3 ms·

Good Lord. If anything, having YC people there to walk you through that debacle is worth the price of admission alone. Paul, how much of that document did you

Good Lord. If anything, having YC people there to walk you through that debacle is worth the price of admission alone. Paul, how much of that document did you actually understand when you signed it, and how much was blind faith in your lawyers? (Serious question actually)

pg 18y ago
I consider deal documents to be object code, and my lawyers' explanation of what's in them to be source code. I inspect the source code fairly carefully, but I do generally have blind faith in the compiler, in the sense that I don't read the documents myself to see if the lawyers' interpretation of them is correct. From what I've seen, I'd guess this level of understanding of deal documents is the norm.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  Thanks for the answer. I'm glad it's the norm, because to be honest, being on this site, more often than not I feel pretty stupid. It's nice to know that even those experienced in business deals don't understand all the legalese. The fact that I can somewhat read them doesn't make me feel so dumb!
- chris_l 18y ago
  Do they give you written explanations then?
  - pg 18y ago
    Sometimes, by email, but more often you talk to them on the phone.
- ph0rque 18y ago
  > I consider deal documents to be object code, and my lawyers' explanation of what's in them to be source code. PG, whenever you're ready to open-source some of the startup documents you've talked about, I hope you include this sort of "source-code" along with the "compiled" version.
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  After a while it's pretty easy to see past the boilerplate. Has anyone ever made the analogy literal by creating a language that 1) describes contracts (like this: http://szabo.best.vwh.net/contractlanguage.html http://szabo.best.vwh.net/contractlanguage.html), and 2) a compiler that turns it into something you could upload to the SEC, print and sign, or whatever?
  - briansmith 18y ago
    This is done for contracts between insurance companies and hospitals all the time. There are also contract compilers and DSLs for financial instruments.

pg 18y ago

I consider deal documents to be object code, and my lawyers' explanation of what's in them to be source code. I inspect the source code fairly carefully, but I do generally have blind faith in the compiler, in the sense that I don't read the documents myself to see if the lawyers' interpretation of them is correct. From what I've seen, I'd guess this level of understanding of deal documents is the norm.

run4yourlives 18y ago
Thanks for the answer. I'm glad it's the norm, because to be honest, being on this site, more often than not I feel pretty stupid. It's nice to know that even those experienced in business deals don't understand all the legalese. The fact that I can somewhat read them doesn't make me feel so dumb!
chris_l 18y ago
Do they give you written explanations then?
- pg 18y ago
  Sometimes, by email, but more often you talk to them on the phone.
ph0rque 18y ago
> I consider deal documents to be object code, and my lawyers' explanation of what's in them to be source code. PG, whenever you're ready to open-source some of the startup documents you've talked about, I hope you include this sort of "source-code" along with the "compiled" version.
byrneseyeview 18y ago
After a while it's pretty easy to see past the boilerplate. Has anyone ever made the analogy literal by creating a language that 1) describes contracts (like this: http://szabo.best.vwh.net/contractlanguage.html http://szabo.best.vwh.net/contractlanguage.html), and 2) a compiler that turns it into something you could upload to the SEC, print and sign, or whatever?
- briansmith 18y ago
  This is done for contracts between insurance companies and hospitals all the time. There are also contract compilers and DSLs for financial instruments.