Live data from Hacker News

Fucking Sue Me (2011)

pud.com

181–190 of 200 posts

Re: Fucking Sue Me (2011)

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More often than not, executives/companies think they're doing you a favor by giving you a job, even the ones who pretend to care about their employees.

This post puzzles me. How are companies not doing you a favor by GIVING you a job?

Your post puzzles me as well. Just because we use the word "giving" doesn't mean that any of the connotations of that word actually apply to the situation. Employment is an arrangement of mutual benefit. In some cases an employer might give a job to a friend as a favor, when the friend is not the most qualified for the job. In any case, if someone gives you a job as a favor, they are doing it wrong.

Re: Fucking Sue Me (2011)

#182
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I mostly agree... but there are some very significant exceptions. Notably, I've dealt with in-house counsel from a certain Fortune 500 as part of my research and let me tell you this: they don't have a fucking clue what is going on. They just want to flex muscles for the sake thereof (or they think everything is "intellectual property", which is asinine). So, in this circumstance, they are a barrier to progress…

Actually, especially if you're desperate. Asshole counter-parties can smell weakness and if you are, they'll exploit it.

True. I meant desperate as in "food on the table".

I grew up in the real estate industry. Software engineers don't experience anywhere near that amount of financial leverage. For most builders, every project is do or die; can't up and quit without it haunting your credit.

Re: Fucking Sue Me (2011)

#184
Years ago, I participated in a mutually beneficial potential partnership being lawyered to death, and missed out on a great win. As a small business that was approached by a large organization with potential to drive us a ton of new customers, I had a great opportunity. But, I also saw some risk, due to the sheer size. So, I let my lawyer review it, which initiated a death spiral.

In retrospect, there was nothing onerous in the initial proposal. My attorney just wanted to cover all bases. That's how they envision their jobs: If a client ends up in a bad situation that could have remotely been avoided, then they have failed (in their eyes). But, there is sometimes no scale brought to bear. Any degree of risk--no matter how small--becomes a point of contention.

The funny part is that I and the biz dev guy on the other side just wanted to get it done. But, we became unwilling conduits for lawyers who tried to eliminate all risk from their respective sides and we just wound up passing marked-up agreements back and forth until we (and the deal) were exhausted.

So, I learned that all of this legal "protection" must be taken with a grain of salt for the small business owner in particular. The upside is generally so much greater than the risk for us, and in the off chance that the risk becomes a reality, it can generally be mitigated then.

There is risk to simply being in business, especially in this litigious society. So, you cannot deny yourself an opportunity simply because your lawyer couldn't wrangle every last bit of risk out for you. And, when you assume that posture of trying to eliminate risk completely from your side, then you have to know that the legal folks on the other side will follow suit. That's when the show stops.

The advice given to the author by his dad is exactly what I'd give to my kids, minus the expletives.

Re: Fucking Sue Me (2011)

#185
post #164

Lawyering in general, and business lawyering in particular, is an art in which good judgment counts a lot more than mere technical precision. From a lawyer perspective, a written contract may have all sorts of areas in which it falls short of an ideal in capturing all key issues potentially affecting a client. There are recitals (defining factual context), covenants (setting forth promises), conditions (defining when…

"There is a dynamic to negotiations and nothing galls the parties more than to have to sort through a lot of lawyer comments over what they see as non-essential points for their deal." Isn't that a strategy sometimes used to wear down the other side and make it hard for them to uncover the true intent of what one party is trying to slip by the other party? Or give added ambiguity which can be beneficial to one party…

If one party is out to screw the other over, then lawyering might help some.. maybe.

But if you suspect this is the case, then in most cases the deal is going to be more trouble than it is worth.

Re: Fucking Sue Me (2011)

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post puzzles me. How are companies not doing you a favor by GIVING you a job?

Your post puzzles me as well. Just because we use the word "giving" doesn't mean that any of the connotations of that word actually apply to the situation. Employment is an arrangement of mutual benefit. In some cases an employer might give a job to a friend as a favor, when the friend is not the most qualified for the job. In any case, if someone gives you a job as a favor, they are doing it wrong.

>> Employment is an arrangement of mutual benefit

That's how I look at it, but I've encountered way more employers (across multiple industries, in companies of all sizes) who have the mentality of "people should feel lucky that they have a job with us". This attitude is even worse during an economic downturn.

Re: Fucking Sue Me (2011)

#189
post #130
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The job of an engineer is to take the cost of materials, the budget, the expected longevity of the bridge, the project schedule, the prevailing environmental and geological conditions of the siting, etc. and balance all of these different variable against each other to arrive at a solution I'm not a lawyer, but I would assume that a good lawyer adopts an analogous process: they take the value of the contract, the pr…

But lawyers working in private practice, or partners in firms with a lot of power, will presumably be willing to balance risk against reward, and try to optimize accordingly. Lawyers: please correct me if I'm assuming incorrectly here. I am not a lawyer, but you are certainly assuming incorrectly. It is a lawyer's job to not only get you a good contract, but also to maximize their billable hours. They do not gouge to…

While there is an agency problem and some lawyers take advantage, in general most lawyers are like most software contractors: basically honest, interested in their craft and keen to do a good job.

Lawyers are also held to a standard called "fiduciary duty". It's heavy ju-ju.

Post reply on HN