teachingaway

I used to litigate copyright cases. While your comment is technically true, for 98% of cases, you will need the copyright registration for any amount of meaningful copyright protection.

yeah, it looks like they are still under traditional copyright. It's just that the purchase price is $0.00. Free as in beer.

Still, that's pretty cool!

I think it's 'malpractice' risk. Like, if a lawyer give bad legal advice on a forum, and someone reads it and follows it and then loses a ton of money because of it, and then the reader sues the lawyer for malpractice.

The plaintiff would never win the case. But lawyers like to avoid being the target of malpractice claims, even if they're super-weak / spurious / whatever.

I think that is the situation.

As a lawyer, I personally don't mind writing about the law or answering general questions on the internet. I wouldn't answer someone's specific questions about their personal legal situation though (without an engagement letter).

I think the answer is this: the law requires the exact document - a shareholder consent. It's binary. Either you have the consent or your don't. The judges don't want to be bothered with shades of gray. Allowing an exception for docs that are "close enough" would lead to long and expensive arguments about whether something was "close enough" or not.

Sure, the rule is harsh, but there's an upside. You can look at a corporate doc and know right away whether it's sufficient. No debate. It's either 100% correct, or else it doesn't pass muster.

On balance, is it a good rule? I don't know! It's just one way to write a rule, and there are some upsides (certainty) and downsides (harsh results for a clerical error).

This x 10 for legal documents. Simplify them please.

Champerty!

Champerty is the (largely defunct) rule against funding someone else's lawsuit. I always thought that was a funny word. Champerty. But TIL that it comes from the fact that in "England, litigants could hire ‘champions’ to represent them in ‘trial by battle.’ By the late 13th century, these strongmen were being compared to prostitutes, and their prevalence hastened the movement of dispute resolution to the courtroom. During the Middle Ages, this concept of ‘champerty’ — assisting another person’s lawsuit in exchange for a share of the proceeds — emerged as part of the larger ecclesiastical taboo against usury."

Yeah! right? But if I understand your project correctly, it also has every other possible continuation to that stanza in it somewhere?