IMPORTANTE PARA ABOGADOS CONOCER QUE PASA EN STANFORD USA.

IN THIS ISSUE:LAW @ STANFORD

NEWS

• Dean Larry Kramer Announces New Law School Academic Calendar
• "Securities Firms See a Decline In Investor Suits, Loss Claims"
• "So, Guy Walks Up to the Bar, and Scalia Says"
• "An Ideological Rumble"
• "Will Execution Move the Debate?"
• "Justices Ponder Heavy Patent Docket"
• "Human Brain Cells Are Grown in Mice"
• "Wal-Mart Workers Win Suit"

FACULTY ON THE RECORD

• Goldstein; Grundfest; Karlan; Lessig; Rhode; Sullivan

UPCOMING CAMPUS EVENTS

• Conferences; lectures; symposia; and more

UPCOMING REGIONAL EVENTS

• Los Angeles; New York; San Diego; Silicon Valley

NEWS

"DEAN LARRY KRAMER ANNOUNCES NEW LAW SCHOOL ACADEMIC CALENDAR"
Dean Larry Kramer issued a statement announcing the transition of the law school academic calendar to the quarter system. The change in the schedule will make it more compatible with the university's other schools and departments, affording students more opportunities to pursue joint degrees and innovative research, while allowing the school to create unique interdisciplinary courses and programs. The move will take place in two steps, allowing any issues, logistical and other, to be resolved with minimal confusion and cost. Beginning next year the law school will adopt a modified semester approach, making the full transition to the quarter system in the academic year 2009-2010.

"SECURITIES FIRMS SEE A DECLINE IN INVESTOR SUITS, LOSS CLAIMS"
"Wall Street Journal" article quotes Professor Joseph Grundfest about a new study from the Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and Cornerstone Research.

"SO, GUY WALKS UP TO THE BAR, AND SCALIA SAYS"
"New York Times" story quotes Professor Pamela Karlan and Lecturer Thomas Goldstein about laughter during Supreme Court arguments.

"AN IDEOLOGICAL RUMBLE"
"San Francisco Chronicle" front-page article quotes Professor Deborah L. Rhode, director of the Stanford Center on Ethics, on the role Roe v. Wade may play during Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings.

"WILL EXECUTION MOVE THE DEBATE?"
"Chicago Tribune" coverage quotes Professor Lawrence Marshall on the execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams in California, and whether public outcry will fuel long-term protest against the death penalty.

"JUSTICES PONDER HEAVY PATENT DOCKET"
"National Law Journal" article on the quantity of upcoming patent cases in the Supreme Court quotes from Professor and former Dean Kathleen M. Sullivan's argument before the High Court in Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink.

"HUMAN BRAIN CELLS ARE GROWN IN MICE"
"Washington Post" coverage quotes Professor Hank Greely on current research involving the successful injection of human embryonic stem cells into the brains of fetal mice.

"WAL-MART WORKERS WIN SUIT"
"Los Angeles Times" front-page article quotes Professor Deborah Hensler on the size of the award to Wal-Mart workers in a suit involving wages and hours.

FACULTY ON THE RECORD

GOLDSTEIN: "NEW PAPERS RELEASED ON SUPREME COURT NOMINEE ALITO"
NPR's "Morning Edition" coverage includes commentary by Lecturer Thomas Goldstein.

KARLAN: "NEW PAPERS REINFORCE ALITO'S JUDICIAL CONSERVATISM"
NPR's "All Things Considered" features commentary by Professor Pamela Karlan.

LESSIG: "WHEN THEFT SERVES ART"
"Wired" column by Professor Lawrence Lessig, director of the Center for Internet and Society, comments on the unique licensing practices of the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts.

LESSIG: "CREATIVES FACE A CLOSED NET"
"Financial Times" Op-Ed by Professor Lawrence Lessig, director of the Center for Internet and Society, discusses the necessity of "Read-Write," instead of "Read-Only," internet technology.

RHODE: "GIVING TILL IT HURTS"
"American Lawyer" column by Professor Deborah L. Rhode, director of the Stanford Center on Ethics, analyzes legal ethics issues in a question-and-answer format. In this issue, Rhode answers questions on pro bono work and the ethics of case selection.

