More progressive still would be funding startups that disintermediate lawyers and the billable hour system.
Spark Capital will now pay their own legal bills
21–30 of 114 posts
Re: Spark Capital will now pay their own legal bills
#22This is going to be one of those wonderful games of iterated group prisoner's dilemma, in which one member of a formerly functioning cartel has just publicly announced an intention to always play Defect.
Could also be that the tea leaves (or winds) were reading (blowing) in this direction anyway and they decided to draw first blood in order to make the biggest splash.
True, but that also fits within the prisoners dilemma. The way the rewards are set up, you generally should defect if you think your opponent might defect. If it is an iterated prisoners dilemma and you think they will start defecting, you come out ahead if you beat them to it.
Re: Spark Capital will now pay their own legal bills
#23This is going to be one of those wonderful games of iterated group prisoner's dilemma, in which one member of a formerly functioning cartel has just publicly announced an intention to always play Defect.
Could also be that the tea leaves (or winds) were reading (blowing) in this direction anyway and they decided to draw first blood in order to make the biggest splash.
+1 for three metaphors in one sentence
Re: Spark Capital will now pay their own legal bills
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
this. If I give you $8 and ask you to pay me $2 for expenses, or I give you $6 you don't much care. This would only apply to entrepreneurs who don't know that term sheets are less attorney fees.
meta: in the interests of continuing intelligent discussion on HN, please just say what you mean instead of "this". It's an infection that's been spreading for at least a few months here.
As long as we're being meta...
You responded with 32 words to a 37 word post so that you could quibble about a single word, or 3% of that post. While preaching on the righteous subject of "intelligent discussion," no less. So if we're going to complain about empty calories, I'm pretty sure you're winning that game.
Re: Spark Capital will now pay their own legal bills
#25Doesn't this just mean Spark will have a little less money to actually invest, thus will need to invest at slightly lower valuations to get the same returns, and companies will accept those lower valuations because they no longer have to pay the legal bills? Of course that's a huge simplification, and I'm in favor of reducing sneaky terms that can take entrepreneurs by surprise, so I'm not complaining.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Seems like a cost that will be recouped somewhere. Perhaps some startups dont mind that. I don't know enough to have an opinion on its merits. I would imagine some startups may not mind footing the legal bills if it means saving in some other way.
Re: Spark Capital will now pay their own legal bills
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before the other VC's are in that awkward position this would have to reach some kind of critical mass or tipping point. Not only that but different sellers, vendors, sides of business transactions, typically offer different terms, features, benefits. The standard procedure when someone brings up something someone else is willing to do, is to bring up your strong points and why that particular feature shouldn't matte…
That would be true if this were morally neutral. But when you're fixing an abuse that's justified by all participants as being standard practice, the right metaphor is not critical mass but a crack in dam.
Well put pg. It isn't that the money was that material, it just felt wrong and petty that it was being done in the first place so we wanted to fix it. Just feels silly we didn't do it a lot sooner.
Re: Spark Capital will now pay their own legal bills
#27[deleted]
Re: Spark Capital will now pay their own legal bills
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before the other VC's are in that awkward position this would have to reach some kind of critical mass or tipping point. Not only that but different sellers, vendors, sides of business transactions, typically offer different terms, features, benefits. The standard procedure when someone brings up something someone else is willing to do, is to bring up your strong points and why that particular feature shouldn't matte…
That would be true if this were morally neutral. But when you're fixing an abuse that's justified by all participants as being standard practice, the right metaphor is not critical mass but a crack in dam.
"But when you're fixing an abuse that's justified by all participants as being standard practice"
I don't feel (given what I know about this) that it's an "abuse" or though I can absolutely see what it is viewed this way. And of course the people who are charging it are going to justify it by saying "it's standard practice" because that is the easiest way to get beyond the objection and smooth things out.
People have certain ideas of what they find right and just and don't think rationally about what it really means relative to the entire transaction.
For example you could go to a restaurant where the steak dinner costs $30 but feel it is an abuse because they want $1.50 for a glass of tap water. Or they want to charge you to use the restroom. But if you go to an equivalent restaurant which charges $35 and gives you free tap water and bathroom you wouldn't think twice (merely focusing on whether you think you got value for the $35 meal).
The reason people have to rely on arguments of "standard practice" is because they are quick and easy and get by objections much easier then a lengthy discussion. It's a time saver.
Re: Spark Capital will now pay their own legal bills
#29Impressive move by Spark, who have now put other VCs in the awkward position of explaining why they don't do the same.
Is there any compelling reason (aside from money...) that others won't make the move as well?
Related question: will not making this move affect a firm's ability to get good deals? I don't know the answer but it's what the firms should ask themselves.
Re: Spark Capital will now pay their own legal bills
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
meta: in the interests of continuing intelligent discussion on HN, please just say what you mean instead of "this". It's an infection that's been spreading for at least a few months here.
As long as we're being meta... You responded with 32 words to a 37 word post so that you could quibble about a single word, or 3% of that post. While preaching on the righteous subject of "intelligent discussion," no less. So if we're going to complain about empty calories, I'm pretty sure you're winning that game.
I think you win that, with 54 words nobody needed to read.