12 ms·

Wait! According to that it was on the very first Apple II (as Bill said)! > [The Apple II] also came with Microsoft's Basic interpreter, dubbed "Applesoft Basi

by 10ren 16y ago

Wait! According to that it was on the very first Apple II (as Bill said)! > [The Apple II] also came with Microsoft's Basic interpreter, dubbed "Applesoft Basic", on cassette tape. BTW: Sculley seems villainous in that, too. Then again, what about that story Woz tells, of Jobs lying to him about how much he'd get for their project, so that Woz's "half" was less. You know, I tend to see business as a partly adversarial/competitive game. That's not something I cope with well personally, but that's how I see it. From that perspective, Bill's opportunistic exploitation seems well-done, even talented. Personal story: in one deal I negotiated, with a very cool and impressive biotech company that I admired greatly, was with their lawyers. I was warned about them by other members of the company, but I have a law degree myself, so I thought ha ha I'll be fine. But what they did was to smother the contract with typographical changes, so that in the diff, the genuine changes were hidden - and they made a substantive change that they didn't tell me about, and that we hadn't discussed. I was outraged, so I cut off the negotiations. I felt seriously unsettled that I was destroying the value that the transaction would have created, but my key realization was that in dealing with people like that, sooner or later they'd catch me out. So I guess I'm not really OK with Bill's approach at all. I draft my contracts very defensively, but most people aren't like that company (or like Bill), so it's quite possible I miss out on fruitful collaboration because of my "safe" approach.

rbanffy 16y ago
I believe there is nothing wrong with defensive contracts. Unless one business partner intents to screw the other, the defensiveness of the contract is moot. I like to explain, when such defensiveness comes into negotiations, that we should be prepared to the eventuality of either CEO being murdered and taken over by a psychopathic double. A good contract is balanced and forces both parties to play fair, just in case they need such kind of cohersion. It's also OK to decide you won't deal with Company A because they (or their lawyers) cannot be trusted or because, for any kind of reason, they don't play fair. By dealing with them you send the wrong message - that this is admissible - and enable them to continue on this path hurting other companies they deal with. And yes, Jobs doesn't come through as a very nice guy. I am not sure I would like to work for him.
- 10ren 16y ago
  Great explanation, thank you. Now that you say it, it reminds me of how a law school lecturer explained that often litigation was exactly as you describe: there wasn't a breakdown of relations, but it was due to a bankruptcy/death, and insurance companies then litigated it to the hilt (which, rationally, they should do, so they know exactly what the law is, and can adjust premiums appropriately to reflect the risk they will bear. But in practice, the fighting and blaming is pretty unpleasant) The meat of the case is the story of the previous agreement of the parties, so you could get an excessively jaded view of business if you assumed that people kept on turning on each other afterwards. In law school, every agreement ends in disaster.

by 10ren 16y ago

rbanffy 16y ago

I believe there is nothing wrong with defensive contracts. Unless one business partner intents to screw the other, the defensiveness of the contract is moot. I like to explain, when such defensiveness comes into negotiations, that we should be prepared to the eventuality of either CEO being murdered and taken over by a psychopathic double. A good contract is balanced and forces both parties to play fair, just in case they need such kind of cohersion. It's also OK to decide you won't deal with Company A because they (or their lawyers) cannot be trusted or because, for any kind of reason, they don't play fair. By dealing with them you send the wrong message - that this is admissible - and enable them to continue on this path hurting other companies they deal with. And yes, Jobs doesn't come through as a very nice guy. I am not sure I would like to work for him.

10ren 16y ago
Great explanation, thank you. Now that you say it, it reminds me of how a law school lecturer explained that often litigation was exactly as you describe: there wasn't a breakdown of relations, but it was due to a bankruptcy/death, and insurance companies then litigated it to the hilt (which, rationally, they should do, so they know exactly what the law is, and can adjust premiums appropriately to reflect the risk they will bear. But in practice, the fighting and blaming is pretty unpleasant) The meat of the case is the story of the previous agreement of the parties, so you could get an excessively jaded view of business if you assumed that people kept on turning on each other afterwards. In law school, every agreement ends in disaster.