SULLIVAN: "THE ALITO HEARINGS"
"NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" features commentary by Professor and former Dean Kathleen M. Sullivan on the first day of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

SULLIVAN: "JUSTICE IN THE BALANCE"
"Washington Post" book review by Professor and former Dean Kathleen M. Sullivan on Joan Biskupic's biography of Sandra Day O'Connor '52.

UPCOMING CAMPUS EVENTS

"BEYOND THE EMBRYO"
Friday, January 20, 2006, 1:00 to 6:00 p.m., Lucille Packard Children's Hospital Auditorium, Stanford University Medical Center. The Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Program on Stem Cells and Society will host this symposium on issues in stem cell research. Professor Hank Greely will give a lecture entitled, "Stem Cells and Chimeras: Issues real and chimerical." For more information, contact Joyce Prasad at jprasad@stanford.edu.

ACS PRESENTS: SENATOR MAX CLELAND
Wednesday February 1, 2006, 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., Room 290, Stanford Law School. Former Senator Max Cleland will speak on national security and the war in Iraq. Sponsored by the American Constitution Society. For more information, contact Rhett Millsaps at rhettm@stanford.edu.

WILSEY DISTINGUISHED LECTURER: RICHARD WEST
Wednesday, February 8, 2006, 5:30 p.m., Annenberg Auditorium, Cummings Art Building, Stanford University. Law school alumnus Richard West '71, director of the National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution, is the 2006 Wilsey Distinguished Lecturer. The subject of the presentation is the "National Museum of the American Indian: Journeys in a Post-Colonial World." Sponsored by Cantor Arts Center. For more information, contact Kristen Olson at klolson@stanford.edu.

"MOBSTERS, UNIONS, AND FEDS: ORGANIZED CRIME AND ORGANIZED LABOR"
Wednesday, February 8, 2006, 5:00 to 7:00 p.m., Stanford Law School. James Jacobs, NYU professor of criminal law and criminal justice and director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice, will speak about organized crime and organized labor. Sponsored by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center. For more information, contact Kara Dansky at kdansky@stanford.edu.

"SPIES, SECRETS, & SECURITY: THE NEW LAW OF INTELLIGENCE"
Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 12:30 to 7:00 p.m., Stanford Law School. Sponsored by the Stanford Law & Policy Review, Stanford National Security Law Society, and the Center for Internet and Society. This one-day symposium will analyze the law and policy of intelligence and national security. The Honorable Patricia Wald, of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD Commission), will be the featured speaker. Alumni admission is free with RSVP. For more information, contact Joe Ross at joeross@stanford.edu.

SPILF'S ANNUAL "BID FOR JUSTICE AUCTION"
Saturday, March 4, 2006, 6:00 p.m. silent auction, 8:00 p.m. live auction, Crown Quadrangle (silent auction) and Kresge Auditorium (live auction), Stanford Law School. The Stanford Public Interest Law Foundation (SPILF) auction enables the organization to provide stipends for students who volunteer at public interest jobs during the summer, and award grants to nonprofit organizations engaged in public interest projects. For more information contact this year's co-chairs of the event, Melissa Magner, mmagner@stanford.edu, and Pete Schermerhorn, pscherme@stanford.edu.

"THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN CRIMINAL CASES: A NATIONAL CRISIS"
Monday, March 6, 2006, 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., Stanford Law School. Sponsored by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, this event will present the findings of the National Committee on the Right to Counsel, explore their implications for the practice of law, and discuss possible solutions to the problems the data present. The event is open to all alumni, and registration is required. For more information, contact Kara Dansky at kdansky@stanford.edu.

STANFORD CONFERENCE ON NEUROSCIENCE AND LIE DETECTION
Friday, March 10, 2006, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Stanford Law School. Sponsored by the Center for Law and the Biosciences, this conference will explore the impact of neuroscience's advances in the ability to monitor the operations of the brain, and the application of these advances to enhance the efficacy of lie detection. The morning session of the conference will examine the scientific plausibility of reliable lie detection through neuroscientific methods, discussing different methods and assessing their likely success. The afternoon session will assume that at least one of those methods is established as reliable and will then explore what social and legal ramifications will follow. For more information, contact Trish Gertridge at tgertridge@law.stanford.edu.

