The investment that didn't happen • Hacker News Board

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#31

Post by dhimes » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 2:21 PM UTC

geoffw8 wrote: post #30

dhimes wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those filters would be very easy to add once the hard (image) technology was worked out. Sadly, the company never got to that stage.

Answered like a true techy :) You can't build a filter for "I've worn a top from this store before and it fitted me nicely" or "I know garments from this store wash up nicely" or "I shop from this store because it defines part of my character" Most shoppers buy into a store because of lots of things, quality, brand-values alignment, friends shop etc etc. What I'm essentially saying is a lot more goes into buying a pr…

I don't follow your point. You can filter by store or brand. You can, for instance, allow someone to see the shoe collection and hide everything not from Nordstrom or not Gucci (or both), etc.

EDIT: By the way, I still think you make an interesting point in how people really shop, and I appreciate you sharing that here.

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#32

Post by qeorge » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 2:53 PM UTC

dhimes wrote: post #31

geoffw8 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Answered like a true techy :) You can't build a filter for "I've worn a top from this store before and it fitted me nicely" or "I know garments from this store wash up nicely" or "I shop from this store because it defines part of my character" Most shoppers buy into a store because of lots of things, quality, brand-values alignment, friends shop etc etc. What I'm essentially saying is a lot more goes into buying a pr…

I don't follow your point. You can filter by store or brand. You can, for instance, allow someone to see the shoe collection and hide everything not from Nordstrom or not Gucci (or both), etc. EDIT: By the way, I still think you make an interesting point in how people really shop, and I appreciate you sharing that here.

I believe he's saying that people buy for the feeling, not to satisfy a list of specs. So although us techies might like this sort of drill down, normal folks prefer the "serendipitous discovery" experience of shopping.

I'm not sure I agree, but it is a thought provoking point.

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#33

Post by dtunkelang » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 3:31 PM UTC

I am glad to finally see this story told in all of its gory detail. As a witness to this story, I was frustrated to see how Arlo and AJ never had a chance to win on the merits of their case, let alone on the merits of their technology. I can only hope that this story inspires others and drive needed software patent reform. And that Arlo and AJ both go on to do great things -- as I am sure they are doing already.

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#34

Post by rokhayakebe » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 4:59 PM UTC

whyleym wrote: post #23

cynusx wrote: post #15

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that this company can restart operations? Who owns the IP now? The argument that the patent climate hasn't changed should not deter investors in a restart of this company, most startups would die if they are sued for patent infringement and in this case the aggressor has been pacified.

I agree - given that Google has now acquired Like.com and they would be (very) unlikely to bring any lawsuit, why can't the company just re-launch - even if they have to bootstrap ?

They lost momentum.

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#35

Post by ksolanki » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 5:31 PM UTC

micks56 wrote: post #14

They should have found a recent law grad that is unemployed. That guy would work for free to make his name on a big case. Any competent law grad who passed the bar can answer motions, reply with his own, and get this case on the court docket 2 years out to buy these guys some time. I would have taken the case for free.

This is a good point. As a techie, I would not know where/how to find such a person. Anyways the founders should be allowed to represent the corporation, but apparently that is not allowed. Requiring to hire lawyers seems not to be true to the spirit of judiciary. I represented myself and got my green card in two months.

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#36

Post by pedalpete » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 7:51 PM UTC

I have a bit of a problem with this statement 'regardless of how much I liked the founders of the company, I could not in good conscience invest...'

What about all that talk about 'the founders count more than the idea'?

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#37

Post by nikcub » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 9:29 PM UTC

dhimes wrote: post #26

nikcub wrote: post #20

I hope this isn't the end for these guys. A few solutions to the problem which I am sure they are contemplating: a) Raise the round but cap legal expenses to 80-120k. This would get you a decent way down the road with discovery, pre-trial and potentially an early settlement. b) Find a patent litigation firm that would waive the remainder of the fees on the same terms as the investment round, to be converted at a late…

It's too bad they couldn't come forward with their prior-art portfolio. That may have squelched the Google-Like deal, giving the troll its due. But part of me is thinking: If Google was looking for an acquistion in this space, how could they miss the Modista guys? Their stage of development kept them under the radar? Or perhaps there is more to the story than we are reading here?

the M&A world is as much to do with who you know. I wouldn't be surprised if like.com was shopped around to the usual suspects

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#38

Post by zackattack » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 11:17 PM UTC

olivercameron wrote: post #2

Fantastic to see Manu put his neck on the line for a company that isn't even a part of K9's portfolio, but that he really believed in.

How did he put his neck on the line?

Re: The investment that didn't happen

#39

Post by othermaciej » Sun, May 01, 2011, 12:17 AM UTC

nikcub wrote: post #20

I hope this isn't the end for these guys. A few solutions to the problem which I am sure they are contemplating: a) Raise the round but cap legal expenses to 80-120k. This would get you a decent way down the road with discovery, pre-trial and potentially an early settlement. b) Find a patent litigation firm that would waive the remainder of the fees on the same terms as the investment round, to be converted at a late…

It is the end. Because they had no funding, they could not get legal representation, and had to accept the default judgment against them. So the company went bankrupt and had to be shut down. They are now doing different things.

The interesting aspect of this story to me is that you can utterly destroy an early-stage startup with a well-timed patent lawsuit, even if your claim has no merit. I wonder why this hasn't happened more often.