131–140 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the problem: if they do end up suing you, and you just accepted whatever provisions they put in their contract, you're going to be screwed. The first version of a contract always strongly favors the party providing it, it's not malicious, it's just the right way to do it.
It is never right to proffer a deal that you know to be unfair to another party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the problem: if they do end up suing you, and you just accepted whatever provisions they put in their contract, you're going to be screwed. The first version of a contract always strongly favors the party providing it, it's not malicious, it's just the right way to do it.
It is never right to proffer a deal that you know to be unfair to another party.
Providing a contract that is favorable to your own needs, while not deceptive, is in no way unfair or unscrupulous. The counterparty always has the right to negotiate or simply refuse to execute the contract. You can't expect to anticipate the needs of both parties and to do so would just make negotiating a deal more difficult, because you'll have less flexibility to give the other side what they need.
> Then there was the time I wanted to hire my first full time employee. I was apprehensive to do it because I only had enough money to pay him for 2 months, unless I got another client fast. > “Worry about that in 2 months,” Dad said. Speaking from the perspective of that employee, fuck you . OK, for the serious point: you may be not give a shit about risk. Good for you, you crazy risk taker! The world truly needs mo…
Linkbait. Some of my competitors write contracts specifically so that they can sue other companies. How about this, I fucking read my contracts and I don't sign bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 mor…
Because it's not unreasonable to expect the coder to supply you with something which will not fail arbitrarily in 10 years for a reason which is 100% predictable. A parallel example: If an Architect designs you a building which develops a leak because of a mistake in a construction detail you would sue for the cost of repairs and damage to property. Either in contract if available or in Tort for negligence if no cont…
I suppose you've never used a fixed size data type (eg. int) as a primary key right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
Not to mention that employee #1, if an engineer, is probably chained to the engine block (figuratively), toiling with keeping the machines running. He/she most likely remains in the dark when it comes to the business development and deal making that are all important for succeeding as a startup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's reassuring. (putting in my two weeks notice tomorrow to be employee #1)
Make sure that you'd be happy if you worked long and hard for the start-up and all you got was the salary they're paying you + the experience. Even if the start-up is a huge success, the chances of you making substantial amounts of money are low, unless you have founder-level equity.
You really need billions of dollars coming into a company before non-founders have a chance to make fuck-you money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point to "fucking sue me" is that you don't "fucking sue" someone over something trivial. So, if the dollar value of some provision in the contract is not worth the cost of a lawsuit, in a way, it is kinda immaterial to the agreement because it would cost more to collect. So, I think the article is trying to hit the middle road you're advocating, though didn't make it as explicitly clear as it could have.
You're assuming companies act rationally and won't sue you if it costs them money. That is a dangerous assumption: one guy that you pissed off is enough to send you down a dark hole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is never right to proffer a deal that you know to be unfair to another party.
Define "unfair". Every contract I've ever seen has been biased in favor of the firm writing the contract. Is this "unfair"? If you want "unfair" - try looking at some term sheets....