4 ms·

I'm a little surprised they offered her the original $1M. Which I guess means a counter is legitimate, who knows what the legal costs are for Kleiner. But this

by MCRed 11y ago

I'm a little surprised they offered her the original $1M. Which I guess means a counter is legitimate, who knows what the legal costs are for Kleiner. But this is starting to feel a bit dirty. "You may have won the case, but I can make it expensive for you still." Then again, you could say that about anybody who sues anybody. The real problem here is that legal cases are so expensive many startups live in dread of them. In bigger businesses they save a great deal of time and money by using arbitrattion- both parties agree on an arbiter and pay the arbiters fee. I read some American Arbitration Association (I think it was) claims several years ago that they were much larger and more effective than the current legal system- hearing more cases and with better customer satisfaction. Apparently even losers like it, if they lost but felt the hearing was fair. Probably Pao and Kleiner would have both saved a lot of money if they'd been able to resolve the dispute this way-- IIRC the court ruled Pao owed kleiner money already for recovered legal fees.

joshuapants 11y ago
I worked for a while on the same floor as a lawyer who pivoted into arbitration. She had tons of business and usually managed to settle things at a lower cost and higher degree of satisfaction than cases that went to trial.
walshemj 11y ago
The point about comprise agreement is they are meant to be confidential. Looks like Kleiner Perkins is playing hard ball possibly not the best tactic given the high profile nature of the case.
SilasX 11y ago
Unfortunately, the limiting force on all that is that you can't opt out of the legal system itself, which retains veto power over any such moves. Even if you found an arbitration procedure that reached the same rulings at a fraction of the cost and 100x faster, you have to get the other party's consent to do it, and as long as they have to consent, they can use that leverage to impose disproportionate costs, regardless of the merit of their side.
brighteyes 11y ago
> I'm a little surprised they offered her the original $1M. Which I guess means a counter is legitimate, who knows what the legal costs are for Kleiner. We know what they are: around $1M, the number they may ask Pao for. That number literally represents their legal fees, that they may be able to get her to pay for as she lost.

by MCRed 11y ago

joshuapants 11y ago

I worked for a while on the same floor as a lawyer who pivoted into arbitration. She had tons of business and usually managed to settle things at a lower cost and higher degree of satisfaction than cases that went to trial.

walshemj 11y ago

The point about comprise agreement is they are meant to be confidential. Looks like Kleiner Perkins is playing hard ball possibly not the best tactic given the high profile nature of the case.

SilasX 11y ago

Unfortunately, the limiting force on all that is that you can't opt out of the legal system itself, which retains veto power over any such moves. Even if you found an arbitration procedure that reached the same rulings at a fraction of the cost and 100x faster, you have to get the other party's consent to do it, and as long as they have to consent, they can use that leverage to impose disproportionate costs, regardless of the merit of their side.

brighteyes 11y ago

> I'm a little surprised they offered her the original $1M. Which I guess means a counter is legitimate, who knows what the legal costs are for Kleiner. We know what they are: around $1M, the number they may ask Pao for. That number literally represents their legal fees, that they may be able to get her to pay for as she lost.