Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm having a hard time understanding why TC should give up on litigation because they're unlikely to receive compensation. If someone/a company wrongs you in a big way, should they not be punished for it? I understand that FG's reputation is already pretty much shot to hell, and you might say it's punishment enough. But if I were TC, I wouldn't be happy with that outcome by itself at all.

Who knows what could end up happening to the joojoo. Maybe the IP even ends up getting bought up by some OEM vendor and sold as a new product. Or maybe they even somehow turn around and become profitable. Sure, these all sound absurd. But if TC can afford to take this to trial and make sure FG gets punished for it, why wouldn't they?




Some companies (I do believe GE is one of them) make it a policy to pursue legal claims / counter-claims to the fullest in an effort to discourage future actions.


For a more near-and-dear example, look at IBM: they pursued SCO to an extent that I'm sure was unjustified if you analyzed only that particular case. Hell, I suspect the amount of lawyer time IBM burned while running SCO into the ground was probably more than SCO's market cap at some points -- they could have bought them and ended it at just about any time, and there was a lot of speculation that SCO's goal was (if not a cash settlement) exactly that. But that would have rewarded the people behind the whole debacle, while slowly ripping them apart in court didn't.

It's important, if you are a significant enough business or even a private individual, to realize that knuckling under on one case might invite others. IBM's stance, and I'd imagine it's also the stance of many other major companies and wealthy individuals, is analogous to governments that have a blanket policy against negotiating with terrorists or meeting ransom demands. In the short run, it might not be the easier or cheaper route out, but in the long run the alternative might be opening yourself up to death by a thousand cuts.


> look at IBM: they pursued SCO to an extent

The lawsuit is entitled "SCO v. IBM", not "IBM v. SCO".


But if I were TC, I wouldn't be happy with that outcome by itself at all.

Saying that one "wouldn't be happy" implies that an emotional decision is being made rather than a rational decision.

But if TC can afford to take this to trial and make sure FG gets punished for it, why wouldn't they?

The bottom line on the P&L statement. Just because an expense can be afforded doesn't mean the expense should be incurred.


> Saying that one "wouldn't be happy" implies that an emotional decision is being made rather than a rational decision.

What's wrong with that? Isn't the "passion" people always talk about an emotional thing?


Passion fuels the fire but make sure you're camping in the right forest.


One of my favorite quotes, from Jerry Jones of all people:

"One of the reasons I'm rich is because I never let my money get mad"

Sounds like good advice to me.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: