lawstudent2

5 ms·

1.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
Many, many, many people are clamoring to outlaw gambling in the very, very few places it is currently legal, myself included. Right now Draftkings and whatever that other one is are in the process of getting worked over by multiple state AG
2.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
Rather than try to bring coal mining back to this community as a form of social subsidy - why not just institute a basic federal income? These folks are not alone - they are just the canaries in the mine. They have literally no useful m
3.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
Yes. It does. It absolutely does. http://www.productliabilityprevention.com/images/5-PostSaleD... http://www.cassiday.com/maa-dri-productliability/ If a post-sale modification of a product is fore
4.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
What on earth are you talking about? There is an entire, rich, enormous field of law called products liability that is precisely about holding manufacturers accountable for the performance of their products post sale. Everything from
5.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
As posted in another thread: > These laws that were passed to prop up car dealerships and came about in an era without mass marketing, but, very importantly, and self-acknowledgledly, these laws existed to prevent the manufacturer from u
6.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
It isn't my opinion. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why-b... http://www.americanbar.org/publications/franchise_lawyer/201... What bugs th
7.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
Yeah, but this is bullshit. We do know. The laws are garbage and should go the way of the dodo.
8.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
We know why it was put up. This is not a mystery. It was lobbied for by car dealerships in order to procure monopoly status, under the guise of 'consumer protection.' This is kind of a bullshit response, honestly. This is a very,
9.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
> I'd be curious to know if anyone on HN thinks that this is morally and ethically ok? 1. Yes. Absolutely. What could be morally unacceptable about this? 2. I very strongly believe in business ethics. And consumer protection, and
10.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
At no point in this post is there anything remotely resembling an example of what the author is talking about. With the exception of the reference to active record, the author could be talking about literally any other framework or toolse
11.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
Mmmm... no. * Phoropter * Tribution * Slickle * Cadine * Fination * Apricity * Revergent * Unitory * Trephony These are not words. They are not highly specific jargon either. They are just made up nonsense.
12.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
No - I stand by that as a literal use. Does 65B represent the actual money value that people will pay for the shares of 100% of the ~600 currently existing YC companies? Does it tell us the average value? The mean? Standard deviation? Quint
13.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
This is also rather misleading - because 300 have been shut down, 904 have been funded, which includes 107 in the last batch, which can be discounted entirely from these stats. This gives us 300/797 have shut down, or a percentage of a
14.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
Oh right. Math. Yes. Good call.
15.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
Those salaries seem absurdly low. Also, why is the cost of employees with overhead lower? (NB/EDIT: Pointed out below this is for 3/4 of the year, not the full year - but the rest of my point stands.) That makes zero sense. Surely
16.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
In the world of business, good ideas are literally priceless - in that they have literally no value. Good ideas aren't even that important to a business. Good execution is what matters. Even sub-optimal ideas can be billion dol
17.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
Because the question is not about general law principles. It is testing to see if you know the tort of public disclosure of private facts and if you know about the right of publicity. Importantly, let me be more clear: * The definition of &
18.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
I follow - in my practice, when dealing with the phrase "employment agreement" it almost always refers to an agreement with a fixed or minimum term of employment. This is all beside the point. The central point is that an at-will
19.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
> Is it significantly different from talking to a priest or a faith healer? * Faith healers are priests aren't trained in the myriad forms of double blind tested, peer reviewed techniques that can be used to help manage or reduce st
20.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
> How long does the period of continued employment need to be in order to be considered further consideration? Non-zero. In reality, my guess is that because courts don't love to see non-competes overbroadly upheld in the fist place
21.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
> My understanding is, if your Hawaiian employer demanded you sign a noncompete, you could quit on the spot and the noncompete would not apply. Is that correct? Yes.
22.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
Are you getting more money? Yes? More money = more consideration. End of story.
23.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
I'm a practicing corporate lawyer - i just have the same sn on reddit as on here. And yeah, I did read the case, and you are wrong. A contract between an employer and employee is not an employment agreement - in this case, it was an
24.
by lawstudent2 11y ago
I am a lawyer - and the headline is completely misleading. Continued employment is, in fact, new consideration. Each new paycheck you get, in an at-will employment relationship, is further consideration. This meshes perfectly, without