"CULTURAL ENVIRONMENTALISM AT 10"
Friday and Saturday, March 11 and 12, 2006, 1:00 to 5:15 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Room 180, Stanford Law School. Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society will host a symposium to explore the development and expansion of the metaphor of "cultural environmentalism" over the course of ten busy years for intellectual property law. Four scholars will present original papers on the topic, and a dozen intellectual property experts will comment and expand on their works. Please visit the CIS website to register. For more information, contact Lauren Gelman at gelman@stanford.edu.

"LOOKING BACKWARD, LOOKING FORWARD: THE LEGACY OF CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST AND JUSTICE O'CONNOR"
Friday and Saturday, March 17 and 18, 2006, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Stanford Law School. The 2006 Stanford Law Review symposium will explore the ways in which Justices O'Connor and Rehnquist left their marks on the Supreme Court, and how the High Court may evolve in the coming years. The symposium will include panels on Federalism, the Fourteenth Amendment, economic interests and personal liberties, and judicial philosophy. For more information, contact Michelle Skinner at mskinner@stanford.edu.

UPCOMING REGIONAL EVENTS

LOS ANGELES: STANFORD DAY IN LOS ANGELES
Saturday, January 21, 2006, 1:00 to 7:30 p.m., The Millennium Biltmore Hotel, 506 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles. Featuring "The Rehnquist Court and Beyond: What's Next for the Supreme Court and the Constitution?" a faculty seminar by Norman Spaulding, professor of law and John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar, Stanford Law School. Co-sponsored by SAA. Please visit the event's website to register. For more information, contact the Stanford Law School Office of Alumni Relations at alumni.relations@law.stanford.edu.

SILICON VALLEY: "THE FINISHING SCHOOL"
Wednesday, January 25, 2006, 6:00 p.m., Faculty Lounge, Stanford Law School. Michele Martinez '89 will discuss her new novel, "The Finishing School," her second about the character Melanie Vargas, a New York City federal prosecutor. For more information or to RSVP, contact the Stanford Law School Office of Alumni Relations at alumni.relations@law.stanford.edu.

LOS ANGELES: "THE FINISHING SCHOOL"
Friday, January 27, 2006, 7:00 p.m., The Mystery Bookstore, 1036-C Broxton Avenue, Los Angeles. Michele Martinez '89 will discuss her new novel, "The Finishing School," her second about the character Melanie Vargas, a New York City federal prosecutor. For more information or to RSVP, contact the Stanford Law School Office of Alumni Relations at alumni.relations@law.stanford.edu.

SILICON VALLEY: THE ACTORS' GANG, "THE EXONERATED"
Friday, February 10, 2006; 7:00 p.m. pre-show discussion, 8:00 p.m. performance; Stanford Law School (discussion) and Dinkelspiel Auditorium, Stanford University (performance). Featuring a pre-show discussion with Larry Marshall, professor of law, David and Stephanie Mills Director of Clinical Education, and associate dean for public interest and clinical education. RSVP and ticket price information forthcoming via email. For more information, contact the Stanford Law School Office of Alumni Relations at alumni.relations@law.stanford.edu.

SAN DIEGO: "MAY IT AMUSE THE COURT"
Wednesday, March 1, 2006, time and location to be announced, please save the date. Join in this special opportunity to discuss Michael A. Kahn's JD/MA '73 recently published collection of editorial cartoons, "May it Amuse the Court: Editorial Cartoons of the Supreme Court and Constitution," with topics ranging from secession to the 2000 presidential election. Mr. Kahn, who has published more than ten articles regarding the Supreme Court, will also engage the audience in a timely review of the characters and controversies depicted in today's editorial cartoons. For more information, contact the Stanford Law School Office of Alumni Relations at alumni.relations@law.stanford.edu.

NEW YORK: "THE FINISHING SCHOOL"
Tuesday, March 21, 2006, time and location to be announced, please save the date. Michele Martinez '89 will discuss her new novel, "The Finishing School," her second about the character Melanie Vargas, a New York City federal prosecutor. For more information, contact the Stanford Law School Office of Alumni Relations at alumni.relations@law.stanford.edu.

