3 ms·

A joint venture (or a legal entity aka as a company) operates under very different rules than parties working together, probably without a contract. I don't kn

by inerte 16y ago

A joint venture (or a legal entity aka as a company) operates under very different rules than parties working together, probably without a contract. I don't know how the antitrust laws apply, not even if what they are doing collude with any law at all, despite preventing healthy competition, but your questions come from the wrong premises.

tptacek 16y ago
As we just saw with TechCrunch v FusionGarage, the paper contract has little to do with whether something is or isn't a joint venture. Broaden the word "antitrust" to "laws against all contracts in restraint of trade", and re-ask the question to yourself. These people are investors. Investors are allowed to work together, aren't they?
- inerte 16y ago
  I don't know what law they broke (if any at all). I don't know if they can keep doing whatever they are doing. I was just arguing against "legal to ... agree to merge and start a fund?", because yes, it would be legal. You're saying they are one step of becoming something we all agree it's ok to do. But they haven't take this step. Again, I'm not saying they're doing something illegal. Just that you can't apply the "joint-venture/company" operating rules for them, because this is not what they are. Bringing "what if" conditions to a situation doesn't change it. You have to analyze for what it is. Sorry if it looked like I disagree with you about the legality. I just didn't think you had a strong backup for the questions.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Before I turn into "the guy on the thread arguing that the Evil Angels are just peachy", banding together for the sole purpose of pushing back YC and making life harder for founder is a total dick move, and I'm happy Arrington is shaming them for it. But it is a much more ambitious claim to say that they're breaking federal laws by doing it.

3 ms·

A joint venture (or a legal entity aka as a company) operates under very different rules than parties working together, probably without a contract. I don't kn

by inerte 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago
As we just saw with TechCrunch v FusionGarage, the paper contract has little to do with whether something is or isn't a joint venture. Broaden the word "antitrust" to "laws against all contracts in restraint of trade", and re-ask the question to yourself. These people are investors. Investors are allowed to work together, aren't they?
- inerte 16y ago
  I don't know what law they broke (if any at all). I don't know if they can keep doing whatever they are doing. I was just arguing against "legal to ... agree to merge and start a fund?", because yes, it would be legal. You're saying they are one step of becoming something we all agree it's ok to do. But they haven't take this step. Again, I'm not saying they're doing something illegal. Just that you can't apply the "joint-venture/company" operating rules for them, because this is not what they are. Bringing "what if" conditions to a situation doesn't change it. You have to analyze for what it is. Sorry if it looked like I disagree with you about the legality. I just didn't think you had a strong backup for the questions.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Before I turn into "the guy on the thread arguing that the Evil Angels are just peachy", banding together for the sole purpose of pushing back YC and making life harder for founder is a total dick move, and I'm happy Arrington is shaming them for it. But it is a much more ambitious claim to say that they're breaking federal laws by doing it.