Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheSpiceIsLife | Hacker News Reader

I have to wonder...

I've seen the inside of a court room a few times, it's really not my favourite past time. Maybe civil is more fun than criminal.

What I'm getting at is, wouldn't you rather go skiing, or hiking, or hanging out with friends or family. Or whatever your thing is.

Wouldn't you, at some point, just think "righteo, this ain't that fun, let's just agree to something already"? Or do these things take on a life of their own and sweep you away with them? Or are people really just that keen to prove how right they are?

Do you think anyone, on their death bed thinks "I wish I'd spent more time sueing the pants off everyone."

View on HN

There is real money on the line here. Kalanick is being accused of fraud, and Benchmark is trying to expand its control of Uber. You don't really just say "oh, I'll let people call me a fraud and destroy my credibility and take away my company and go skiing instead."

I think it's more of a sunk cost thing. Like gosh I've spent the last 8 waking years to get to this place. I'm not letting these investors screw me over. Even if he goes skiing or hiking, or hanging out with friends or family its going to gnaw at him for the rest of his life.

i get what your saying, but want to add some precision:

1) using the term "sunk cost" is not quite correct here - sunk cost implies that the future value doesn't justify continued investment. in this case, it's likely that further investment (in time and cost of this court case) results in billions of dollars in value to one or both of the litigants. it's in fact very rational to pursue this litigation because there is real monetary gain at stake (and not simply the face-saving variety).

2) there's a fairness issue at play: "i did the work so i should get the reward.", or "i provided the money, so i should get the reward." you have to balance these two impulses fairly, not just for this case, but for future iterations of the game (in the game theory sense). for future iterations, it is "worth" applying a punishment now (in the form of an expensive court case) so that future rewards are meted out fairly as well.

If we're going to have pedantry, lets make sure we have correct pedantry.

"sunk cost" just means that a cost has been paid, and it's non-recoverable. When it comes up, it's usually to point out that only the future cost and benefits matter when making a decision.

not seeing the disagreement... what's at odds here?

Perhaps this line? ‘implies that the future value doesn't justify continued investment‘

It's about proving a point, standing firm on that point (even if you're eventually proven wrong) then doubling down. Most civil individuals would have reached a mediation point. This case also seems pretty personal and despite what most would think, i'm of the camp that thinks emotions are driving a lot of it.

Emotions + a few billion dollars or so.

> Wouldn't you, at some point, just think "righteo, this ain't that fun, let's just agree to something already"?

That is what the opposition is hoping you do. Seems to me that a large number of legal cases amount to little more than a siege. First party to cry uncle loses.

When you're talking about millions and billions of dollars at stake, sure people think what you typed above first ... then they go "nah ... fuck that. I'm suing".

The courts are so messed up, you're talking about one half day of court time every six months during ongoing litigation.

I'm sure all the board members have sued and been sued many times. It's just work. I've worked with people, it was a fact of life, they prepared for it, they built war chests, CYA in contracts just ambiguous enough with arcane clauses, weird stuff, it was as important as the regular projects, sometimes the contract wasn't the objective.

And if the "CYA Clause" doesn't protect you from getting fucked up the ass, you should always have a "Reach-Around Clause" so at least you get some attention while it's happening.

Who is this pointed at? Benchmark or Travis? They have completely different motivations for why they are fighting this fight.

What I'm getting at is, wouldn't you rather go skiing, or hiking, or hanging out with friends or family. Or whatever your thing is.

There's some selection bias at work here. Someone who would answer "Yes" to that question isn't going to grow up to run Uber.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com