Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | shuaavi's commentslogin

Thanks !!!


Fefe, We never said we're objective. Marketing is almost never objective. We tried to make it objective, but naturally - we're biased. But should the larger player be allowed to stop the smaller one from publishing his materials?


So the more accurate title should be "Palo Alto Networks sends cease-and-desist letter to take down comparative advertisement"?

Not that I agree with Palo Alto's lawyer, I just don't like misleading titles.


Just google 'yelp law'. It isn't legal these days.


You mean CRFA?

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/con...

Did a court rule that CRFA trumps (npi) DeWitt's Clause?

https://dwheeler.com/essays/dewitt-clause.html

(IANAL)


IAAL, and that is a good question. (This is not legal advice.)

CRFA appears to apply to contracts that bind an "individual" and not a "person". This technical difference is important in contracts: an individual is also known in the art as a "natural person" (i.e., a human being), while a "person" could be an individual, a company, or other organization.

So it is possible that the law does not apply to Orca Security because they are a "person" and not an "individual". In other words, if it can be found that Mr. Shua was acting as an officer or other representative of Orca Security instead of in his personal capacity, then CRFA may not apply to the license agreement.

Again, this is NOT legal advice, and anyone seeking a legal opinion should engage a licensed attorney. This law is pretty new and I don't know whether this specific question has been tested by any court. But I would tread with caution.


I would be extremely surprised if the CRFA applied to competitors (or generally to corporations). The first word is "consumer", and competitors are generally not consumers of each other's products.

If you are correct though, doesn't that make Oracle et al's "no benchmarks" stipulation non-enforceable as well? That would be kind of nice.


We checked VERY thoroughly. They don't have legal basis. Federal law specifically prohibit clauses that prevent open reviews. It is dubbed the 'yelp law'


I would double check that legal advice (assuming you actually consulted a competent attorney who specializes in this law). See my analysis elsewhere in this discussion.


Palo Alto can easily cause us to put 500K USD into legal fees, and I guess they thought that we'll bail out due to this empty threat. We chose not to.


Why/how would they cause you to put that much into legal fees? You don't need to hire an attorney, and probably you can hire anyone (with a legal bar license), right? Just hire the cheapest one. Sure that might not be the brightest tactic, but claiming that they can "cause" this is very strange. (You might even get someone to file motions for you pro bono.)


> Just hire the cheapest one.

Do you know what they call the person who graduated at the bottom of their law school class? "Counselor."

Do not hire the cheapest lawyer you can find. The amount of work required to analyze this situation is a few hours at most; and the hourly-rate difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer is going to be far less than what it will cost you if you get bad advice.

> You might even get someone to file motions for you pro bono

No attorney worth a damn is going to provide a commercial entity pro bono representation.


Consider applying for YC's Winter 2027 batch! Applications are open till November 2.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: