Revenge of the Litigated

[Blackbird71]

Go back and read the article; more than being within the scope, the answer you are looking for is the crux of the article. If you didn't catch on to that, then I'd suggest you avoid the business world as a whole (not tring to be snarky or anything, that's intended as sincere advice).

Considering I've been unemployed for an extended period, I've been avoiding the business world rather excellently against my will.

It's all very good advice to most people who don't bother to read articles, but I do, and I still couldn't pick up on it. How about you explain to it me, smart guy?

Avoiding business does not mean avoiding employment entirely; it means don't take a position in which you are involved in making hte business decisions for a company.

The whole point of the article was that the best way to avoid entanglements and legal repurcussions from unscrupulous companies is to not get involved with companies that have such a reputation and a history in the first place. That's exactly the point that the quote you mentioned "piqued [your] interest" was leading to, and it was the main thrust of the article, and if you couldn't get that, then I can only assume that you either 1) seriously lack in reading comprehension skills, 2) did not read the article in its entirety, or 3) are being willfully ignorant and/or a troll.

Try 4) I was expecting something a little more comprehensive than, "in order to avoid getting ripped off by big companies, don't bother doing business with them." But, hey, thanks for assuming I was an idiot or trolling for not being satisfied with such an easy answer.

I just figured that maybe Shamus Young, as an industry insider, knew something a bit more comprehensive, such as how a small fish could work with a big fish in relative safety. That was the whole point of my original post.

Not that I expect you to care, but you may want to note for educational purposes that your critiques have just backfired. That you were unaware that I was getting at something below the simpler blanket solution establishes you're even worse at business than I am. That you automatically assumed I would miss something so obvious when I wrote it establishes you're worse at reading than I am.

Hey, don't blame me (or Shamus, for that matter) if you choose to reject or ignore the given answer just because it's not complex enough for your expectations. Often the best answer is the simplest and most reliable, and if that's not enough for you, then again I say you should probably avoid the business world.

Think what you will about my reading skills, but you're the one who implied that a thought you quoted from the article was never addressed or answered, when in fact the answer was the crux of the issue at hand. You wanted advice from an experienced industry insider? You got it, plain and simple. Whether or not you choose to accept it as such is your problem.

 

[geldonyetich]

Hey, don't blame me (or Shamus, for that matter) if you choose to reject or ignore the given answer just because it's not complex enough for your expectations. Often the best answer is the simplest and most reliable, and if that's not enough for you, then again I say you should probably avoid the business world.

Think what you will about my reading skills, but you're the one who implied that a thought you quoted from the article was never addressed or answered, when in fact the answer was the crux of the issue at hand. You wanted advice from an experienced industry insider? You got it, plain and simple. Whether or not you choose to accept it as such is your problem.

I've written this messages like what I've quoted here in this post to other people before and, looking back, I certainly hope it was more justified than it was here, where you started with a false assumption about what I wrote and rode it straight to declaring me an idiot with reading comprehension issues.

I still haven't mastered the knack of evoking sympathy in the other poster, it seems, as rather than take anything I said to heart, you just stubbornly dug in. I mean, heaven forbid you write something like, "oh, is that you meant? You just wanted Mr. Young to elaborate on if there's better ways for big fish to coexist with small fish than to avoid them entirely? Like the direct quote you took from the original article implied he meant [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.225524.7687830]? Oh, I see what you mean now. My mistake."

No, I must be voicing myself wrong as some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth barbarian-at-the-gate, ready to loot and pillage your self-esteem if you dare let down your guard. Now, you're apparently backed in a corner, so desperate to save face that you'd say, "hey stupid, don't you know the intelligent thing to do is not ask for deeper answers and just embrace your ignorance?" Which is basically what the above quote boils down to. That's...

Well, in any case, I've come to recognize when this happens it's probably my fault. There's a subtle knack to presenting myself so as to be receptive to what I'm saying, I failed, and consequently I put you so badly on the spot that it came down to this. You have my apologies. I'm not sure how I could have better handled the situation on your first reply [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.225524.7732176], as it sounded then like you had something I was interested in, but now that we've gotten to the bottom of it, it's pretty clear I was just building on a misunderstanding. In an attempt to prevent the Escapist moderators from having to pop any more pain killers, it's probably best if I just end this here.

 

[RelexCryo]

"Activision is like a guy who has had his last five spouses die under "mysterious circumstances". Maybe he's a murderer and maybe he's just had bad luck, but at this point only an idiot would marry him and find out."

