Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fucking Sue Me

pud.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 152 posts

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#61

Post by mmaunder »

Two things:

1. They will sue. Medium to large - in fact any mature business, considers lawyers and the threat of lawsuits and litigation as a cost of doing business. They don't get emotionally involved, they just do it. FYI, looking at lawyers & legal as cost of doing biz is a healthy attitude and may save you a heart attack.

2. Telling someone to just "fucking sue me" or simply "sue me" makes it combative and I made this beginner mistake early on in being a CEO. I actually simply asked their lawyer if he thought his case "actually has any merit?" in a cocky tone in a phone call. Turns out he thought it did. Once I had capable council on my side she had to work hard to make nice with the other side and bring it to settlement hours before we were irrevocably committed to litigating the issue.

Lets put it this way: Wouldn't it be awesome if everyone you signed an agreement with "just signed it"?

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#62

Post by tjmc »

This poor advice is like saying you can save money by not paying insurance premiums. Of course you can - until something goes wrong.

A better lawyer would have been able to amend that contract with minimal fuss. I used to get a legal briefing on the dodgy parts of the contracts I was asked to sign, along with sensible suggested changes that often benefited both sides (eg. termination clauses more appropriate to the length of the gig) I'd then send through the amended contract and discuss all the reasons for the changes with the client. Never had any problems.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#63

Post by davidst »

gamble wrote: post #40
rick888 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being employee #1 is the worst of both worlds. You get the risk of a startup and you most likely will get very little payout if the startup is successful. Most of the people I know that were employee #1 got nothing.

Yes, employee #1 is almost always the worst-off person in the company. They get to work like a founder, without the financial benefits. I've been there twice; it isn't a lot of fun. Either found or join a company that has funding.

There's another perspective that is equally true: Employee #1 is getting paid to see how a startup is created, struggles, pivots, pivots again, and eventually turns into a viable business. There is no better way to prepare yourself to be a founder than to be an early employee in a startup.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#64

Post by esk »

davidst wrote: post #63
gamble wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, employee #1 is almost always the worst-off person in the company. They get to work like a founder, without the financial benefits. I've been there twice; it isn't a lot of fun. Either found or join a company that has funding.

There's another perspective that is equally true: Employee #1 is getting paid to see how a startup is created, struggles, pivots, pivots again, and eventually turns into a viable business. There is no better way to prepare yourself to be a founder than to be an early employee in a startup.

I definitely understand where you are coming from (and I didn't downvote you), but I have to disagree.

That employee (we'll call her Sarah) isn't being paid to see how a startup is created; she's paying to see how a startup is created.

She's paying heavily. She's losing money in the form of a lower salary compared to equivalent jobs, and she's losing money in the form of losing free-time compared to equivalent jobs.

Sometimes, that payment is very worth it. But it's a payment.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#65

Post by ja27 »

The two contracts I spent the most time going back and forth with before signing were the two biggest wastes of my time. One was a ridiculous NDA with a paranoid guy with delusions that he had the world's best original idea which turned out to be worthless and obvious. The other was a decent gig but they tanked and ran out of cash before I ever got paid. It didn't matter how tight the contract was when there's no money there.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#66

Post by citricsquid »

_delirium wrote: post #8
TomGullen wrote: post #2

I think the lesson is here it's all fine and dandy until someone does sue you. Then it's a different story.

If you're a 22-year-old with no assets it's probably not much different; you lose a judgment and declare bankruptcy and that's that. If you're older and have a lot of assets, you just do it via a corporation and it's the same, thanks to the magical unaccountability of the corporate veil.

bankruptcy (at least here in England) means you're royally fucked, especially at 22.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#67

Post by mathattack »

I think his dad is a good advisor.

The reason he was hard to sue is that he's so small. If things went really South on a small project, what's the worst thing that happens? He's 22 and talented in New York - he declares bankruptcy, and gets another job or stays on Dad's couch. This is a situational thing - you can accept liability when the downside is so low. This is why legal departments in small firms are much gentler than legal departments in the Fortune 500. Of course this doesn't work for a large firm, or someone with 3 kids and a mortgage. His dad would have said, "Go get a real job" or something like that.

Similar on the hiring - when you're that small, you invite someone to take the risk for you. You can take more risk when there's limited downside. And in this case it was the other guy's downside - if there was no work, he'd be the one in trouble.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#68

Post by _delirium »

citricsquid wrote: post #66
_delirium wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a 22-year-old with no assets it's probably not much different; you lose a judgment and declare bankruptcy and that's that. If you're older and have a lot of assets, you just do it via a corporation and it's the same, thanks to the magical unaccountability of the corporate veil.

bankruptcy (at least here in England) means you're royally fucked, especially at 22.

In the U.S. it depends somewhat; if you have a place to rent (e.g. know your landlord or it's via a friend) it's not a huge deal. You won't get a mortgage, and it'll make getting new credit cards or rentals from strangers harder, but not life-ending. Especially if you have a glamorous story behind it, like going bankrupt due to your tech startup being sued into oblivion...

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#70

Post by fleitz »

shawnee_ wrote: post #48

The lesson here: it was 1998. "The industry" was still a little fledgling, so the legal territory was still largely unchartered. But it grew into an ugly duckling, quickly. Sent the contract to my lawyer. She marked it up, sent it to the client. Then the client marked it up and sent it back to my lawyer. And so on, back and forth for almost a month. Garbage in, garbage out. During the "ugly duckling" phase, the legal…

Why would a coder ever be held responsible for something not specified in the requirements doc? If people wanted Y2K compliant software in the 70s and 80s they should have specified it.

As for multibillion dollar valuations, what's wrong with the valuations on MSFT, AAPL, GOOG? If you think the PE is crazy on LNKD, just short it. As for what VCs are willing to invest for particular companies those investments are more anecdotes than data.

Post reply on HN