12 ms·
Well, I mostly agree... but there are some very significant exceptions. Notably, I've dealt with in-house counsel from a certain Fortune 500 as part of my rese
by fixxer 13y ago
Well, I mostly agree... but there are some very significant exceptions.
Notably, I've dealt with in-house counsel from a certain Fortune 500 as part of my research and let me tell you this: they don't have a fucking clue what is going on. They just want to flex muscles for the sake thereof (or they think everything is "intellectual property", which is asinine). So, in this circumstance, they are a barrier to progress rather than a "QA" mechanism.
I think in-house counsel is how things like "linked lists" and "document scanning" get patented. I hate them.
Specific to the OP: I've also been sued a couple times (always got dismissed). Usually, you can tell if the client is the kind that is going to sue you for sport... learn to avoid them, unless you're desperate.
- sokoloff 13y agoActually, especially if you're desperate. Asshole counter-parties can smell weakness and if you are, they'll exploit it.
- fixxer 13y agoTrue. I meant desperate as in "food on the table". I grew up in the real estate industry. Software engineers don't experience anywhere near that amount of financial leverage. For most builders, every project is do or die; can't up and quit without it haunting your credit.