I get that people will probably disagree, but she just seems to not make very good business decisions. Maybe I'm way off base, but I've read a bunch of well qualified lawyers say that juries are just plain unpredictable, and that no competent lawyer can "guarantee" to win. In that light, even if the $1M settlement wasn't what you're asking for, I would think it paints a better picture of you than losing and having to pay the other side? Anyone care to explain something that I might be missing?

This logic would basically forbid any lawsuit, no matter how meritorious. Leaving aside what you think her odds are, this isn't how it works. You have to balance the odds of each outcome, not just the absolute best and worst cases.

Aren't like 95%[0] of all cases settled before they even reach trial? To me it seems like that would indicate this logic isn't entirely flawed.

[0]http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsu...

The problem with the logic is you can basically plug any number in there and say they should have settled for that number too. If people always just settled becuase they might lose guess how much Big Corps will offer for settlements?

It's easy to say she should have settled in hindsight but if she had won big we'd be saying KP should have offered her more.

    Anyone care to explain something that I might be missing?

Perhaps her primary concern isn't a cash payout.

Were that the case she wouldn't offer to drop her appeal for $2.7 million.

Her offering a high or higher number doesn't imply that she was only out for cash. Perhaps that amount was what she considered sufficient to punish KP appropriately.

And for the record: Consider this statement as me playing the race card.

But look: I wasn't on the jury, and I haven't reviewed the court records, and like everyone else here I'm playing armchair quarterback.

I'm not making any judgements on the case itself; I didn't follow it at all beyond blurbs I heard here on HN and on reddit. However, part of what I heard and just now validated is that $2.7 million is the exact amount that her husband owes in legal fees regarding that ponzi scheme he supposedly ran. If the numbers didn't match up exactly I might have a different reaction, but with that settlement amount it seems entirely pragmatic, not principled.

    $2.7 million is the exact amount that her husband owes in legal
    fees regarding that ponzi scheme he supposedly ran.

So, on one hand that sounds suspicious. On the other, I know how quickly the Internet (flash) mob is to pick up torches and pitchforks.

At the end of the day, what are we to do? Trust juries as the final arbiter, when we know that they're not infallible? Trust reddit - same, if not more? Has her husband been convicted of running a Ponzi scheme - or is it merely "alleged"? Did literally none of EP's lawyers think, "You know... that number is too obvious. We should fudge it a little."?

Armchair quarterbacks. :)

If she wanted to punish KP, she should've said that she would donate whatever she wins minus legal bills to a charity.

You should contact her and let her know that that's the min bar.

It has been pointed out that $2.7 Million is exactly the amount that her husband owes in unpaid legal bills: http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/case-builds-against-former-ny-h...

What do you want to say?

Should everybody just pick the money and run? Without knowing the details of the case and the reasoning of the people, it also could be possible that this woman was not looking for the money, but righteousness.

And no, I am not convinced (without knowing any details), that because the judgement was against her, that this is justness. (I have seen so many unjust judgments in my own country that where based on the fact, that one side had the better lawyers or better experts they hired)

Jurisdiction in human hands can always be an approximation of justness.

righteousness == $2.7M ?

That is just the opposite of what I tried to say. I am not a native speaker, so I might have been misunderstood ...??

Some things just go beyond figures ...

   I am not a native speaker, so I might have been misunderstood ...??

No, you weren't. In the U.S. the primary way to get redress in these kinds of situations is a lawsuit with a concrete financial reward. And to some people, the seeking of a financial reward implies only the desire for the financial reward.

So by that logic: by virtue of seeking redress you're only out for some cold hard cash. And what easier reason is there to decide to not believe a person's claims?

Yes, it seems to be a little two-faced. You are stupid, if you don't take hard cash, but when you do, you are called crooked.

albertop, and I, are confused by your post, because you are defending her decision to refuse the 1 million with "righteousness" but must have missed the part of the article where it states she counter offered to settle for 2.7 million.

.. or, 2.7m = righteousness

Ok, that was a detail, I simply misunderstood. I thought, that she refused the settlement and wanted to bring it to court.

Still, without knowing the details, it is difficult to judge over a persons motives.

Kleiner Perkins offered her $1M not to appeal.

They offered her $1M not to go to trial. I believe they offered to not go after her for legal fees if she agreed to not appeal.