As always, excellent Metaphors.

 

[Blackbird71]

Hey, don't blame me (or Shamus, for that matter) if you choose to reject or ignore the given answer just because it's not complex enough for your expectations. Often the best answer is the simplest and most reliable, and if that's not enough for you, then again I say you should probably avoid the business world.

Think what you will about my reading skills, but you're the one who implied that a thought you quoted from the article was never addressed or answered, when in fact the answer was the crux of the issue at hand. You wanted advice from an experienced industry insider? You got it, plain and simple. Whether or not you choose to accept it as such is your problem.

I've written this messages like what I've quoted here in this post to other people before and, looking back, I certainly hope it was more justified than it was here, where you started with a false assumption about what I wrote and rode it straight to declaring me an idiot with reading comprehension issues.

I still haven't mastered the knack of evoking sympathy in the other poster, it seems, as rather than take anything I said to heart, you just stubbornly dug in. I mean, heaven forbid you write something like, "oh, is that you meant? You just wanted Mr. Young to elaborate on if there's better ways for big fish to coexist with small fish than to avoid them entirely? Like the direct quote you took from the original article implied he meant [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.225524.7687830]? Oh, I see what you mean now. My mistake."

No, I must be voicing myself wrong as some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth barbarian-at-the-gate, ready to loot and pillage your self-esteem if you dare let down your guard. Now, you're apparently backed in a corner, so desperate to save face that you'd say, "hey stupid, don't you know the intelligent thing to do is not ask for deeper answers and just embrace your ignorance?" Which is basically what the above quote boils down to. That's...

Well, in any case, I've come to recognize when this happens it's probably my fault. There's a subtle knack to presenting myself so as to be receptive to what I'm saying, I failed, and consequently I put you so badly on the spot that it came down to this. You have my apologies. I'm not sure how I could have better handled the situation on your first reply [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.225524.7732176], as it sounded then like you had something I was interested in, but now that we've gotten to the bottom of it, it's pretty clear I was just building on a misunderstanding. In an attempt to prevent the Escapist moderators from having to pop any more pain killers, it's probably best if I just end this here.

Let's just break things down for a moment:

1) Shamus states that there is a way to avoid getting hit with lawsuits by big companies that like to sue their smaller partners with the sole purpose of costing them so much money that they have no choice but to capitulate.

2) Shamus proceeds to explain that the way to do this is to avoid doing business with companies that have a history and reputation for this type of behavior

Now consider for a moment: Did Shamus provide an answer to his previous statement? Yes. Is it a reliable answer based on observation and experience? Yes. Does it do everything he claimed it would, i.e., provide smaller companies with a good level of protection from such lawsuits? Yes. Was it the answer you wanted? Appaerently not.

After reading this article, you came here, quoted Shamus' comment that there was a way for smaller companies to protect themselves, and then implied that the answer to that comment was not contained in the article, when in fact the answer was plainly spelled out. This is why I questioned your reading comprehension, not out of any intended insult or malice, but because of the simple fact that you didn't seem to be able to connect the two statements and realize that the answer you requested had already been given.

But it appears that the truth of the matter is simply that the answer given is not the answer you wanted to hear. It seems that you wanted some secret silver bullet that would let you still swim with the sharks without getting bit, when the best answer was simply to stay out of shark-infested waters. Not every problem has a deep and complex solution, because the fact is that the more complicated the answer, the less reliable it is and the less likely it is to succeed. The fact that you were looking for and expecting an answer that would let you "safely" involve yourself with these sorts of companies tells me that you believe that there is such a solution, and that you are exactly the sort of person who, despite all the warnings of danger and repeated history of litigous behavior, would go ahead and do business with these companies anyway. In Shamus' metaphor, you would be Activision's sixth spouse. This is why I indicated that you should avoid business, because you showed yourself to be someone likely to go into business deals oblivious to the hazards around you. It was meant as words of caution, not insult.

The fact that you choose to reject Shamus' answer as being a satisfctory solution to the problem, and that you continue to expect and believe that there is another effective answer, puts you squarely in category 3 of my previous post, under "willful ignorance". This is not any kind of attack on your intelligence, but rather an observation that you choose to blind yourself to the plain truth of the situation. This kind of attitude can land you in a lot of trouble in life. Unfortunately, as long as you maintain this choice, it is impossible for anyone to reason with you, because you have chosen to ignore reason.