---

MAKE A GIFT TO STANFORD LAW SCHOOL ONLINE
You may make a gift online or by calling 650/736-1238.

Law@Stanford is prepared by Stanford Law School Communications.

 

 

Elecciones en Chile: Bachelet roza el triunfo con la desigualdad social como foco del debate A los ojos del mundo la economía de Chile es ejemplar y los analistas suelen hablar del modelo chileno cuando se refieren a la gestión macroeconómica de los gobiernos de la Concertación por la Democracia, la coalición de centro-izquierda que ha detentado el poder durante los últimos quince años. Sin embargo, ese activo envidiable no logra ocultar una pesada carga: Chile exhibe una distribución del ingreso considerada de las peores en América Latina. Esa desigualdad social ha sido uno de los elementos centrales de las elecciones presidenciales y parlamentarias que el último domingo 11 dejaron como ganadora parcial a la socialista Michelle Bachelet. La abanderada de la Concertación obtuvo el 45,95% de los votos, cifra insuficiente para alcanzar inmediatamente la Presidencia. Su adversario en la segunda vuelta –que tendrá lugar el 15 de enero- será el acaudalado empresario Sebastián Piñera, representante de la derecha moderada y más cercana al centro político, que logró el 25,41% de los votos. Ambas candidaturas coinciden en un aspecto: el modelo chileno de economía de mercado y la apertura comercial no están en juego. Como ven en Wharton, se han preocupado de la elección Chilena. Saludos Rodrigo González Fernández

 

ATENCION CON LO QUE LLAMAMOS REPUTACION EMPRESARIAL...

¿LE JUZGAN LOS CLIENTES POR SU REPUTACIÓN?

Muchas de las empresas de Abogados, llamados estudios jurídicos, o bufetes, y empresas en general y las familiares en particular, estiman que sus clientes los prefieren por su reputación. Pareciera ser que esto va en retirada y hay otros elementos que están influyendo preferentemente.

Cuando una persona adquiere su producto, frente al de la competencia, ¿sabe que le ha inclinado a tomar esta decisión? ¿El precio?, ¿la calidad?, ¿o eso que llaman ahora reputación? Posiblemente, la mayoría de las empresas responderían que una suma de los tres. En los últimos años, factores como el medio ambiente, el trato a los empleados, el cuidado de los proveedores o la acción social han entrado de lleno en la estrategia de las compañías, que consideran estas actividades clave para atraer a los consumidores. Sin embargo, el estudio Percepción de la responsabilidad social corporativa: un análisis cross-cultural descubre que, en muchas ocasiones, la reputación no influye en las decisiones de compra de los clientes.

Saludos Rodrigo González Fernández marjuridico.blogspot.com

RECETAS PARA GESTIONAR UNA CRISIS DE LIDERAZGO

La sustitución de ejecutivos en todas las ompañías y también en los estudios de abogados más grandes que son verdaderas empresas, hoy trae problemas serios .

El proceso de sustitución de un alto ejecutivo en una compañía, sea por las causas que sea, siempre genera inquietud y sensación de crisis dentro de la organización. Pero si se gestiona bien el traspaso de poderes, el proceso tendrá menos repercusión en la marcha de la sociedad. El apoyo y la participación del Consejo de la compañía son clave para que la crisis de liderazgo se cierre sin problemas; al igual que comunicar de forma adecuada la salida del consejero delegado dentro de la organización, para evitar los periodos de incertidumbre. Santiago Barba Vera, profesor de la Universidad de Deusto, hace estas recomendaciones en el trabajo de investigación La sucesión de un CEO: la gestión de una crisis, publicado por Universia-Business Review. Además, señala, las compañías deben tener en cuenta que en la gestión de una crisis de liderazgo se juegan también su equipo directivo y el prestigio social.

Mas información puedes pinchas aquí: http://wharton.universia.net/index.cfm?fa=viewCat&CID=2

 

Saludos Rodrigo González Fernández, consultajuridica.blogspot.com

LIDERAR EN CRISIS, TRES TESTIMONIOS

En un mundo dónde los mercados cambian en milésimas de segundo, el conocimiento es una fuente de ventaja competitiva. Universia Knowledge- Wharton pretende ser una guía, a través de Internet, para moverse en este entorno cambiante.

