6 ms·

Something specific, or just unethical behavior in general?

by trevyn 9y ago

gizmo 9y ago
Most unethical behavior doesn't pay. Some unethical behavior is staggeringly profitable. I don't want to go into detail, because the less known these things are the better. I think there are two main cases: 1) business models based on the exploitation of others, and 2) low margin businesses where ethical players get crushed by those willing to take unethical/illegal shortcuts. Luckily you _can_ become successful even if you rigidly adhere to the highest ethical standards, you just have to choose your business model carefully.
lisper 9y ago
Not "in general", but there is a long list of unethical behaviors that, sadly, can contribute to success. Selling snake oil. Abusing monopolies. Flat-out lying. However, it's not good to go to the other extreme. I've seen companies fail because the CEO bent over too far backwards to be ethical and as a result let people walk all over him. One of the qualities that seems to be required in a successful founder is a willingness to be an asshole when circumstances demand it (and being able to tell what those circumstances are!)
- gizmo 9y ago
  It's not _required_ to be unethical, it's just really tempting when you see others get rewarded for their unethical behavior. "When circumstances demand it" is of course the excuse of all unethical people throughout history. Total weak sauce.
  - watwut 9y ago
    I agree, but there is also subtle difference between unethical and asshole. You can be ethical asshole.
    - gizmo 9y ago
      "Asshole" was used in contrast to being "too ethical", so from the context it cannot mean anything except for "unethical". If the parent meant "asshole" in the conventional sense (e.g. parking in two spots) it would make no sense to bring up in this discussion. The parent is rationalizing unethical behavior by classifying it as merely assholish. If you read the post carefully you can see the point where the cognitive dissonance takes place. The parent even said "the other extreme" is being too ethical, so he's clearing arguing that acting too ethical is undesirable.
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    Try being the only one without a pile of patents on important tech in a patent war. Offensive use of patents + piles of money from market share and their own lock-in are among the reasons newer, big players are holding off older ones in the patent suits designed to eliminate competition with older ones. Originally, I thought I could just avoid what was patented until I learned how vague and ridiculous they are. Plus, there's said to be 200,000+ patents that could cover smartphones alone. Where would I start if doing legal, due diligence? Then, maybe I'd license them for a fair amount. I found NDA'd offers, high-balling, and even I.P. holders suing people w/ Oracle demanding $25 per Android phone for its tiny slice of smartphone patents, Java, or whatever. So much more honest licensing. So, status quo for tech companies is to not read on patents (avoid knowing infringement), grow as fast as they can no matter what patent laws they violate, accumulate their own patents where possible for use in self-defense, and build up lawyer money. One day, when the attacks come, the company will be ready for a solid defense where it claims it didn't know about the patents, they're void, or they're overpriced. This might also be leverage for a better deal during an acquisition. The operating environment is unethical in its very nature with certain things such as patents, trademarks, copyright, lock-in w/ formats/protocols (eg walled gardens) and so on. So, those that can use them will get a financial advantage. Those that don't might get so much less of the market they get squashed or denied a fortune they could be doing a lot of good with. Lots of grey areas to think through in these sorts of things.
    - gizmo 9y ago
      > Lots of grey areas to think through in these sorts of things. Smart people can come up with elaborate justifications for anything, if they take the time to "think it through". Arguments that "they could be doing a lot of good" is basically "the end justifies the means". That's the opposite of morality. Maybe an executive is doing a lot of good and so it would be bad for society if he went to prison for a hit-and-run. Better cover up the crime so the good guy can keep doing the good things he so goodly does. All for the benefit of society, of course.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      You have an unusual set of ethics there. What you're describing for patents is not violating patent law, and I doubt you'd find many people in the tech industry who would equate potentially infringing someone's patent to adopting source code you don't own into your product in a copyright-infringing way.
  - srtjstjsj 9y ago
    If you are not unethical _and a competitor is_, the competitor will have an edge.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  You have to be willing to drive a hard bargain, but that's not unethical, nor does it make you an asshole. I'm not sure being an outright asshole is ever required. Do you think it is?
  - lisper 9y ago
    Yes. Mainly when dealing with other assholes.
    - ScottBurson 9y ago
      Okay, I can see that :-)
  - srtjstjsj 9y ago
    Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg agree that being an outright backstabbing asshole is required. Larry Page and Sergey Brin do not.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Anyone who defends Uber's behavior is shouted down. Are Uber's actions an example of necessary assholish behavior? In particular their Hell application for tracking Lyfts, which required using Lyft's APIs? The problem with this vague advice is it leaves it to the reader to interpret what is and isn't ok. And readers are notoriously bad at this.
  - lisper 9y ago
    > Are Uber's actions an example of necessary assholish behavior? No, I don't think so. But I have a conflict of interest here because in 2008 I made my own attempt at starting an Uber-like thing (I called it iCab). It failed before launch because we were unable to get any of the local cab companies to work with us. The idea of using black cars never occurred to us, so Travis gets props for that. I think he's gone way too far towards the dark side. But on the other hand, he succeeded where I failed so take that into account when deciding how much weight to give my opinion. > The problem with this vague advice Well, the problem is more fundamental than that: it's a judgement call, one which always depends on a totality of the circumstances at the time. I can't give you a formula for how to decide how ass-holey to be, just as I can't give you a formula for making any of the other myriad decisions it takes to successfully build a successful company. If I could do that, I'd be running my own successful company instead of wasting time hobnobbing on HN.
    - vxNsr 9y ago
      I would argue that you were simply too early to market, now that Uber succeeded there are a ton of cab hailing apps trying to keep cabs relevant.
      - lisper 9y ago
        iCab started almost a year after Uber (it was called Ubercab back then). And there were half a dozen other also-rans that started about the same time.
        9y ago
- erikb 9y ago
  Let's not forget stealing. Letting someone else do the hard work of figuring out the Next Big Thing and then taking over is very profitable.

