4 ms·

I also disagree. And I have no dog in this fight -- no affiliation with YC nor Aaron/thinkcomp. It is false and tendentious to claim that "lawsuits are signali

by declan 12y ago

I also disagree. And I have no dog in this fight -- no affiliation with YC nor Aaron/thinkcomp. It is false and tendentious to claim that "lawsuits are signaling mechanisms for ethical problems" -- the law nowadays is sadly well-divorced from ethics. Just look at some of Hollywood's inane copyright lawsuits with Silicon Valley companies as defendants. Or the rise in software "patent" suits. Or Harvey Silverglate's book Three Felonies a Day. Etc. It would probably be true to say that lawsuits are signaling mechanisms for business success. I once interviewed Cypress Semiconductor CEO TJ Rodgers who pointed to the list of complaint cover pages on his office wall. There were dozens. He said something to the effect of: Whenever we get sued, that means that our competitors are unable to win in the marketplace. Bring it on! If I'm not mistaken Aaron/thinkcomp is suing just about everyone who could possibly be a defendant including Andreessen Horowitz, Coinbase, DST Global, Dwolla, Kleiner Perkins, Slide co-founder Max Levchin, Reddit CEO Yishan Wong, Sequoia Capital, Square, and Y Combinator. (If YC principals don't reply in this thread, it's probably because of litigation.) A uninvolved attorney, commenting on this case, wrote: "Unfortunately for Aaron Greenspan, he has sued enough people to seem litigious at best—his own word choice—and a little crazy at worst (that last word choice is mine)." http://blog.upcounsel.com/aaron-greenspan-versus-silicon-valley/ http://blog.upcounsel.com/aaron-greenspan-versus-silicon-val... While I'm expressing no opinion about the merits of this suit, I do wish Aaron/thinkcomp would do less lawyering and more, actual, you know, engineering.

thinkcomp 12y ago
I wish I were allowed to. (Since 2011, I've built PlainSite from scratch, building on Aaron Swartz's PACER data. But I'd rather be working on payments.) Also, I'd expect a reporter as experienced as yourself to read the complaint and evaluate the evidence on its own merits. There was a long list of defendants in the recent litigation involving Google and Apple and Intuit and eBay, because--guess what--they all broke the law. I stand by my point that lawsuits are signaling mechanisms for potential ethical problems. Not all of them are legit. Sometimes they're just crazy. But by and large, they point to problems that need resolution. Also, if you want to selectively quote things from articles, here's what Felix Salmon at Reuters has to say about T.J. Rodgers: "Chrystia Freeland has found a classic example of Silicon Valley hubris in TJ Rodgers." http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/01/silicon-valley-hubris-watch-tj-rodgers-edition/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/01/silicon-val... Regarding my legal battle with California, the Upcounsel article also said, "He may be right, and it seems obvious that California’s MTA is much tougher than comparable laws in other states," as well as "his complaint raises some valid points."
- pbreit 12y ago
  Civil suits should definitely not be considered signals of ethical problems. This case is a perfect example where the law is vague, primarily exists to protect some large incumbents and has been used to generate a lawsuit by a legally active gadfly with tenuous standing.
  - thinkcomp 12y ago
    If there were standing issues in the case against California it would been tossed out years ago. In the unfair competition case, after trying and failing to get rid of the case via bogus sanctions, Y Combinator and the other defendants manufactured standing issues to get it thrown out by arguing that one cannot be the victim of "unfair competition" if one is not legally permitted to compete (even when the other parties are "competing" by breaking a law). This leads to the perverse conclusion that § 17200 encourages illegal activity. Most legal gadflies are not cited by opposing counsel in formal filings before state agencies, invited to submit testimony to Congress, consulted by the GAO on what to tell Congress, cited by academics, or offered fellowships at Stanford Law School. But, you know, whatever.

by declan 12y ago

thinkcomp 12y ago

I wish I were allowed to. (Since 2011, I've built PlainSite from scratch, building on Aaron Swartz's PACER data. But I'd rather be working on payments.) Also, I'd expect a reporter as experienced as yourself to read the complaint and evaluate the evidence on its own merits. There was a long list of defendants in the recent litigation involving Google and Apple and Intuit and eBay, because--guess what--they all broke the law. I stand by my point that lawsuits are signaling mechanisms for potential ethical problems. Not all of them are legit. Sometimes they're just crazy. But by and large, they point to problems that need resolution. Also, if you want to selectively quote things from articles, here's what Felix Salmon at Reuters has to say about T.J. Rodgers: "Chrystia Freeland has found a classic example of Silicon Valley hubris in TJ Rodgers." http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/01/silicon-valley-hubris-watch-tj-rodgers-edition/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/01/silicon-val... Regarding my legal battle with California, the Upcounsel article also said, "He may be right, and it seems obvious that California’s MTA is much tougher than comparable laws in other states," as well as "his complaint raises some valid points."

pbreit 12y ago
Civil suits should definitely not be considered signals of ethical problems. This case is a perfect example where the law is vague, primarily exists to protect some large incumbents and has been used to generate a lawsuit by a legally active gadfly with tenuous standing.
- thinkcomp 12y ago
  If there were standing issues in the case against California it would been tossed out years ago. In the unfair competition case, after trying and failing to get rid of the case via bogus sanctions, Y Combinator and the other defendants manufactured standing issues to get it thrown out by arguing that one cannot be the victim of "unfair competition" if one is not legally permitted to compete (even when the other parties are "competing" by breaking a law). This leads to the perverse conclusion that § 17200 encourages illegal activity. Most legal gadflies are not cited by opposing counsel in formal filings before state agencies, invited to submit testimony to Congress, consulted by the GAO on what to tell Congress, cited by academics, or offered fellowships at Stanford Law School. But, you know, whatever.