6 ms·

It's a great quote but there's a problem. Your legal officer, your attorney or anyone at your company should realize that this isn't about them nor is it about

by larrys 13y ago

It's a great quote but there's a problem. Your legal officer, your attorney or anyone at your company should realize that this isn't about them nor is it about (business wise at least) protecting anyone else but the interests of your company. His quote smacks of a challenge that he liked and as such you also have to at least question whether he operated at arms length from the problem at hand. Newegg's business isn't fighting lawsuits.

qq66 13y ago
Newegg is a private company, so its business is whatever its owners want it to be. I don't think this guy has gone rogue, I'm sure he has the full support of Newegg leadership.
mey 13y ago
It could be part of their portfolio. They are obviously willing to fight deeply on issues, nothing preventing someone like Amazon from hiring them for consultancy services.
mullingitover 13y ago
You have to admit, this is fantastic press that gives them incredible amounts of customer goodwill. See also: comment threads all over the internet with people swearing to spend money on NewEgg purchases because of their actions here. Also, this is good long-term planning that is preventing them from being seen as easy targets by patent trolls. It could end up saving them millions.
- larrys 13y ago
  "incredible amounts of customer goodwill" It gives them goodwill the question is how much and what is the amount of sales increase? Hackers tend to overestimate the importance of things like this and not take into account those in flyover country or people who aren't aware of things like this. Besides publicity gain isn't a reason to pursue a strategy like this. That's not a gamble that makes sense. "easy targets by patent trolls. It could end up saving them millions." Companies have used similar strategies against legal predators for the longest time. Nothing new about doing that. Yet many companies led by responsible legal teams and management also settle and move on. This is not clear cut by any means.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > Hackers tend to overestimate the importance of things like this and not take into account those in flyover country or people who aren't aware of things like this. "'Hacker News' Hackers" also tend to grossly overestimate how well they know what is in the best interests of a company that they personally have little to do with.
    - larrys 13y ago
      ""'Hacker News' Hackers"" Exactly. Take Godaddy (a competitor of ours) which is one of the most hated companies ever discussed on Hacker News. Yet they continue to do great business and are clearly well liked by many others who have no clue or care about the issues that forum readers care about. As an aside, companies that are the darling of any online forum can quickly have their name turn to "mud" if they don't continue to acquiesce to what the group thinks is the right thing to do. (Then the question is does that name turning to mud motivate those to actually take action.)
  - chetanahuja 13y ago
    You seem to be somewhat adamant that this obviously major victory for Newegg was actually some sort of a problem for them. And this against an adversary which managed to extract rent from the likes of Intuit, Zappos, Sears and Amazon. NewEgg's strategy was obvious born out of a principled stand to not give in to unethical patent trolls. This also makes them a much more feared opponent for any future trolls... which is a huge win for the company's investors. "Nothing new about doing that. " Really.. ? Did you read that article ? Could you point to another instance of a company that's been successful against patent trolls to this extent ?
  - dasil003 13y ago