In the event that you do choose to open your mind a bit, let me offer this: try not to take my words as personal attacks, for they are not intended as such. Consider them as objective and outside observations that if you so choose, you can use to better educate yourself about your own shortcomings.

Realize that I have no stake in this; I personally have nothing to gain or lose either way. However you take my words will have absolutely no effect on my life. I cannot be "backed into a corner" as you put it, because I have nothing to defend here. I offer only sincere advice; you can take it in the spirit it is offered, or leave it be, either way it's up to you.

 

[geldonyetich]

In the event that you do choose to open your mind a bit, let me offer this: try not to take my words as personal attacks, for they are not intended as such. Consider them as objective and outside observations that if you so choose, you can use to better educate yourself about your own shortcomings.

Avoiding business does not mean avoiding employment entirely; it means don't take a position in which you are involved in making the business decisions for a company.

Often the best answer is the simplest and most reliable, and if that's not enough for you, then again I say you should probably avoid the business world.

I can only assume that you either 1) seriously lack in reading comprehension skills, 2) did not read the article in its entirety, or 3) are being willfully ignorant and/or a troll.

If you didn't catch on to that, then I'd suggest you avoid the business world as a whole (not tring to be snarky or anything, that's intended as sincere advice)

Yeah, you're going to want to work on that. Even you're aware that the way you're coming off can be taken as snarky, and you attacked me personally many times, to the point where you apparently can't stop even after I expressed my apologies I that I put you in such an antagonistic mode. Here's a few tips:

• 1) If you're telling somebody they should avoid the business world or professional decisions , and that person lives within a capitalistic society, you're telling them they're a failure who will never get anywhere in their adult life, and nothing less. I dropped the hint that I have been unemployed for an extended period of time - you either missed that hint or relished repeating the phrase in order to re-strike that nerve repeatedly. Either way you screwed up if your goal was to avoid snarky personal attacks.
  
  2) If you're telling someone they're seriously lacking in reading comprehension, you're telling them they're uneducated. That can be justified in cases. However, if you're speaking to a university graduate, that is a serious accusation. I know I'm a relatively rare instance to find on an Internet forum about gaming, but nonetheless, you assumed too much.
  
  3) If you're telling somebody, "often the best answer is x (e.g. the simplest and most reliable) and if that's not enough for you..." then you may have lost sight that what you're actually writing is, "accept my way of looking at things, or there's something wrong with you." In a world where a singular perspective of the truth is rarely ever the case, this is the kind of crude hostility that sparks wars.
  
  4) If you're telling someone they're being willfully ignorant, or that they're not able to open their mind you're telling them that they're unable and unwilling to learn. Again, a serious accusation when you're speaking to a university graduate, and I suppose demonstratively wrong by virtue of having graduated, so you'd need to have a far better reason to using such terms than I'm disagreeing with you.
  
  5) If you're telling someone they may be a troll, it's no less than a speculation that opens the floor to invalidating everything they took the time to write, and about as fair as a Nazi book burning. (Yes, there's Godwin's law.)

You may have been polite in wording, but it is not difficult to see that you were far from polite in intent. Most of your accusations were simply this: hostile criticism intended to get someone to accept your perspective. That's not going to work. Hostility only makes a person defensive and hostile in return, not receptive, unless perhaps you do most of your arguing with a gun to their head.

Consequently, every post I've received from you here has been deeply hypocritical. This is not good business acumen. This is not good communication skills. Perhaps you are an authority in these matters elsewhere, but your showing here has been very poor, and you insistence you were right to do this only galvanizes your level of inexperience in these matters.

Maybe, as is often the case on an Internet forum, you have lost the context of where you are. This is a discussion and feedback thread in regards to an article Shamus Young wrote. I left feedback: I was unsatisfied with the depth of big fish/small fish relations as he expressed it. Shamus Young is a professional journalist, and consequently he probably appreciates opinions of his readers. You may express a contrary opinion, that's fine. This, on the other hand:

The fact that you choose to reject Shamus' answer as being a satisfactory solution to the problem, and that you continue to expect and believe that there is another effective answer, puts you squarely in category 3 of my previous post, under "willful ignorance".

After realizing you misunderstood what I was asking for in the first place, you apparently have decided to try to argue that expressing an opinion of what I prefer to see in an article is nothing less than "willful ignorance". As a platform to argue, this should be pretty damn embarrassing in hindsight, as you apparently thought you had the right to tell a person they can't have the opinion they do about how an article presented, which is both willful and ignorant by most classical definitions of the words.

