3 ms·

Yeah, what the hell? When there are large sums of money at play, who among us wouldn't work in their best interest? If you have a lawyer telling you that there

Yeah, what the hell? When there are large sums of money at play, who among us wouldn't work in their best interest? If you have a lawyer telling you that there's a case to be made, you would be a complete and utter moron to not take that route. Do you guys think any angel in such a situation would give it a second thought? Silicon Valley Exceptionalism is the product that YC sells, and boy do they sell it well. They want you to believe that SF is a magical place where you're expected to reject the opinion of a lawyer saying you have a claim to millions of dollars-- because Silicon Valley is a totally chill place, bro. No assholes in the bay! When large sums of money get involved, lawyers get involved, and your actions are masked by your lawyer. I am not going to judge this guy at all. I feel like the author is trying to make the case that this guy is an asshole, and implicitly, because we all know YC doesn't like to help assholes-- and because that's an agreeable ideal, we're supposed this guy as the enemy. But maybe it's the case that he's really a good guy that realizes that he has the opportunity to convince a court to award him a life-changing amount of money. I really hope the motivation between this post is not to give him an ultimatum. I really hope the reasoning is not, "I have the ability to get a post on the front page of HN, and I can use that as leverage to make this guy's lawsuit more of a gamble-- I can drag his name through mud and stick it on the top of HN, such that he will have more difficulty getting a job in SV after this lawsuit. Unless, of course, he drops the case." Because if that's the motivation, then I think it's pretty clear who is being an asshole.

marincounty 11y ago
I don't know anything about the dispute. Sam Altman sounds genuinely angry. That said, I thought YC would alwready have in place strict agreements, especially mandatory arbitration clauses, when they dole out the money? As to settling, I think about this farmer who was sued by Monsanto for stealing intellectual property. He, and his wife had a dream of a small organic farm somewhere in the south. They were situated next to a big farm that used Monsanto seeds. Pollen from the adjacent property blew onto his property/crop. Monsanto took some of his corn crop and looked for their patented genes. They found some. (I'm unclear of the science behind their claim. I didn't think just pollen from the Monsanto field could take over an entire separate crop of plants?) Anyways, the young couple wanted to vociferously fight the suit. Within weeks they were pretty much beaten up by Monsanto lawyers, detectives, and henchmen (paid witnesses). His neighbor's reluctant advice was unless you want to spend a half million defending your innocence; just settle the Monsanto suit. They have enough money to keep you in court for years. The neighbor didn't even want to be seen with the guy--Monsanto has detectives in the area, and supposedly keep detailed logs on these farmers. If anyone is interested it's all in a documentary, called Eating Alabama.
- blablablame 11y ago
  Not disputing you, but I have heard this story recounted a lot in various ways, but when I remember digging deeper into it, there were things that just didn't match up (basically, the amount of crop that could blew to their fields vs what was found out was very different and most likely had to be intentional). Also, if I remember correctly, Monsanto didn't really sue them. There are a lot of contradictory sources around, but from: http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethics+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htm http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+C... > Wrote the judge, "[the allegations] are unsubstantiated ... given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened." She also complained that the farmers had "overstate[d] the magnitude of [Monsanto's] patent enforcement", which documents indicated entailed 13 cases last year, which she opined "is hardly significant when compared to the number of farms in the United States, approximately two million." ps: not taking sides, just letting you know that MAYBE you have been mislead (as I was)
- lotharbot 11y ago
  I read the full details of a Monsanto-vs-farmer court case not that long ago that sounded a lot like the one you describe. If we're talking about the same case, the missing part of the story is that the farmers knew they had Monsanto seeds mixed in to their crop and then intentionally isolated those seeds and replanted only those seeds for the next year. Specifically, they sprayed with pesticides that kill "organic" crops but that Monsanto crops are engineered to be immune to, for the purpose of having genetically-engineered seeds for the next season without paying the required licensing fee. Maybe it's not the same case. But it's worth being aware that people do present their side of a case in the most positive light, even when they're clearly in the wrong when all of the evidence is revealed. (This could apply to either side in this dispute, FWIW.)

marincounty 11y ago

I don't know anything about the dispute. Sam Altman sounds genuinely angry. That said, I thought YC would alwready have in place strict agreements, especially mandatory arbitration clauses, when they dole out the money? As to settling, I think about this farmer who was sued by Monsanto for stealing intellectual property. He, and his wife had a dream of a small organic farm somewhere in the south. They were situated next to a big farm that used Monsanto seeds. Pollen from the adjacent property blew onto his property/crop. Monsanto took some of his corn crop and looked for their patented genes. They found some. (I'm unclear of the science behind their claim. I didn't think just pollen from the Monsanto field could take over an entire separate crop of plants?) Anyways, the young couple wanted to vociferously fight the suit. Within weeks they were pretty much beaten up by Monsanto lawyers, detectives, and henchmen (paid witnesses). His neighbor's reluctant advice was unless you want to spend a half million defending your innocence; just settle the Monsanto suit. They have enough money to keep you in court for years. The neighbor didn't even want to be seen with the guy--Monsanto has detectives in the area, and supposedly keep detailed logs on these farmers. If anyone is interested it's all in a documentary, called Eating Alabama.

blablablame 11y ago
Not disputing you, but I have heard this story recounted a lot in various ways, but when I remember digging deeper into it, there were things that just didn't match up (basically, the amount of crop that could blew to their fields vs what was found out was very different and most likely had to be intentional). Also, if I remember correctly, Monsanto didn't really sue them. There are a lot of contradictory sources around, but from: http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethics+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htm http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+C... > Wrote the judge, "[the allegations] are unsubstantiated ... given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened." She also complained that the farmers had "overstate[d] the magnitude of [Monsanto's] patent enforcement", which documents indicated entailed 13 cases last year, which she opined "is hardly significant when compared to the number of farms in the United States, approximately two million." ps: not taking sides, just letting you know that MAYBE you have been mislead (as I was)
lotharbot 11y ago
I read the full details of a Monsanto-vs-farmer court case not that long ago that sounded a lot like the one you describe. If we're talking about the same case, the missing part of the story is that the farmers knew they had Monsanto seeds mixed in to their crop and then intentionally isolated those seeds and replanted only those seeds for the next year. Specifically, they sprayed with pesticides that kill "organic" crops but that Monsanto crops are engineered to be immune to, for the purpose of having genetically-engineered seeds for the next season without paying the required licensing fee. Maybe it's not the same case. But it's worth being aware that people do present their side of a case in the most positive light, even when they're clearly in the wrong when all of the evidence is revealed. (This could apply to either side in this dispute, FWIW.)