Something specific, or just unethical behavior in general?

by trevyn 9y ago

Something specific, or just unethical behavior in general?

Most unethical behavior doesn't pay. Some unethical behavior is staggeringly profitable. I don't want to go into detail, because the less known these things are the better. I think there are two main cases: 1) business models based on the exploitation of others, and 2) low margin businesses where ethical players get crushed by those willing to take unethical/illegal shortcuts. Luckily you _can_ become successful even if you rigidly adhere to the highest ethical standards, you just have to choose your business model carefully.

lisper 9y ago

Not "in general", but there is a long list of unethical behaviors that, sadly, can contribute to success. Selling snake oil. Abusing monopolies. Flat-out lying. However, it's not good to go to the other extreme. I've seen companies fail because the CEO bent over too far backwards to be ethical and as a result let people walk all over him. One of the qualities that seems to be required in a successful founder is a willingness to be an asshole when circumstances demand it (and being able to tell what those circumstances are!)

gizmo 9y ago
It's not _required_ to be unethical, it's just really tempting when you see others get rewarded for their unethical behavior. "When circumstances demand it" is of course the excuse of all unethical people throughout history. Total weak sauce.
- watwut 9y ago
  I agree, but there is also subtle difference between unethical and asshole. You can be ethical asshole.
  - gizmo 9y ago
    "Asshole" was used in contrast to being "too ethical", so from the context it cannot mean anything except for "unethical". If the parent meant "asshole" in the conventional sense (e.g. parking in two spots) it would make no sense to bring up in this discussion. The parent is rationalizing unethical behavior by classifying it as merely assholish. If you read the post carefully you can see the point where the cognitive dissonance takes place. The parent even said "the other extreme" is being too ethical, so he's clearing arguing that acting too ethical is undesirable.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  Try being the only one without a pile of patents on important tech in a patent war. Offensive use of patents + piles of money from market share and their own lock-in are among the reasons newer, big players are holding off older ones in the patent suits designed to eliminate competition with older ones. Originally, I thought I could just avoid what was patented until I learned how vague and ridiculous they are. Plus, there's said to be 200,000+ patents that could cover smartphones alone. Where would I start if doing legal, due diligence? Then, maybe I'd license them for a fair amount. I found NDA'd offers, high-balling, and even I.P. holders suing people w/ Oracle demanding $25 per Android phone for its tiny slice of smartphone patents, Java, or whatever. So much more honest licensing. So, status quo for tech companies is to not read on patents (avoid knowing infringement), grow as fast as they can no matter what patent laws they violate, accumulate their own patents where possible for use in self-defense, and build up lawyer money. One day, when the attacks come, the company will be ready for a solid defense where it claims it didn't know about the patents, they're void, or they're overpriced. This might also be leverage for a better deal during an acquisition. The operating environment is unethical in its very nature with certain things such as patents, trademarks, copyright, lock-in w/ formats/protocols (eg walled gardens) and so on. So, those that can use them will get a financial advantage. Those that don't might get so much less of the market they get squashed or denied a fortune they could be doing a lot of good with. Lots of grey areas to think through in these sorts of things.