    > Hackers tend to overestimate the importance of things like this and not take into account those in flyover country or people who aren't aware of things like this. "Flyover country" is full of hackers, but in any case, you seem to be completely ignoring Newegg's core demographic. > Yet many companies led by responsible legal teams and management also settle and move on. This is not clear cut by any means. You might even say most. Which is precisely why this is so interesting. I find it disturbing to pursue this line of thought of seriously questioning whether fighting and winning against a patent troll is irresponsible leadership in a company. Doing so plays right into the patent trolls hands. So what if the bean counters can't figure a better ROI than simply settling every time? There are gray areas in business and I think it's incredibly harmful to question whether shareholder interests are being maximally served every time a company does something that might be mistaken for altruism. Should we also denounce any company that goes beyond EPA standards or donates to charity beyond what tax law would dictate optimal?
- ibrahima 13y ago
  Agreed. Personally, I had stopped using Newegg for a while because Amazon Prime made things cheaper for me overall, but Amazon is one of the companies that just pays off these patent trolls, so from now on I'm back to Newegg completely for all my hardware purchases. It's refreshing to see a company with this kind of attitude.
chenster 13y ago
He's also making a 'Dont' mess with us.' statement. I don't see anything wrong about he said. He's proud for what he did not just because it's his job but also for righteous reason.
tmoertel 13y ago
> Newegg's business isn't fighting lawsuits. Correct. Which is why "it's a great quote." By sending the credible signal that they will fight patent trolls to the bitter end, and probably win, they avoid fights. In terms of game theory, by making public statements of this kind, they make it harder for their future selves to settle with future trolls instead of fight. Future trolls, knowing this, will be less likely to target them. Trolls want settlements, not fights they'll probably lose.
- larrys 13y ago
  "Future trolls, knowing this, will be less likely to target them. " We can take strategy further though instead of the obvious implementation. What if you settle in some cases but not all cases? So a troll sees that you settled with company "x" but upon review you feel that you aren't going to settle with them? This happens in personal injury cases or other legal matters. Taking a "we don't settle ever stand" sends a signal that you aren't evaluating the merits of the action just taking a flat approach. Consequently nothing can be inferred as far as how you even view the merits of the action. It's all the same. Otoh, taking a "settle when necessary" doesn't imply you will always settle and sends (I would argue) a stronger message when you do fail to roll over that you aren't because you feel particularly strongly in the case before you. In strategy (that I use for negotiating) I have always found it best to not be predictable.
  - tmoertel 13y ago
    In this case, however, it's better to be perfectly predictable as always fighting trolls. Consider the game tree, as seen by the Troll considering whether to attack Company X: [1.1] troll's payoff = 0 / / no / (1) Troll: attack Company X? \ \ \ yes [1.2.1] troll's payoff = +10 \ / \ / settle \ / (1.2) X: fight or settle? \ \ \ fight [1.2.2.1] troll's payoff = -5 \ / \ / drop \ / (1.2.2) Troll: fight or drop suit? \ \ \ fight [1.2.2.2.1] troll's payoff = +100 \ / \ / Troll wins \ / (1.2.2.2) Nature: Troll wins or loses? \ \ Troll loses \ [1.2.2.2.2] troll's payoff = -1000 The Troll's business model is predicated on the belief that, for almost all values of X, Company X will decide to settle, should the Troll attack. Therefore, the choice from the Troll's perspective is between outcomes [1.1] with a payoff of 0 and [1.2.1] with a payoff of +10. Strategically, the Troll chooses the +10 and attacks. But if a Company X can credibly destroy its option to settle, the Troll's expected payoffs for attacking X change to [1.2.2.1] = -5, [1.2.2.2.1] = +100, and [1.2.2.2.2] = -1000, with the +100 payoff being unlikely (because, if it were likely, the Troll's business model wouldn't be to troll). So the most likely payoffs in the Troll's estimation are either -5 (ouch) or -1000 (OUCH!). Therefore, the Troll's best choice becomes not to attack Company X. That choice has a payoff of 0, but it's greater than the expected payoff should they fight.
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
I like solid companies. This looks like a solid company (to me). They hired the right guy who does the right thing (and is allowed to do so). This tells me a whole lot about the Neweggs culture and I think I like it (rather a lot).

