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

Fucking Sue Me (2011)

pud.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 200 posts

Re: Fucking Sue Me (2011)

#111

Post by TeMPOraL »

EarthLaunch wrote: post #77
benihana wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you fully appreciate how expensive it is to go to court.

He knows more about court expenses, than you know about what he knows. Just say "It's expensive to go to court", or better, just don't comment.

Completely off-topic, but your comment made me wonder:

Is there any way to formalize expressions like "he knows more about X than you know about Y", where X and Y are different domains? Is there a way to quantify it, to answer questions like "how much more"? Do we have any kind of well-defined "unit of knowledge"?

Does anyone here knows of relevant math branch that talks about these questions?

Re: Fucking Sue Me (2011)

#112

Post by slantyyz »

yackob03 wrote: post #60
ksmiley wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An additional upside for them is, it sets an example. If MegaCorp gains a reputation for being revenge-driven life ruiners, then future contractors will know the stakes are serious, and they'll be less likely to violate their contracts. Not that I consider that strategy cost-effective in general. For one thing, it's bad PR. (Unless you're some kind of wizard that can spin it like, "we're principled and don't let bull…

They will also be less likely to attract future contractors.

This is only true if the job market is a seller's market. If it's a buyer's market, it only prevents the smarter ones from wanting to work with that type of company.

Re: Fucking Sue Me (2011)

#113

Post by smacktoward »

jonmrodriguez wrote: post #25
jonnathanson wrote: post #10

"I'm not sure what the lesson is here." I'm not sure, and furthermore, I'm not sure I agree with being overly 'fuck-it' about legal matters. But I can tell you what it's like having been where you were with the "endless lawyering," and why it sucked so badly. I worked for a startup once in which our CEO was a really smart guy, but the kind of smart guy that got overly worked up over tiny details and edge cases. We'd…

Jesus Christ, $50k to pick the company name?? You could launch a whole new product for that much.

You think that's bad? Read this: http://www.salon.com/1999/11/30/naming/

Written at the height of the dot-com craziness, so the figures have probably come down to earth a little since, but still hilarious-slash-sad.

Re: Fucking Sue Me (2011)

#114

Post by Zuph »

jballanc wrote: post #57

The lesson, or at least the lesson I've learned from dealing with lawyers at companies big and small, is that lawyering is a practice in making sure nothing can possibly go wrong. In a way, lawyers are the QA team for the legal world. They know that the shit hitting the fan can potentially be very expensive, so they will go to extreme lengths to prevent any possibility of that happening. But just like you cannot rely…

Told to me by one of my engineering mathematics professors: "Anyone can design a bridge that doesn't fall down. It takes an engineer to build one that only barely doesn't fall down."

Re: Fucking Sue Me (2011)

#115

Post by jwb119 »

The lesson from this isn't that you shouldn't get a lawyer to review your 400k business critical contracts, it's that you should pick a lawyer who knows what's important to fight about and what's not, and understands the objectives of the business. The "Sue me!" attitude is pretty shortsighted thinking.

Disclaimer: lawyer here.

Re: Fucking Sue Me (2011)

#116

Post by fixxer »

jballanc wrote: post #57

The lesson, or at least the lesson I've learned from dealing with lawyers at companies big and small, is that lawyering is a practice in making sure nothing can possibly go wrong. In a way, lawyers are the QA team for the legal world. They know that the shit hitting the fan can potentially be very expensive, so they will go to extreme lengths to prevent any possibility of that happening. But just like you cannot rely…

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 rather than a "QA" mechanism.

I think in-house counsel is how things like "linked lists" and "document scanning" get patented. I hate them.

Specific to the OP: I've also been sued a couple times (always got dismissed). Usually, you can tell if the client is the kind that is going to sue you for sport... learn to avoid them, unless you're desperate.

Re: Fucking Sue Me (2011)

#117

Post by sliverstorm »

jballanc wrote: post #57

The lesson, or at least the lesson I've learned from dealing with lawyers at companies big and small, is that lawyering is a practice in making sure nothing can possibly go wrong. In a way, lawyers are the QA team for the legal world. They know that the shit hitting the fan can potentially be very expensive, so they will go to extreme lengths to prevent any possibility of that happening. But just like you cannot rely…

he explained to me very early on just what it means to be an engineer...

This is precisely why engineering can be so much fun! Working with constraints and limitations on every side makes things interesting.

Re: Fucking Sue Me (2011)

#118

Post by mydpy »

By following the advice in this blog, aren't we letting the big corporations hold all the legal cards and potentially put smaller operations in very uncomfortable positions? That isn't right.

Re: Fucking Sue Me (2011)

#119

Post by hobs »

sliverstorm wrote: post #117
jballanc wrote: post #57

The lesson, or at least the lesson I've learned from dealing with lawyers at companies big and small, is that lawyering is a practice in making sure nothing can possibly go wrong. In a way, lawyers are the QA team for the legal world. They know that the shit hitting the fan can potentially be very expensive, so they will go to extreme lengths to prevent any possibility of that happening. But just like you cannot rely…

he explained to me very early on just what it means to be an engineer... This is precisely why engineering can be so much fun! Working with constraints and limitations on every side makes things interesting.

I would say that is also produces the most beautiful results.

The best art (and engineering) is that which is constrained, which then makes the creator explore how the boundaries of the rules fit in with what they need to accomplish.

Post reply on HN