4 ms·

> From a logical (not legal) standpoint you would have to be incredibly stupid to not notice that other women are getting ahead in your company, and Pao isn't s

> From a logical (not legal) standpoint you would have to be incredibly stupid to not notice that other women are getting ahead in your company, and Pao isn't stupid. I don't see any deluge of women getting ahead at Kleiner Perkins. In fact, it does seem like an overwhelmingly male environment. > Smaller companies cannot defend themselves against patent trolls. What's to stop Pao would-bes from taking advantage of that fact too? How would that affect the female position in the job market? Patent trolls use the threat of costly litigation to pressure smaller companies into settlement. Pao's suit was costly on both sides, but she was not trying to pressure them into settling. First of all, they did offer a $1M settlement, and she pursued the case anyway. This is at least strong evidence that she thought that she would prevail in court. Secondly, there was no risk that Kleiner Perkins would go bankrupt from the costs of litigation. They're a venture capital firm, for crying out loud, they have lots of capital. I'm not saying that it's okay to sue Kleiner Perkins because they have deep pockets, I'm saying that she's not using the threat of bankruptcy to coerce a settlement out of them. > It seems reasonable that you don't drag someone through a $900000 lawsuit on a weak hunch. This "discovery" bullshit is exactly how patent trolls get away with what they do. Patent trolls, again, rely on the fact that expensive discovery proceedings can bankrupt a company before they are able to successfully defend a patent lawsuit. As we've established, that was not an issue here. Discovery serves a useful legal purpose: you need evidence to pursue a case, and without legal force behind a request for evidence, Kleiner Perkins would have no reason to provide it. You can't issue subpoenas without filing the suit first, because you need to show that your suit has merit and that you have standing before you can begin discovery. Now, there have been actual abuses of the discovery process. This just isn't one of them. Pao lost, so she compensates Kleiner Perkins for their expenses, or she accepts their offer. I don't see why "being wrong in court" would be worthy of punishment.

zamalek 12y ago
> They're a venture capital firm, for crying out loud, they have lots of capital. I thought this hand-to-mouth mentality was something that was exclusive to the 3rd world. Apparently I was wrong. People smell blood and attack. This is not about KPMG. Have "big" corporates like Microsoft, Apple, Samsung and Google ever had problems fending off patent trolls? No. The "crying wolf" story goes a lot further than the mere once-off act of laying false claim: which is why I specifically use that phrase. You might read the story and find out what happens to the boy who cried "wolf." Everyone is determined to win every fight, instead of actually reaching a goal. Feminism is going nowhere at this rate. > I don't see why "being wrong in court" would be worthy of punishment. We're done here. Was that ever a suggestion of mine?
- dietrichepp 12y ago
  Please read the next paragraph. > I'm not saying that it's okay to sue Kleiner Perkins because they have deep pockets, I'm saying that she's not using the threat of bankruptcy to coerce a settlement out of them.
  - zamalek 12y ago
    My argument does not even concern Pao, my argument concern the bigger scheme of things and this Pao trial as one single battle. This specific battle should have never happened, but it did, and feminists (who Pao claims to be fighting for) need to disown this farce as fast as possible. That paragraph is relevant to defending Pao's virtue: which I have no interest in and was never talking about. I have no opinion of the woman one way or another, an opinion of her is completely irrelevant because neither of us is likely to ever meet her. It is clear that this isn't a debate about something important and, therefore, we're done.
    - dietrichepp 12y ago
      The easiest way to end a conversation is not to say, "we're done", bot to simply not say anything. It was my understanding that you were talking about Pao because you made specific claims about her case (that she was "crying wolf", in your terms) and I was interested in seeing how you would support that position, because I hadn't heard arguments that she had sued in bad faith and was interested in listening to those arguments if they existed.

zamalek 12y ago

> They're a venture capital firm, for crying out loud, they have lots of capital. I thought this hand-to-mouth mentality was something that was exclusive to the 3rd world. Apparently I was wrong. People smell blood and attack. This is not about KPMG. Have "big" corporates like Microsoft, Apple, Samsung and Google ever had problems fending off patent trolls? No. The "crying wolf" story goes a lot further than the mere once-off act of laying false claim: which is why I specifically use that phrase. You might read the story and find out what happens to the boy who cried "wolf." Everyone is determined to win every fight, instead of actually reaching a goal. Feminism is going nowhere at this rate. > I don't see why "being wrong in court" would be worthy of punishment. We're done here. Was that ever a suggestion of mine?

dietrichepp 12y ago
Please read the next paragraph. > I'm not saying that it's okay to sue Kleiner Perkins because they have deep pockets, I'm saying that she's not using the threat of bankruptcy to coerce a settlement out of them.
- zamalek 12y ago
  My argument does not even concern Pao, my argument concern the bigger scheme of things and this Pao trial as one single battle. This specific battle should have never happened, but it did, and feminists (who Pao claims to be fighting for) need to disown this farce as fast as possible. That paragraph is relevant to defending Pao's virtue: which I have no interest in and was never talking about. I have no opinion of the woman one way or another, an opinion of her is completely irrelevant because neither of us is likely to ever meet her. It is clear that this isn't a debate about something important and, therefore, we're done.
  - dietrichepp 12y ago
    The easiest way to end a conversation is not to say, "we're done", bot to simply not say anything. It was my understanding that you were talking about Pao because you made specific claims about her case (that she was "crying wolf", in your terms) and I was interested in seeing how you would support that position, because I hadn't heard arguments that she had sued in bad faith and was interested in listening to those arguments if they existed.