4 ms·

Part of the reason to make promises is that they are legally enforceable: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/promissory_estoppel.asp https://www.investopedia

by wegs 6y ago

Part of the reason to make promises is that they are legally enforceable: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/promissory_estoppel.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/promissory_estoppel.asp When I started an organization which was taken over in a rather hostile way, I was very careful to make a bunch of legally-binding promises before the takeover happened, to help prevent it from becoming too evil.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> When I started an organization which was taken over in a rather hostile way, I was very careful to make a bunch of legally-binding promises before the takeover happened, to help prevent it from becoming too evil. I'm glad you had the presence of mind to do this and I'd be interested to hear your hostile takeover story. Thanks in advance.
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  I'd love to hear that story as well, and the nature of the legally binding promises you managed to make.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    It's probably too soon. Over the course of my career, I've encountered a significant number of really juicy stories that I tend not to explain, as there's a lot to lose and not very much to gain. Traditionally, the purpose of autobiography is to tell all of these stories.
    - wegs 6y ago
      This is exactly the case. I've got enough potential liability piled up there that I think some of these stories will only come out once I'm good and dead. Not just legal liability -- although I did sign an NDA/non-disparage -- bringing up dirt from past businesses is like mudwrestling with a pig: everyone ends up looking dirty. In this case, I'm glad to say I acted with complete integrity at every point, but knowing the parties involved, we'd end up in a cesspool of rumors and falsehoods, and no one would come out looking clean. Live. Learn. Move onto the next business. Give advice in generics. Some people will believe you, and others won't.
      - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        My philosophy exactly. The phrase wrestling with a pig in the muck comes to mind....
- jjeaff 6y ago
  I don't think a promise to offer something free forever is necessarily binding unless there is consideration from the other party. Pay a one time fee and get unlimited minutes forever, that would likely be binding. But in this case, recipients of the freebie didn't have to offer anything to Travis in exchange.
  - type0 6y ago
    > Pay a one time fee and get unlimited minutes forever, that would likely be binding. Would or wouldn't you'll never know, looking at you HP, ink for life =?> ya right https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/12/hp_free_printing/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/12/hp_free_printing/
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      I'm sure there will be some ensuing legal battles over that one.
kroggen 6y ago
Please share more info about your case
aargh_aargh 6y ago
IANAL, but I don't think that would be applicable in this case: > Another requirement further qualifies the required detriment component; the promisee must have suffered an actual substantial detriment in the form of an economic loss that results from the promisor failing to deliver on his or her promise. Finally, promissory estoppel is usually only granted if a court determines that enforcing the promise is essentially the only means by which injustice to the promisee can be rectified. The open source project would not suffer an economic loss by not using Travis. They would be free to stop using Travis or go to another competitor providing a free plan. Exceptions to the above I can think of: * Travis didn't charge them, then started charging them despite the promise * they suffer an unrelated economic loss because they stop using CI * they're forced to hire someone to convert them to another CI system (economic loss in form of wages, money to operate their own CI), though the loss would have t obe substantial (is that relative? e.g. in case of a low budget, is even a small sum substantial?)
- wegs 6y ago
  IANAL either, but I think, if someone were to take it to court, it would: 1) Travis achieved a market-dominant position in part thanks to widespread use by open source projects. 2) Open source projects invested significant resources into integrating with Travis based on their promise. 3) Moving to something else would take significant resources. The exact loses are probably exactly how much it would cost to pay to continue to use Travis (and collecting some of that money is precisely why Travis stopped offering a free service). If it wasn't significant, Travis wouldn't have made the change. That doesn't mean it's worth anyone's time to litigate. As a footnote, the traditional way to handle something like this is to continue to provide a free service, but to make it worse and worse and worse. Travis could satisfice the promise by keeping an insecure Raspberry Pi under someone's desk running old code as the "server farm" for open source. Courts don't necessarily consider satisificing to be following through on a promise, but costs of litigation go way up when there are open legal questions like that. At that point, it's usually almost definitely not worth anyone's time to litigate.

by wegs 6y ago

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> When I started an organization which was taken over in a rather hostile way, I was very careful to make a bunch of legally-binding promises before the takeover happened, to help prevent it from becoming too evil. I'm glad you had the presence of mind to do this and I'd be interested to hear your hostile takeover story. Thanks in advance.

JoshTriplett 6y ago
I'd love to hear that story as well, and the nature of the legally binding promises you managed to make.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  It's probably too soon. Over the course of my career, I've encountered a significant number of really juicy stories that I tend not to explain, as there's a lot to lose and not very much to gain. Traditionally, the purpose of autobiography is to tell all of these stories.
  - wegs 6y ago
    This is exactly the case. I've got enough potential liability piled up there that I think some of these stories will only come out once I'm good and dead. Not just legal liability -- although I did sign an NDA/non-disparage -- bringing up dirt from past businesses is like mudwrestling with a pig: everyone ends up looking dirty. In this case, I'm glad to say I acted with complete integrity at every point, but knowing the parties involved, we'd end up in a cesspool of rumors and falsehoods, and no one would come out looking clean. Live. Learn. Move onto the next business. Give advice in generics. Some people will believe you, and others won't.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      My philosophy exactly. The phrase wrestling with a pig in the muck comes to mind....
jjeaff 6y ago
I don't think a promise to offer something free forever is necessarily binding unless there is consideration from the other party. Pay a one time fee and get unlimited minutes forever, that would likely be binding. But in this case, recipients of the freebie didn't have to offer anything to Travis in exchange.
- type0 6y ago
  > Pay a one time fee and get unlimited minutes forever, that would likely be binding. Would or wouldn't you'll never know, looking at you HP, ink for life =?> ya right https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/12/hp_free_printing/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/12/hp_free_printing/
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    I'm sure there will be some ensuing legal battles over that one.

kroggen 6y ago

Please share more info about your case

aargh_aargh 6y ago

IANAL, but I don't think that would be applicable in this case: > Another requirement further qualifies the required detriment component; the promisee must have suffered an actual substantial detriment in the form of an economic loss that results from the promisor failing to deliver on his or her promise. Finally, promissory estoppel is usually only granted if a court determines that enforcing the promise is essentially the only means by which injustice to the promisee can be rectified. The open source project would not suffer an economic loss by not using Travis. They would be free to stop using Travis or go to another competitor providing a free plan. Exceptions to the above I can think of: * Travis didn't charge them, then started charging them despite the promise * they suffer an unrelated economic loss because they stop using CI * they're forced to hire someone to convert them to another CI system (economic loss in form of wages, money to operate their own CI), though the loss would have t obe substantial (is that relative? e.g. in case of a low budget, is even a small sum substantial?)

wegs 6y ago
IANAL either, but I think, if someone were to take it to court, it would: 1) Travis achieved a market-dominant position in part thanks to widespread use by open source projects. 2) Open source projects invested significant resources into integrating with Travis based on their promise. 3) Moving to something else would take significant resources. The exact loses are probably exactly how much it would cost to pay to continue to use Travis (and collecting some of that money is precisely why Travis stopped offering a free service). If it wasn't significant, Travis wouldn't have made the change. That doesn't mean it's worth anyone's time to litigate. As a footnote, the traditional way to handle something like this is to continue to provide a free service, but to make it worse and worse and worse. Travis could satisfice the promise by keeping an insecure Raspberry Pi under someone's desk running old code as the "server farm" for open source. Courts don't necessarily consider satisificing to be following through on a promise, but costs of litigation go way up when there are open legal questions like that. At that point, it's usually almost definitely not worth anyone's time to litigate.