  - gizmo 9y ago
    > Lots of grey areas to think through in these sorts of things. Smart people can come up with elaborate justifications for anything, if they take the time to "think it through". Arguments that "they could be doing a lot of good" is basically "the end justifies the means". That's the opposite of morality. Maybe an executive is doing a lot of good and so it would be bad for society if he went to prison for a hit-and-run. Better cover up the crime so the good guy can keep doing the good things he so goodly does. All for the benefit of society, of course.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    You have an unusual set of ethics there. What you're describing for patents is not violating patent law, and I doubt you'd find many people in the tech industry who would equate potentially infringing someone's patent to adopting source code you don't own into your product in a copyright-infringing way.
- srtjstjsj 9y ago
  If you are not unethical _and a competitor is_, the competitor will have an edge.
ScottBurson 9y ago
You have to be willing to drive a hard bargain, but that's not unethical, nor does it make you an asshole. I'm not sure being an outright asshole is ever required. Do you think it is?
- lisper 9y ago
  Yes. Mainly when dealing with other assholes.
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    Okay, I can see that :-)
- srtjstjsj 9y ago
  Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg agree that being an outright backstabbing asshole is required. Larry Page and Sergey Brin do not.
sillysaurus3 9y ago
Anyone who defends Uber's behavior is shouted down. Are Uber's actions an example of necessary assholish behavior? In particular their Hell application for tracking Lyfts, which required using Lyft's APIs? The problem with this vague advice is it leaves it to the reader to interpret what is and isn't ok. And readers are notoriously bad at this.
- lisper 9y ago
  > Are Uber's actions an example of necessary assholish behavior? No, I don't think so. But I have a conflict of interest here because in 2008 I made my own attempt at starting an Uber-like thing (I called it iCab). It failed before launch because we were unable to get any of the local cab companies to work with us. The idea of using black cars never occurred to us, so Travis gets props for that. I think he's gone way too far towards the dark side. But on the other hand, he succeeded where I failed so take that into account when deciding how much weight to give my opinion. > The problem with this vague advice Well, the problem is more fundamental than that: it's a judgement call, one which always depends on a totality of the circumstances at the time. I can't give you a formula for how to decide how ass-holey to be, just as I can't give you a formula for making any of the other myriad decisions it takes to successfully build a successful company. If I could do that, I'd be running my own successful company instead of wasting time hobnobbing on HN.
  - vxNsr 9y ago
    I would argue that you were simply too early to market, now that Uber succeeded there are a ton of cab hailing apps trying to keep cabs relevant.
    - lisper 9y ago
      iCab started almost a year after Uber (it was called Ubercab back then). And there were half a dozen other also-rans that started about the same time.
      - 9y ago
erikb 9y ago
Let's not forget stealing. Letting someone else do the hard work of figuring out the Next Big Thing and then taking over is very profitable.