3 ms·
The "loser pays" was a wedge issue to see if the guy would be honest about his intentions. In a lot of these negotiations you have to use what you know about t
by throwway120385 3y ago
The "loser pays" was a wedge issue to see if the guy would be honest about his intentions.
In a lot of these negotiations you have to use what you know about the actual party to decide what to ask for and how to behave. In this case, they knew that the VC was well known for pushing his technical partner out of the company using a lawsuit when the R&D timeline inevitably slipped, and then taking over the company. When you know that about someone you make it a wedge issue -- are you going to do that to me? And if you say that's not your intention, then why don't you feel secure giving me more protection in the contract?
If it wasn't about lawsuits but about something else like terms or board seats they would've used a different test. But they were negotiating with a person, not an abstract concept, and that's why they went the direction they did.
- taneq 3y ago> And if you say that's not your intention, then why don't you feel secure giving me more protection in the contract? This is the crux of it for me. If you don’t intend to enforce a clause, you won’t argue about taking it out. If you say you don’t intend to enforce it, but you refuse to take it out, you’re being dishonest and we’re done here.