shsung

We submitted way late - literally last minute - but we'll still be proceeding. It's okay, since we thought up of a few more interesting ideas, and a few that would be easier to start first before working on our really big ambitious one. It's amazing how many ideas you can come up when you really sit down and think about it.

Free is folly? Google's gmail seems to be working out fine. And in fact, YouTube seems to be working out fine (or at least Google thought so enough to buy it), too. Free is only bad if you didn't think your plan through, I think.

I don't think price is necessarily a great indicator of quality - at the very largest firms, I'd say that most of the high price is because they're offsetting the cost of training their newly minted lawyers on you. Three years of law school in the US really doesn't teach you a whole lot - you learn everything on the job. You're basically paying for a law firm's reputation sometimes.

He's right, though - the best gauge for quality of service is experience. Get a lawyer with lots of experience in your area, or at least work with a boutique firm that specializes in your field. They will be expensive. Ask around first - other companies have a firm they work with, or in-house lawyers who can recommend a firm. Don't go with an asshole bigshot just because he has the experience - you're in the long haul with your lawyers, so make it pleasant as possible. Never forget that law is primarily a service industry, and he should be listening to you as well as offering advice.

The other side of the coin is this: don't hide anything from your lawyer. He can't save you from the pit you dug yourself if you don't tell him about it. You'll save yourself a lot in fees, believe me.

Why stop there at geek-frat-house life? Add a camera, and wham, instant reality show: the trials and tribulations of six young programmers hard at work for their millions. There will be drama, and tears, and laughter, and everyone will come out better for it.

Unlikely, unless you have some idea that makes sense to a business loan manager. You're relying on a non-tech person to see that your idea is a really solid idea, which may or may not fly.

The other thing is that even if your credit isn't in the toilet, banks might also want to take a lien on something valuable of yours, e.g., your car or your house, since you essentially have no assets in your company when you start. This is not always in your best interest, especially if your company goes belly up. Liquidating a house or a car that might normally be protected by bankruptcy is probably not going to be fun for you.

The ultimate point of that list (which is really very short) seems to be keep a file folder and at least two copies of everything, one set aside for the lawyers. I mean, if you look at the list, everything on that list is something that you should already have as a mark of good organization.

The short answer would be because the Delaware courts are favorable toward big business, much like New York. A long case history biased in favor of you, the business, is much more useful to you than a case history biased in favor of the consumer (California).

Legal troubles of any sort are a tremendous waste of expense and time and can cripple any company, big and small. That alone is worth incorporating in a company-friendly state.

What an angry letter. They upped the quality of the music and charged a little more for it, there's nothing wrong with that. They charge what they think the market is willing to bear, not what it might be "truly worth." A Louis Vuitton bag costs a whole lot less to make than to sell, but prices will never go down, because that's what people are willing to pay.

If others join in to compete in the DRMless music wave, then at best we can hope it will drive the price down. That's competition at its best, an effort to capture the market by constantly producing something better OR cheaper (and not necessarily both). At the very least, you're getting something better.

Patents are such tricky things. On one hand, they can be incredibly useful tools, encouraging a certain level of design in hopes of reward. On the other, they can be nothing more than an expensive minefield. Shake a patent around and threaten litigation, because everyone at the end of the day will choose settlement. Law is sometimes nothing more than very expensive bullying.

The whole process is designed to be something like a race. Publish a paper about it or article and don't patent it on time? Tough luck! Your own damn article prevents your patent since it's "prior work." What constitutes patent infringement, anyway? Alexander Graham Bell wrote a patent at the time that covered just about any form of communication through an electric wire. Would a keyboard be infringing? A completed patent is still not sure proof of "ownership" - every patent's fate is ultimately uncertain until you really duke it out in court. They're also incredibly expensive things as well, especially for someone with just a great idea and not enough cash - $10k+ minimum, since patent applications are such complicated things and the USPTO sure likes to take its sweet time. Why not attempt trade secrets instead?

If you have a really amazing, great idea to patent, something that "improves the sciences" like they're always harping about in patent law, then sure, go for it. But I don't think they're always necessary. Improvement of a current service alone is worth an attempt to compete, not just a brand spanking new idea nobody ever thought of.