar situation. Would you be willing to refer me to your attorney in this matter?" How much more you choose to share is up to you.

There's definitely no privilege with a competitor.

Telling a competitor that you are being sued by a patent troll does not impair confidentiality. And if they are a true competitor, it is very likely that they have also been sued by the patent troll, or are next on the list, and may join in multi-party litigation against the troll.

You signal to your competitors the very weak and vulnerable position you're in.

Maybe in your particular industry or geographic niche its dog-eat-dog.But especially outside of tech, most companies will band together against outsider threats.

I wouldn't put it past some Machiavellian type competitor to tip off the troll to let the troll take you out for them

The only way this would happen without backfiring on the plotter is if they were already targeted by the troll and lost.

Businesses aren't as ruthless as you seem to think they are. They are run by real people, and they and act like people. The kind of ruthlessness you describe is something you see at the largest levels (i.e., Amazon and Apple) where sociopathy is a virtue rather than a hindrance, and even those companies will band together against patent trolls.

"Successful" businesses are ruthless at any size. Due to litigation, etc we have internal documents and records dating back to the 80s that demonstrate how ruthless Microsoft (as one example) was even at a time when they were relatively small.

I'm not saying this is always the case. I'm saying that unless you're completely desperate or absolutely know otherwise it's the safer assumption.

Not sure why you were downvoted.

I nice worked for a Big 5 company. I'm not aware of Machiavellian efforts to destroy competitors; they just bought them.

I've worked for an international software company with ~1,500 staff. I do not think our management were inclined to collaborate with their competitors unneccessarily; they had a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.

I've worked for two small-town website developers, with say 10 staff. There's four or five competitors in this town. My management were happy to collaborate with competitors to stage conferences; but I know in both cases they wanted to crush them.

None of these jobs was in SV, or even in the US.

I note the story about IBM's threats (above); so my limited view is that aggressive behaviour between companies occurs across the range of scale.

Incidentally: it doesn't make you seem weak and defenceless that you seek a collaborator in fighting a patent troll. The trolls are backed by venture capital; you are a sole trader. That you are considering defying them is courageous.

It appears that you're both being downvoted for taking the exceptional case (Microsoft in the 1980s) and applying it to all businesses today.

Even taking into account the different business culture of the 1980s, Microsoft's early ruthlessness is well known precisely because it was not the norm then, and certainly not the norm now.

I understand how 'find a lawyer' is less than helpful but isn't your advice just 'find a lawyer ... that your competitors suggest'. Competitors who by default do not have your best interests in mind.

Is there any real difference / likelihood of a good outcome there?

Ultimately I see little difference in the potential of "most lawyers will happily take your money without necessarily having an expedient path to resolution for a small one-person company".

Probably because you haven't dealt with many lawyers :-). Yes, there's a huge difference. The advice is geared towards finding a lawyer who can achieve an optimal outcome at lowest cost. Any competent IP attorney can accept the case. The difference in cost is multiple orders of magnitude.

At worst some of your competitors will ignore your request. But like I said, I have been through similar situations. Without delving into too many details, I had competitors who had no reason to help go so far beyond just a referral that years later I am still grateful. Once you've been burned by one of these trolls, you have a bit of a bond with other victims I guess.

There is a huge world of difference between cold calling lawyers from the phone book and getting a referral to someone who’s dealt with the same situation and had the outcome you seek. This becomes clear if you ever try to ‘find a lawyer’ without guidance.

> Competitors who by default do not have your best interests in mind.

FWIW ‘competitors’ are not enemies or out to sink you in all but the most extreme cases. Two things that are definitely a bigger danger to a small startup are: yourself, and patent trolls.

In the case of a patent troll, the competitors are probably also on the future target list. It's in their interest to help fight this troll.

I know it's just TV, but this situation played out differently on Silicon Valley. Instead, the competitors hopped to the front of the line to pay off the patent troll before a successful case emboldened the troll to raise their price. Has anyone actually heard of things playing out this way in reality?

I wonder if paying the troll wouldn't just get them more trolls, now that they appear to be a soft target?

Or they already paid / cut a deal...

This idea that they might care is just an assumption.

isn't your advice just 'find a lawyer ... that your competitors suggest'. Competitors who by default do not have your best interests in mind.

Just because you're nominally competitors serving the same market doesn't mean you can't work nicely together. In many cases the true competition is 'people who don't understand how much they need our products.'

In this case, your competitors DO have your best interests in mind. They have to understand that they are next on the list of troll targets, since they are offering a product that likely uses similar technologies.

Unless they already made a deal or hope that it drives their competitor out of business while they deal with it on their own.

There's no reason to assume they'll be cooperative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com