4 ms·

Just because something is a blatant ripoff, doesn't mean it's not a good investment. VCs are doing investments based on predicted ROI, not uniqueness. Lyft and

Just because something is a blatant ripoff, doesn't mean it's not a good investment. VCs are doing investments based on predicted ROI, not uniqueness. Lyft and Uber are extremely similar, but the particulars of the business are much more relevant to the investment opportunity.

gnicholas 7y ago
Sure, but neither of them was illegally copying aspects of the others' business. Business models are not protectable.
- matz1 7y ago
  illegal or not is for the court to decide.
  - gnicholas 7y ago
    Are you suggesting that the article isn't describing an open and shut case, our that business models may in fact be protectable? As a former lawyer, I would say that neither of these is even a remotely close call (assuming the description is accurate).
    - matz1 7y ago
      Yes, that depends on how good are their lawyer argue it in court. Maybe they know something we don't.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Technically, yes. But practically, in cases so blatantly obvious it is fine to draw your own conclusion. In one court case - where a company I had a majority stake in was the plaintiff - the defendant basically had to admit that they copied the code and content of our website. Their defense: 'we did not copy it from them, we copied it from someone else' (without specifying what the 'someone else' was). Needless to say that did not end well, we were surprised they actually went to court but since this was in a country where the loser pays the court costs of the winner that did not overly bother me.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Isn't that testament that their lawyer simply is not good?
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        Lawyers do not call the shots, clients do. So if a client wants to take a losing battle to court a typical lawyer will caution them but will not hand in their commission.
        matz1 7y ago
        No client want to lose. Maybe they choose the wrong lawyer? Maybe they shouldn't just use 'typical' lawyer. Especially for difficult case.
        jacquesm 7y ago
        That was about as unwinnable as they come. So no, that wasn't the wrong lawyer, that was simply the wrong client. https://webwereld.nl/overheid/10591-webcamsites-bevechten-elkaar-in-rechtszaal https://webwereld.nl/overheid/10591-webcamsites-bevechten-el... (Dutch)
        matz1 7y ago
        No case are unwinnable. At least not with that attitude. Look at the O.J. Simpson case for example.
        jacquesm 7y ago
        He lost the civil suit. And the only reason you bring it up is because it is exceptional. The general rule is that the courts tend to get it right but there are obvious (and glaring) exceptions. The quality of your lawyer will help in the gray areas, and may get you a reduced sentence in case of a criminal affair but in general you will lose if you go to court with a case where you were in the wrong. It's not a perfect system but for most cases it works out.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Deciding it on your own before the court battle might save you millions of dollars of your own invested money.

gnicholas 7y ago

Sure, but neither of them was illegally copying aspects of the others' business. Business models are not protectable.

matz1 7y ago
illegal or not is for the court to decide.
- gnicholas 7y ago
  Are you suggesting that the article isn't describing an open and shut case, our that business models may in fact be protectable? As a former lawyer, I would say that neither of these is even a remotely close call (assuming the description is accurate).
  - matz1 7y ago
    Yes, that depends on how good are their lawyer argue it in court. Maybe they know something we don't.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Technically, yes. But practically, in cases so blatantly obvious it is fine to draw your own conclusion. In one court case - where a company I had a majority stake in was the plaintiff - the defendant basically had to admit that they copied the code and content of our website. Their defense: 'we did not copy it from them, we copied it from someone else' (without specifying what the 'someone else' was). Needless to say that did not end well, we were surprised they actually went to court but since this was in a country where the loser pays the court costs of the winner that did not overly bother me.
  - matz1 7y ago
    Isn't that testament that their lawyer simply is not good?
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      Lawyers do not call the shots, clients do. So if a client wants to take a losing battle to court a typical lawyer will caution them but will not hand in their commission.
      - matz1 7y ago
        No client want to lose. Maybe they choose the wrong lawyer? Maybe they shouldn't just use 'typical' lawyer. Especially for difficult case.
        jacquesm 7y ago
        That was about as unwinnable as they come. So no, that wasn't the wrong lawyer, that was simply the wrong client. https://webwereld.nl/overheid/10591-webcamsites-bevechten-elkaar-in-rechtszaal https://webwereld.nl/overheid/10591-webcamsites-bevechten-el... (Dutch)
        matz1 7y ago
        No case are unwinnable. At least not with that attitude. Look at the O.J. Simpson case for example.
        jacquesm 7y ago
        He lost the civil suit. And the only reason you bring it up is because it is exceptional. The general rule is that the courts tend to get it right but there are obvious (and glaring) exceptions. The quality of your lawyer will help in the gray areas, and may get you a reduced sentence in case of a criminal affair but in general you will lose if you go to court with a case where you were in the wrong. It's not a perfect system but for most cases it works out.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Deciding it on your own before the court battle might save you millions of dollars of your own invested money.