You apparently ran out of fuel sometime around the point where you decided the simplest solution was the best, something you felt to be such practical common sense that it defied the need for any supporting evidence. From then on, the whole of your argument has been that I'm the most ignorant, unprofessional wretch on the face of the planet, and that I should just shut up and take everything you say at face value. If that's how you want to conduct yourself, fine, but don't be surprised if I refuse to bow to such petty tyranny. I don't find this to be a flaw in my character. On the contrary, I like to think that my refusal to do so is the better part of American nature.

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

snip

Wait, so your advice it to be the guy *behind* the guy who walks into the spike pit trap? And you think that this advice is somehow novel or interesting? If you know a company has a bad reputation, then *of course* you deal with them at your own risk. If a person keels over after drinking some wine, you're going to throw the bottle out, but that doesn't help you identify poisoned wine in the future.

I mean, to quit with the analogies, how does this help at all in dealing with companies without longstanding, well established reputations? How about companies with recent management shakeups?

And even if you *are* aware of a shady history, there may be an enormous benefit to working with them anyway. Perhaps no publisher you've shopped your idea to has been interested. Your rainy day money is running low and you really need a contract ASAP. Maybe you don't have the luxury of refusing to work with a company.

And to review your other objections, your answer to the "Don't work in the US" one is awfully hand-wavy. The answer I'd have given is to point out that people are entrenched, have families, and ties, and "Don't work in the US" is simply absurd advice.

As for setting spending limits or levying huge fines, your two objections are, respectively:

1) How do we prove lawyers weren't working on a given project?

A: Have them bill their time to different projects. I do it all the time. Sure, they can always lie, but you could make it a criminal matter if they do (i.e. fraud), and that might be enough discouragement to keep them (mostly) honest. But this way, you'd put a limit on the number of allowed billable hours to a given lawsuit based on the hourly rate of the lawyers you employ. To clarify, I'm not recommending this. I think it's a bit of a bad idea for other reasons. I'm just saying it's not as impossible as you suggest.

2) How do you assign a "massive" fine when companies are of all shapes and sizes?

A: Easy, make it proportional to the value of the suit. The goal is not to put Activision out of business. The goal is to discourage a business practice. The fine, therefore, doesn't have to be big enough to ruin them. It only has to be big enough to make this practice economically unsound. That is, if they tend to lose more money than they gain through these frivolous lawsuits, they'll stop doing it even if the penalty from any given lawsuit is no big deal.

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

Let's just break things down for a moment:

1) Shamus states that there is a way to avoid getting hit with lawsuits by big companies that like to sue their smaller partners with the sole purpose of costing them so much money that they have no choice but to capitulate.

2) Shamus proceeds to explain that the way to do this is to avoid doing business with companies that have a history and reputation for this type of behavior

Now consider for a moment: Did Shamus provide an answer to his previous statement? Yes.

Sort of. It has severely limited applicability and is arguably obvious to the point of redundancy. But, strictly speaking, it is intended as an answer.

Is it a reliable answer based on observation and experience? Yes.

Maybe, but it seems to me that "Don't trust a well known liar" isn't particularly novel or insightful advice, even if it is sound. I mean, is this something people really need to be told? It seems a bit patronizing to me.

Does it do everything he claimed it would, i.e., provide smaller companies with a good level of protection from such lawsuits? Yes.

Emphatically no. Do you really think that small companies are out there, completely oblivious to the histories of companies they're entering into massive contracts with? Or, alternatively, do you think they are fully aware of shady pasts and then carelessly enter into business arrangements anyway? The advice is redundant and useless. Sometimes your options are to go out of business or to just take the contract no matter who it comes from. How does this advice protect the person in that situation? Also, in order for a company to have the bad reputation in the first place, they have to have already done it to people. What protection does this offer for people who are screwed by companies with previously good reputations or with no reputation? Every company with a bad rep once had either a good rep or at least no rep.

It seems that you wanted some secret silver bullet that would let you still swim with the sharks without getting bit, when the best answer was simply to stay out of shark-infested waters.

Well, I suppose a silver bullet would be useful if they were weresharks

To carry on the analogy, though, perhaps your boat is taking on water. Or perhaps the sharks have migrated into new waters and you just want to be safe when you go swimming just in case you encounter a shark unexpectedly. Or maybe the most precious diamond in the world is at the bottom of the ocean in the middle of the shark infested waters. It doesn't matter why you're swimming with the sharks, whether it's by choice or not. All that matters is that the desired advice is how to handle sharks, and not something generic that could apply to any situation. I mean, maybe there is no good answer, but it would be better to just say that.

