3 ms·

I haven’t read the full article but this feels like a very American thing to me, a more powerful and wealthier party taking advantage of a weaker, dependant par

I haven’t read the full article but this feels like a very American thing to me, a more powerful and wealthier party taking advantage of a weaker, dependant party to save the VC partners some money. I’m sure I’ll get downvoted first this, and I know it’s not quite what the title means but yeah paying my VC’s legal fees and having no choice over the firm they used really wound me up.

o_class_star 6y ago
This is in reference to the American standard business practice ("American Rule") whereby each party to a transaction pays its own legal bills. It is not necessarily connected to the more general American work culture (which I agree is as you characterized it, although I hope that changes with the recent defeat of the final boss of Boomer capitalism).
- simonbarker87 6y ago
  Yeah, I get what it was in actual reference too, I was just inferring a secondary meaning around American business practices and the Must Win culture that is prevalent in American society. I like “Boss of the Boomers”
  - o_class_star 6y ago
    The last movement of "Dancing Mad" (FF6) has been playing in my head all week.
simonebrunozzi 6y ago
From the article/blog post: > The VC industry does not follow the American Rule. The unwritten rule is founders must pay for their own attorneys’ fees, plus their VC’s legal fees, up to a negotiated cap. So, if you did just read the first few sentences, you would have known why the author claims this aspect to be un-American.
- watwut 6y ago
  I don't think this was reference to that particular rule. It was reference to reputation American businesses have and reputation "American ideology" have - that they consider more powerful people taking advantage of weaker one perfectly fine. That is the reputation.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    > That is the reputation. No, it's actually not. Is this some kind of lefty marxist re-narrative of America? I've been reading financial newspapers for decades, and have no idea what you're talking about in the B2B world. In the B2C world, the only recent change is binding arbitration. But consumers have lemon laws, etc.
  - harveyesq 6y ago
    Actually, that's close to what it was saying: "The American Rule" is a reference to a norm in law that your opponent pays for their own legal fees, and you pay for yours. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_... Compare this internationally: • The English rule is used, under which the losing party pays the prevailing party's attorneys' fees. So the American rule is that each party bear their own costs of litigation. Contracts allow parties to fee shift. Although the article equates fee splitting as the American rule, there's technically no such rule for transactions, but it does represent the general American sentiment on the subject, which is that parties should bear their own costs. Requiring the weaker party in a transaction to shoulder the financial load of a dominant party may be a common capitalistic practice, but it's not an American ideal.
satisfaction 6y ago
Would you claim that European rich groups don't toss their weight around?
- watwut 6y ago
  They do, but in different style. They pretend they don't while American style is to defend it or even brag about it m
  - satisfaction 6y ago
    If you earned it then defending it or bragging about it may not make everyone feel great but that is fine in my opinion. When I see a rich person enjoying what they worked for I don't feel any type of way. What someone else does with their property should not affect you, if it does then look into your own personality and ask yourself why. It's rude to count someone else's money unless they ask you for that service.

o_class_star 6y ago

This is in reference to the American standard business practice ("American Rule") whereby each party to a transaction pays its own legal bills. It is not necessarily connected to the more general American work culture (which I agree is as you characterized it, although I hope that changes with the recent defeat of the final boss of Boomer capitalism).

simonbarker87 6y ago
Yeah, I get what it was in actual reference too, I was just inferring a secondary meaning around American business practices and the Must Win culture that is prevalent in American society. I like “Boss of the Boomers”
- o_class_star 6y ago
  The last movement of "Dancing Mad" (FF6) has been playing in my head all week.

simonebrunozzi 6y ago

From the article/blog post: > The VC industry does not follow the American Rule. The unwritten rule is founders must pay for their own attorneys’ fees, plus their VC’s legal fees, up to a negotiated cap. So, if you did just read the first few sentences, you would have known why the author claims this aspect to be un-American.

watwut 6y ago
I don't think this was reference to that particular rule. It was reference to reputation American businesses have and reputation "American ideology" have - that they consider more powerful people taking advantage of weaker one perfectly fine. That is the reputation.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > That is the reputation. No, it's actually not. Is this some kind of lefty marxist re-narrative of America? I've been reading financial newspapers for decades, and have no idea what you're talking about in the B2B world. In the B2C world, the only recent change is binding arbitration. But consumers have lemon laws, etc.
- harveyesq 6y ago
  Actually, that's close to what it was saying: "The American Rule" is a reference to a norm in law that your opponent pays for their own legal fees, and you pay for yours. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_... Compare this internationally: • The English rule is used, under which the losing party pays the prevailing party's attorneys' fees. So the American rule is that each party bear their own costs of litigation. Contracts allow parties to fee shift. Although the article equates fee splitting as the American rule, there's technically no such rule for transactions, but it does represent the general American sentiment on the subject, which is that parties should bear their own costs. Requiring the weaker party in a transaction to shoulder the financial load of a dominant party may be a common capitalistic practice, but it's not an American ideal.

satisfaction 6y ago

Would you claim that European rich groups don't toss their weight around?

watwut 6y ago
They do, but in different style. They pretend they don't while American style is to defend it or even brag about it m
- satisfaction 6y ago
  If you earned it then defending it or bragging about it may not make everyone feel great but that is fine in my opinion. When I see a rich person enjoying what they worked for I don't feel any type of way. What someone else does with their property should not affect you, if it does then look into your own personality and ask yourself why. It's rude to count someone else's money unless they ask you for that service.