by larrys 13y ago

qq66 13y ago

Newegg is a private company, so its business is whatever its owners want it to be. I don't think this guy has gone rogue, I'm sure he has the full support of Newegg leadership.

mey 13y ago

It could be part of their portfolio. They are obviously willing to fight deeply on issues, nothing preventing someone like Amazon from hiring them for consultancy services.

mullingitover 13y ago

You have to admit, this is fantastic press that gives them incredible amounts of customer goodwill. See also: comment threads all over the internet with people swearing to spend money on NewEgg purchases because of their actions here. Also, this is good long-term planning that is preventing them from being seen as easy targets by patent trolls. It could end up saving them millions.

larrys 13y ago
"incredible amounts of customer goodwill" It gives them goodwill the question is how much and what is the amount of sales increase? Hackers tend to overestimate the importance of things like this and not take into account those in flyover country or people who aren't aware of things like this. Besides publicity gain isn't a reason to pursue a strategy like this. That's not a gamble that makes sense. "easy targets by patent trolls. It could end up saving them millions." Companies have used similar strategies against legal predators for the longest time. Nothing new about doing that. Yet many companies led by responsible legal teams and management also settle and move on. This is not clear cut by any means.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > Hackers tend to overestimate the importance of things like this and not take into account those in flyover country or people who aren't aware of things like this. "'Hacker News' Hackers" also tend to grossly overestimate how well they know what is in the best interests of a company that they personally have little to do with.
  - larrys 13y ago
    ""'Hacker News' Hackers"" Exactly. Take Godaddy (a competitor of ours) which is one of the most hated companies ever discussed on Hacker News. Yet they continue to do great business and are clearly well liked by many others who have no clue or care about the issues that forum readers care about. As an aside, companies that are the darling of any online forum can quickly have their name turn to "mud" if they don't continue to acquiesce to what the group thinks is the right thing to do. (Then the question is does that name turning to mud motivate those to actually take action.)
- chetanahuja 13y ago
  You seem to be somewhat adamant that this obviously major victory for Newegg was actually some sort of a problem for them. And this against an adversary which managed to extract rent from the likes of Intuit, Zappos, Sears and Amazon. NewEgg's strategy was obvious born out of a principled stand to not give in to unethical patent trolls. This also makes them a much more feared opponent for any future trolls... which is a huge win for the company's investors. "Nothing new about doing that. " Really.. ? Did you read that article ? Could you point to another instance of a company that's been successful against patent trolls to this extent ?
- dasil003 13y ago
  > Hackers tend to overestimate the importance of things like this and not take into account those in flyover country or people who aren't aware of things like this. "Flyover country" is full of hackers, but in any case, you seem to be completely ignoring Newegg's core demographic. > Yet many companies led by responsible legal teams and management also settle and move on. This is not clear cut by any means. You might even say most. Which is precisely why this is so interesting. I find it disturbing to pursue this line of thought of seriously questioning whether fighting and winning against a patent troll is irresponsible leadership in a company. Doing so plays right into the patent trolls hands. So what if the bean counters can't figure a better ROI than simply settling every time? There are gray areas in business and I think it's incredibly harmful to question whether shareholder interests are being maximally served every time a company does something that might be mistaken for altruism. Should we also denounce any company that goes beyond EPA standards or donates to charity beyond what tax law would dictate optimal?
ibrahima 13y ago
Agreed. Personally, I had stopped using Newegg for a while because Amazon Prime made things cheaper for me overall, but Amazon is one of the companies that just pays off these patent trolls, so from now on I'm back to Newegg completely for all my hardware purchases. It's refreshing to see a company with this kind of attitude.

chenster 13y ago

He's also making a 'Dont' mess with us.' statement. I don't see anything wrong about he said. He's proud for what he did not just because it's his job but also for righteous reason.

tmoertel 13y ago

> Newegg's business isn't fighting lawsuits. Correct. Which is why "it's a great quote." By sending the credible signal that they will fight patent trolls to the bitter end, and probably win, they avoid fights. In terms of game theory, by making public statements of this kind, they make it harder for their future selves to settle with future trolls instead of fight. Future trolls, knowing this, will be less likely to target them. Trolls want settlements, not fights they'll probably lose.

larrys 13y ago
"Future trolls, knowing this, will be less likely to target them. " We can take strategy further though instead of the obvious implementation. What if you settle in some cases but not all cases? So a troll sees that you settled with company "x" but upon review you feel that you aren't going to settle with them? This happens in personal injury cases or other legal matters. Taking a "we don't settle ever stand" sends a signal that you aren't evaluating the merits of the action just taking a flat approach. Consequently nothing can be inferred as far as how you even view the merits of the action. It's all the same. Otoh, taking a "settle when necessary" doesn't imply you will always settle and sends (I would argue) a stronger message when you do fail to roll over that you aren't because you feel particularly strongly in the case before you. In strategy (that I use for negotiating) I have always found it best to not be predictable.
- tmoertel 13y ago
  In this case, however, it's better to be perfectly predictable as always fighting trolls. Consider the game tree, as seen by the Troll considering whether to attack Company X: [1.1] troll's payoff = 0 / / no / (1) Troll: attack Company X? \ \ \ yes [1.2.1] troll's payoff = +10 \ / \ / settle \ / (1.2) X: fight or settle? \ \ \ fight [1.2.2.1] troll's payoff = -5 \ / \ / drop \ / (1.2.2) Troll: fight or drop suit? \ \ \ fight [1.2.2.2.1] troll's payoff = +100 \ / \ / Troll wins \ / (1.2.2.2) Nature: Troll wins or loses? \ \ Troll loses \ [1.2.2.2.2] troll's payoff = -1000 The Troll's business model is predicated on the belief that, for almost all values of X, Company X will decide to settle, should the Troll attack. Therefore, the choice from the Troll's perspective is between outcomes [1.1] with a payoff of 0 and [1.2.1] with a payoff of +10. Strategically, the Troll chooses the +10 and attacks. But if a Company X can credibly destroy its option to settle, the Troll's expected payoffs for attacking X change to [1.2.2.1] = -5, [1.2.2.2.1] = +100, and [1.2.2.2.2] = -1000, with the +100 payoff being unlikely (because, if it were likely, the Troll's business model wouldn't be to troll). So the most likely payoffs in the Troll's estimation are either -5 (ouch) or -1000 (OUCH!). Therefore, the Troll's best choice becomes not to attack Company X. That choice has a payoff of 0, but it's greater than the expected payoff should they fight.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

I like solid companies. This looks like a solid company (to me). They hired the right guy who does the right thing (and is allowed to do so). This tells me a whole lot about the Neweggs culture and I think I like it (rather a lot).