Basic legal things everyone should know

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
As a general rule, however, you definitely can "sign away your rights."

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't.

[cbloom]

Hey, I have some questions about some software patent/copyright stuff I've always heard and that many in the industry live by :

Copyright - common knowledge is that any code you write is automatically copyrighted, especially if you publish it in any way (just posting on the internet is publishing). However, that gives you zero protection from somebody reading the code and rewriting it from scratch to do the same function (unlike a patent).

Patents - the main funny thing I've always heard about patents is that it's better for you to not know if a patent exists. This comes up all the time in my business where if somebody starts talking about a patent, everybody plugs there ears and goes "la la la I don't want to hear it la la la". Basically if you just work on some algorithm and write it yourself, you are somehow legally more in the clear than if you knew that it was patented. I have no idea if there is truth behind this but everybody in software seems to think there is some merit to it.

Another semi-related patent one - supposedly something that is "patent pending" has the same protections as something that is patented, and de facto the patent courts do terrible diligence and grant way too many patents, so you can get a lot of protection for yourself just by filing patents on things that may or may not be legit. Related to the last one, I've heard that you have to do a patent search for prior art, and your bogus patent is somehow legally more legit if you don't know about possible conflicts, so it behooves you to not do too serious of a patent search.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Can a law firm keep a trust account in their possession after the client has released/ fired them?

Also: how does one get a lien released?

(Said law firm slapped a lien on the trust acct. after they were fired)

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm... there's a lot of "it depends" in the mix here. Probably the best thing to do is to contact the state bar in your state, if you feel the firm has acted improperly.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
I meant, one thing people should know, is that ignorance is not a defence. You are expected to know the relevant law. For example, if you rent an apartment, you are expected to know the law governing things like breaking lease early, contract terms, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true for criminal law, but not necessarily true for civil law. In many cases, the party with the superior knowledge of the relevant area of law, business, etc., has a duty to not take advantage of the other. Therefore, one who is a sophisticated business person, will be held to a much-higher standard than a greenhorn.

[stakman1011]

Interesting thread,

My advice (IANAL)/good things to keep in mind:

1. Do NOT give a police officer consent to search anything. (house, car, etc.) If you have a reasonable expectation of privacy you effectively waive it by giving a police officer consent to search something.

2. Trying to "talk your way out of" an arrest or anything more serious than a traffic ticket is generally a bad idea. Should you be arrested or called in for questioning it would generally be prudent to remain silent until you consult with a lawyer. Getting interrogated without your lawyer present is also a bad idea in general.

3. Similarly, should a police officer call you at home, be very careful about what you say. Even if he doesn't Mirandize you, the fact that you're not in custody (and are in fact, free to leave/hang up at any time) means the things that you say can be used against you. Be particularly careful if there is more than one officer on the line with you. The presence of a second officer is generally for the purpose of corroborating any stupid confessions you make. I would politely request that the police direct any questions they have for me to my lawyer.

4. Here's one that I'm not sure works. It may well be an urban legend or something of the sort, but I do it anyway and think it's a good idea.

Should you get pulled over late at night, particularly in an isolated place with no lights around, you are presenting a relatively dangerous situation for the police officer arresting you.

When this happens, turn your car off, turn the overhead light on in the cab, roll down your window, and put both hands out the window and leave them there as the cop approaches.

Now the cop can see into your car, and he can see your hands at all times, effectively eliminating for him any danger that would usually accompany approaching an unknown car at night.

I've heard it said that this is greatly appreciated by the officer who pulls you over, thus making him far more likely to cut you a break.

I've been pulled over multiple times at night, and have always done what I described above. I've never gotten a ticket but obviously the sample size is much too small to be meaningful. Still though, I can't see how it would hurt you so might as well give it a try.

That's all for me.

Stak

PS, Someone said above that you should refuse a breathalizer if you're drunk and get pulled over. Is this true? Why is this better than submitting to a breathalizer? What happens to you when you refuse to take a breathalizer versus what happens when you fail one?

[Bostaevski]

you'll lose your license for a year but have a clean record (or so I have heard).

Instead of losing your license anyway, going to jail, and paying thousands of dollars in legal fees (again, this is what i've heard).

[Bostaevski]

Here's my legal advice even though IANAL

Never ever sign a contract that contains a "Mandatory Binding Arbitration" clause. You effectively sign away your rights to sue but the other party does not.

Then, if you DO go into arbitration, well usually the other party gets to pick who does the arbitration. Since they're bringing all this business to the arbitrator well you can see why they might want to rule in the other party's favor.

[gobbomom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can a law firm keep a trust account in their possession after the client has released/ fired them?

Also: how does one get a lien released?

(Said law firm slapped a lien on the trust acct. after they were fired)

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm... there's a lot of "it depends" in the mix here. Probably the best thing to do is to contact the state bar in your state, if you feel the firm has acted improperly.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks! I didn't really expect a reply because the questions are so generalized, and I know it's not fair to expect legal advice here, but I was hoping for something . I appreciate your response Drew.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It will probably be obvious that IANAL with the language I use, but another concept I found interesting when I looked into it at one time is something that some people describe as "you can't sign away your rights." Let's say I'm playing in a basketball league or some other sport at some indoor facility. They make you sign a waiver that means they're not responsible if you get injured. Yes, you take a reasonable risk when you play, but you also have paid money to play and must assume the facility is at some standard of safety. Let's say for example that someone forgot to attach the basket to the backboard and it's just sitting there on the bolts with no nuts attached. You go up for a layup and the basket comes off and hits you in the noggin. That's not a normal injury to happen in that sport, and the facility is still liable regardless of the waiver you signed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this one could go either way. It depends on what the waiver says and how grossly negligent the facility is, etc. As a general rule, however, you definitely can "sign away your rights."

[/ QUOTE ]

You can only sign away rights that you know exist. In other words, you cannot assume a latent risk, thus you cannot sign away your rights in regards to such risk.

In the example above, (as you pointed out) the players would have a certain expectation regarding the facility. They can certainly sign a waiver releasing the host from liability for all injuries, etc. resulting from normal use of the facility for its provided purpose (basketball).

For example, sweat and/or water can make the hardwood floor slippery and a player can slip and get hurt. This condition, however, is obvious and so is the danger it poses. This would be included in the waiver. (By the way, even without a waiver, a participant generally assumes the risk when participating in sports or similar activities).

Now, suppose it was revealed that the gym used a certain cleaning agent to treat the hardwood floors. Lets suppose that that cleaning agent had the effect of making the hardwood floor 2x more slippery when wet. That would be a contidion not subject to the waiver because the participant specifically did not know of the danger.

Finally, the waiver would assume regular, thorough, and competent upkeep of the facility. You cannot sign away your rights in regards to the negligent upkeep.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
you'll lose your license for a year but have a clean record (or so I have heard).

Instead of losing your license anyway, going to jail, and paying thousands of dollars in legal fees (again, this is what i've heard).

[/ QUOTE ]

You can opt to provide a blood test. If you refuse both the breathlyzer and blood test, then (at least in CA) you will have your license suspended for one year by the DMV. That is a separate action from anything the court will do to you.