"Don't do business with them" is not useful advice on how to avoid litigation any more than "Don't drive a car" is useful advice on how to avoid car crashes, which is to say that it sort of is, only it's sidestepping the question altogether, and missing the point of why we even ask it.

 

[lynxus]

Life is a gamble, and apparently, so is making deals with Activision.

These kind of cases also occur here in Scandinavia, although rarely with as much money involved in the process, like sues, drawn out legal processes and such.The US is famous world wide for this phenomena, and I kind of like reading about it, especially since our trade-law classes at the university. I find it amusing by now.

Anyhow, there is another way of solving it. When Activision comes with that giant contract, remember that you are in negotiations and always have a back door if possible. Insist to seriously shorten the contract or alter your deals in some ways. Try and grab as big bit of the cake as possible. If they refuse, which they will, use the back door. Simply, pull out. It wont be worth it.

I know I speak of very ideal circumstances here, alas, it is a good dream.

 

[RvLeshrac]

Some thoughts on these legal battles...

"Massive fines" can't really be imposed unless you have some sort of regulation on use of the legal system. Instead, you'd have to add a count to the complaint for malicious prosecution or abuse of process for filing a claim without merit or unnecessarily drawing out the legal battle with a losing case.

"Losers Pay" systems do happen in the US when there are fee-shifting statutes in place. However, since most contract law isn't governed by statutes in the US most little guys in this situation can't take advantage of those systems, though it might be a good idea to write that stuff into contracts as a deterrent to both sides to bringing frivolous lawsuits.

All in all, I think Shamus has the right idea on this one. Solving these problems is generally a much larger headache than simply avoiding them when you can.

"Loser Pays" is utterly worthless, as the fees paid in no way discourage lawsuits. The smaller company, or individual, is not likely to run up the same type of legal bill that the larger company will.

Is Activision *REALLY* going to reconsider that lawsuit when they *might* have to pay $100k? Or $1m? Or even $10m? That's the kind of cash Kotick carries around to light cigars.

What we badly need is a system that levels fines and damages proportional to the profit of a company. That's a simple equation: Take the previous year's tax returns, look at the Net, and *wham*, you have your figure.

Of course, if it was up to me, the FTC, FCC, and Justice would have far greater authority and leeway in stripping corporate charters. I'd love to see a "three-strikes-and-your-company-is-liquidated" approach.

 

[idiot445]

Some thoughts on these legal battles...

"Massive fines" can't really be imposed unless you have some sort of regulation on use of the legal system. Instead, you'd have to add a count to the complaint for malicious prosecution or abuse of process for filing a claim without merit or unnecessarily drawing out the legal battle with a losing case.

"Losers Pay" systems do happen in the US when there are fee-shifting statutes in place. However, since most contract law isn't governed by statutes in the US most little guys in this situation can't take advantage of those systems, though it might be a good idea to write that stuff into contracts as a deterrent to both sides to bringing frivolous lawsuits.

All in all, I think Shamus has the right idea on this one. Solving these problems is generally a much larger headache than simply avoiding them when you can.

"Loser Pays" is utterly worthless, as the fees paid in no way discourage lawsuits. The smaller company, or individual, is not likely to run up the same type of legal bill that the larger company will.

Is Activision *REALLY* going to reconsider that lawsuit when they *might* have to pay $100k? Or $1m? Or even $10m? That's the kind of cash Kotick carries around to light cigars.

What we badly need is a system that levels fines and damages proportional to the profit of a company. That's a simple equation: Take the previous year's tax returns, look at the Net, and *wham*, you have your figure.

Of course, if it was up to me, the FTC, FCC, and Justice would have far greater authority and leeway in stripping corporate charters. I'd love to see a "three-strikes-and-your-company-is-liquidated" approach.

Juries have tried to make systems like this work with punitive damages, but the Supreme Court has shot them down multiple times. The case that comes readily to mind is the Exxon-Valdez case. Originally punitive damages were equal to the previous year's profits for Exxon ($5 billion). Since then, the case has been appealed multiple times, and the Supreme Court has routinely lowered the bar for punitives. Personally, I think the jury should be allowed to set punitives at whatever they feel will actually discourage the behavior since that's the purposes of those types of damages in the first place.