Ask HN: How to validate a startup idea whilst employed?

AIUI, that's an unfair conclusion. I'm happy to be corrected, of course.

tl;dr: unfair outcomes are more caused by local implementations than by the legal structure.

IMO the unfairness in the American legal system comes from the expense of civil litigation, and a criminal justice system with no upper bound on how long defendants can be remanded. Those are not inherent in the English legal system. It is extremely rare for criminal defendants to be locked up for weeks before trial in England. Even Benjamin Mendy has been released to house arrest; he was denied bail but had to be released after a year.

In England, there's the legal concept of "odious contract" which makes some provisions unenforceable. IDK if it would apply in this scenario but it seems at least work a punt. Precedent could work for our against; it's not a given that precedent would favour the big corp.

The defining characteristic of English and American law is that it's adversarial; two parties debate before a supposedly-impartial judge, who then rules based on the evidence provided by the litigating parties.

The primary alternative system, used in many European countries, is the inquisitorial system. A judge directs questioning to establish the facts as they see fit.

It seems to me that, if you want to favour vested interests, you'd implement an inquisitorial system.

I don't know what you'd call the alternatives to common-law, but I don't see why there's a benefit to vested interests from it. It grants the judiciary some room for interpretation of laws made by lawmakers - whom I'll warrant were landed gentry more often than not, in Western history.

Historically, English law did allow serfs to challenge their landlords in court. I'm pretty sure there are cases of landlords being found guilty of dereliction of noblesse oblige. I mainly know what I remember from /r/AskHistorians though so please feel free to correct me.

Serfdom was abolished in England in about the 13th century, which is also when the Magna Carta became law. I suspect that English peasants had much greater legal protections and recourses than in most other European countries in the late mediaeval period.

> That's absurd. Are startups risky?

98% failure rate seems not only risky but reckless.

> "Fuck paying taxes, because who cares about the risk that the IRS will find me."

cheating the IRS has 100% failure rate unless you are in a position of power and wealth.

Not only is it necessary to know something is risky but to understand as so is key.

Many founders seem like a doubtful choice of words. There are even more founders that have landed themselves in legal waters because they just assumed their employer would be understanding like them.

High risk of failure, high risk of litigation if we took your questionable anecdotes without any proof at face value and suggest to OP to do the same.

This is especially true for large companies with people who are hired to handle litigation and IP risk management.

That's depend on your contract, I would suggest you reading it with competent Lawyer. And then decide. If this won't violate it, then go ahead. Otherwise negotiate with employer or quit.

For example my current contract explicitly allows me to do whatever I want in free time. It ewen explicitly allows me to work on other job/contracts, unless it is made from corporate equipment, in this case work is considered owned by company. And we don't work using regular github accounts, everibody have created gh accounts with corrporate naming schema.

Only exception is, that you shouldn't work on concurrent products, etc. But it was really narrow.

> tl;dr: unfair outcomes are more caused by local implementations than by the legal structure.

Nope. In your defense, you went into intricate details to defend common law. Which is a blunt demonstration of how this framework shapes perspectives of people. That in some detail, something can be found to demonstrate some argument. That's common law. Even that type of thinking is something that is shaped by it because it relies on not actual, written and concrete laws, but interpretations and arguments.

Moreover...

> The primary alternative system, used in many European countries, is the inquisitorial system. Sorry, but you don't seem to have too much insight into this topic:

To start with, what is called in Europe is called civil law. Its not 'inquisitorial system' or whatever you had in mind while phrasing that.

It descends from Napoleonic code. And that descends from French Revolutionary principles.

And its not an 'alternative'. Its de facto legal system of the ENTIRE world except a number of Angloamerican countries. In fact, even the US mixes common law with civil law. Common law in pure could be found mainly in England.

Furthermore;

> A judge directs questioning to establish the facts as they see fit.

You're flat out wrong. Sorry to be telling it this bluntly but this is just too far-out to be responded to without being blunt.

Common law IS the law in which the judge plays the role of the omnipotent feudal lord and establishes 'facts'.

There is NO such thing in civil law. I repeat: There is absolutely no such thing in civil law.

In civil law, the laws are written in a clear, concise manner. All the 'facts' that can be 'established' are explicitly specified. You cannot 'establish' anything in the court as the judge, the defender or the prosecutor. There isnt room for interpretation. In that sense, civil law is much like software engineering - it has clear definitions and a process. You just cant go out of the process, and you cannot ever set a 'precedent' that will ever be able to change anything, less override the law into the future.

> I don't know what you'd call the alternatives to common-law

There are no 'alternatives'. There is the civil law which the entire world uses. There is the common law which a few countries in Anglosphere use. There isnt a world with various 'alternative' systems.

> Historically, English law did allow serfs to challenge their landlords in court. I'm pretty sure there are cases of landlords being found guilty of dereliction of noblesse oblige

A few cases in which the higher feudal lord stomping down on the lesser feudal lord for any motive do not change the nature of common law. No need to go to reddit to ask - I can firmly telly you that the majority of history has seen the serfs getting butchered or executed whenever they challenged their feudal lord. Leaving aside that no higher lord would want to establish any 'precedent' in which they could be sentenced for violating their 'noblesse oblige'.

> Serfdom was abolished in England in about the 13th century, which is also when the Magna Carta became law

That's factually wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_serfdom#Great_Brita...

Sorry, but at this point I have to disengage from this discussion since the basis that you have for this topic is way too shaky.