Hacker News Reader

Comment by endominus | Hacker News Reader

From their post, it appears that Simula don't intend to comply with the subpoena. IANAL. Does receipt of these documents carry an obligation to provide the documents and deposition requested? Does this open them to later legal action if they refuse? It seems like a strange thing for a corporation to be able to demand that other companies hand over stuff like this, no matter the circumstance.

View on HN

Just to clarify: we're seeking legal counsel and intend to comply with the law.

Many other larger companies have fought these subpoenas (Snap, etc) and, as far as we can tell, still had to hand over items.

Apologies, I apparently read too much into your statement about difficulty of hiring a legal defense and your "hope [that] they leave us alone." Good luck and I hope this doesn't take the wind out of your sails too much.

If that's true, it sounds like companies have been weaponizing the legal system to get access to proprietary information from their competitors. Surely that has got to be illegal somehow?

The court decides whether a subpoena should be upheld or not. If the judge has signed off on this one, then it's all legit. Failing to comply would be contempt of court.

I'll never understand how US court system basically allow you to randomly force anyone unrelated to a case into it and suffer the legal cost. It make it so easy to weaponize any case to your advantage.

Like many things in the world, it all only works because the vast majority of people aren't assholes.

As it gets more and more weaponized the slow arm of the law will move to prevent it.

What if a ruling requires information held by someone else? Should the case just be dismissed because of lack of evidence? Having a functional justice system is probably worth some snags.

The legal cost aspect is unfortunate. However, as others have mentioned, the court probably doesn't require the assembly of new documents, but rather submission of existing ones. So while there is a cost, it's not devastating.

The interesting question is whether or not this specific subpoena has real merit, or if the court was played by Meta.

I know it's not helpful at this point, but you really should have had a relationship with a lawyer already. But now is the next best time. This is just the first time you're running into issues. As you grow, you're almost guaranteed to hit more. You'd also be smart to have a lawyer available to review all of your intellectual property, terms of service, privacy policies, etc.

I'm just a solo punter myself, but having my legal counsel already setup, knowing that I can call them at any time, rather than having to scramble to find someone in the moment a problem happens, gives me a lot of peace of mind.

Given how you're positioned as an Open Source company, maybe the Electronic Frontier Foundation can help you find someone good.

We already have standing legal counsel. George made it sound like we're just now seeking a lawyer, but we already reviewed our policies etc in the past.

Time to get well-versed in malicious compliance.

A game in which a small startup can only choose among different bad endings

Malicious compliance is a good way to get thrown in contempt. Courts aren't stupid.

A subpoena is a court order (and the service requirement constitutes legal proof that it was delivered). Refusal to comply is contempt, which can be punished as a crime. No, you don't get to ignore a subpoena.

In this particular case it looks like they're just being asked to testify about their product in an unrelated case. They aren't being sued.

Call your lawyer first and do what they say. Most likely you can arrange a deposition more convenient to your schedule and location.

Just want to clarify: we're not ignoring this subpoena and intend to comply with the law. We're in contact with a lawyer and are discussing our options with them.

Who pays for all the costs associated with this? Can you abuse the legal system to drive a company into bankruptcy by repeatedly subpoenaing them?

There are anti-SLAPP laws but those are for more for protecting freedom of speech:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...

but you can be labeled a "vexatious litigant" which causes you to be radioactive for representation (nobody wants to disbarred):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

(IANAL but I enjoy watching them on TV)

From what I understand vexatious litigant is a really, really high bar to cross, and any remotely competent lawyer should be able to prevent you from crossing it.

People are really (really) misinterpreting this. The OP isn't being sued, they aren't being attacked as a competitor to Meta. (In fact the obvious guess here was that they're being asked to testify in this antitrust case to the fact that their product is successful!)

A subpoena is just a demand for testimony. The court wants to "know what you know" so it can make a better decision. Testimony before courts of law is part of your civic duty as an inhabitant of a nation under the rule of law. Yes, it has costs. You have to bear them for the same reason you need to pay your taxes, because a civilization without courts isn't one we want to live in.

> People are really (really) misinterpreting this. The OP isn't being sued, they aren't being attacked as a competitor to Meta.

The only way to misunderstand this is to not have read the linked page. HN is not immune from headline-only outrage. The first paragraph literally ends with:

> ... in relation to the government's recent injunction against their acquisition of a VR fitness company.

Costs don't have anything to do with being sued or not. A subpoena to a person is relatively easy to respond to (unless you need a lawyer to help you negotiate the fifth amendment for reasons), but this will cost time and money, both things that we all know startups have in vast quantities.

If the answer is not Meta pays, then why isn't it?

I told you: The recipient pays as part of their civic duty. If you want protection under the law for your own grievances, you need to be prepared to assist the court in the adjudication of the grievances of others.

And the practical reason is that poor people have the right to petition courts for redress of grievances too. You're upset because Zuckerberg happens to be rich, so this seems unfair. But what if the startup had to sue someone and needed testimony from someone else to prove their case? You think they should have to pay just to get facts before the court?

At some point, yes, otherwise it can and will be abused, just like patent lawsuits already are.

There are cases of this already happening in the case of poor people, otherwise vexatious litigants wouldn't exist.

I wonder if the judge even knew that one of the list of companies was "small company mctinypants" or just assumed all were massive and huge.

Once more: it's just a subpoena. OP is looking at a few thousand dollars of legal fees and maybe a trip to wherever the court is. If you're operating a profit-seeking company in a legal regime that provides the protection that ours does, you simply have to be able to bear those costs. If your VC's or angels won't pay it, they aren't serious investors.

The subpoena is issued by a judge for a pending case, you can either fight it by submitting an opposing motion or be held in contempt of court which in this case is pretty much a loss.

Nowhere does it say that they don't intend to comply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com