Not really, all of law works that way. Everybody is allowed to demand pretty much anything from anybody for any reason, and include anything in any contract they're party of regardless of legality of any of the demands. It's the other party's responsibility to know which of these are legally valid and invalid.

▲

hnlmorg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Law most certainly does NOT work that way. If a business wanted to take you to court over contract violation then they’d have to tell you what you violated.

Likewise, a police officer cannot arrest you without telling you what law you broke.

Technically, Synaptics cannot sue without telling you what patents you violated either. But where patent laws get abused is businesses extorting others over threats of high legal costs.

▲

kube-system 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The person you responded said nothing about involving the formal legal system. The formal legal system is only involved in about ~1% of legal disputes. ~99% of legal disputes are settled outside of the formal legal system, where yes, anyone can whip open MS Word and type up whatever the fuck they want, and the burden is on the two parties communicating to check each other.

▲

hnlmorg 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The GP said “law works that way” and what you’re describing isn’t testing law. It’s negotiation over civil disputes.

If Synaptics did want to exercise their legal right under civil law then they’d would have to disclose what properties have been infringed upon.

▲

kube-system 2 hours ago | parent [-]

And they're right, most law is practiced outside of a courtroom. And essentially all civil disputes start outside of them. The vast majority of professional lawyers do not litigate at all.

▲

hnlmorg an hour ago | parent [-]

Id already said civil disputes start outside the court room.

What I’m saying is that not all UK law works on the basis of accusations without evidence, like the GP argued.

Take this specific example, UK civil law does say the initial communication doesn’t have to include the patent numbers. However it does go on to say that if threats are then made then that information should be disclosed

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-patent-act-1977/section-70b-...

If Synaptic require multiple weeks of work at $25,000 a week, to establish what patents are infringed, while also threatening to charge the developer for that time as well as further legal action, then it’s safe to assume that Synaptic didnt have enough confidence from the outset that their original claim was reasonably true.

In short, they are opening themselves up to litigation in return. But since their legal budget is vastly greater than this solo dev’s legal budget would be, they can skirt the fridges of what would be reasonable permitted communications.

BI doubt many UK judges would take favourable view with how Synaptics have handled their correspondence; if this ever were to reach the courts.

▲

kube-system an hour ago | parent [-]

That is fair, I think what the above point was that formal technicalities matter only in so much as someone has the means and motivations to go to trial, which is rarely.

	▲	hnlmorg an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Which is why I likened the process to a protection racket. :) A comment that the GPs you’re defending was objecting to

▲

gerdesj 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It depends on the jurisdiction (and there are quite a few in play for HN commentards)

In some jurisdictions, the "threat" describes the maximum possible payout that could be awarded so obviously you deploy a massive sum. I believe that is a US thing.

Law has rules and most of them are written down within most jurisdictions or can be inferred via case law, constitutions, or the distribution of tea leaves (as appropriate).

That's why it called the rule of law - the thing is you need to determine the rules in play. For example you said: "a police officer cannot arrest you without telling you what law you broke."

That is mostly true in the UK, unless you fall afoul of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) which involves some pretty wide ranging powers and effects.

It is unlikely to be even vaguely true in Russia or China or any other jurisdiction that doesn't really bother with nonsensical notions such as: demos kratos.

I shouldn't bother using words like "technically".

	▲	hnlmorg 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The article mentions the jurisdiction being the UK. so I don’t think we need to expand the scope to Russia and China. in UK law, IP infringement falls under the category of civil law. While these can be settled out of court, you absolutely couldn’t take someone to court without disclosing what property has been infringed upon.

▲

p_l 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's not universal, and it's why certain terms are nearly never brought to court because everyone knows they will be laughed out and then they will have to change lots of EULAs for regionally illegal claims

▲

cowlevel 3 hours ago | parent [-]

If it was certain, both parties would ignore it. It's only likely to be found invalid, not certain.

	▲	p_l 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In many cases companies do, in practice, exploit other parties lack of law knowledge. Also encountered many cases where a company simply didn't consider actually vetting what they put on contract against local law