Liderando en momentos de crisis: el testimonio de tres líderes

Para un consejero delegado, el desafío era convertir el fracaso económico de la empresa en el catalizador de un proceso centrado en dar servicios al consumidor, asociarse con otras empresas y dar un nuevo énfasis a los recursos humanos. Para otro, la primera prueba de su liderazgo consistió en destituir a todo los altos ejecutivos y miembros del consejo de administración. Para el último, era preciso crear una estrategia que se opusiera a las prácticas tradicionales de la industria. 

Estos tres líderes -Anne Mulcahy, presidenta y consejera delegada de Xerox; Edward Breen, consejero delegado de Tyco; y Aditya Mittal, presidente y director financiero de Mittal Steel- expusieron sus ideas a los estudiantes de Wharton y a Knowledge@Wharton durante una reciente visita al campus de la facultad. Su idea sobre la gestión refleja de forma nítida su experiencia personal al frente de una organización.Además, los tres coinciden en ciertas habilidades necesarias para gestionar una empresa hoy en día: un enfoque constante en el cliente, compromiso con la globalización, la importancia de descubrir y motivar la mezcla correcta de empleados y una disposición, tanto del individuo como de la empresa, para correr riesgos.

Cómo Anne Mulcahy rescató Xerox Anne Mulcahy, presidenta y consejera delegada de Xerox, opina que la presión que ejerce Wall Street sobre las empresas cotizadas para que presenten buenos resultados a corto plazo es “una de las cosas más disfuncionales que está ocurriendo hoy en día en el mercado. Aplaudo a las compañías que han dado marcha atrás a la hora de fijar expectativas sobre las ganancias e intentan reformular las reglas de juego. Si pudiera hacer que Xerox volviera a ser una empresa de capital privado, lo haría sin dudarlo". Hace unas semanas, Mulcahy habló sobre los desafíos a los que tuvo que enfrentarse para sacar a flote Xerox, en una presentación sobre liderazgo en la escuela de negocios Wharton, en Estados Unidos.

Cómo Mittal Steel mostró su determinación en un duro mercado Hace cinco años, Aditya Mittal, por aquel entonces jefe de fusiones y adquisiciones de Mittal Steel, empresa de su familia con sede en Rótterdam (Holanda), quería comprar una fábrica de acero propiedad del Gobierno rumano, a pesar de que tenía pérdidas diarias de un 1 millón de dólares. Después de largas y arduas negociaciones, finalmente las dos partes llegaron a un acuerdo. La operación, una de muchas hechas a lo largo de los años, muestra cómo Mittal Steel se ha convertido en la mayor empresa de acero del mundo gracias a su decisión de consolidarse, apostar por la globalización y el riesgo. Aditya Mittal, ahora presidente y director financiero de la empresa, habló con Knowledge@Wharton sobre la estrategia de la empresa y los futuros planes de expansión.

Edward Breen, presidente de Tyco, un líder al que no le tiembla la mano Edward D. Breen sabía que estaba aceptando uno de los trabajos más duros entre las empresas de América cuando se convirtió en presidente y consejero delegado de Tyco International en julio de 2002. El anterior consejero delegado había renunciado al cargo y estaba siendo investigado por haber robado cientos de millones de dólares de la empresa. Horas antes de que Breen anunciara su nuevo cargo, la cadena de televisión CNBC anunció que Tyco podría declararse en suspensión de pagos. Las acciones de la empresa cayeron un 18% ese día. “Sabía que iba a estar en el centro del huracán”, recordó Breen en una charla durante la serie de Conferencias sobre Liderazgo en el campus de Wharton. “No eres consciente de la gravedad de la situación hasta que te encuentras realmente con las manos en la masa”.

Este es un interesante trabajo que los ejecutivos Chilenos pueden analizar y comentar. Saludos Rodrigo González Fernández, consultajuridica.blogspot.com

 

LEY Nº 20.022 CREA NUEVOS JUZGADOS DEL TRABAJO

Desde el Blog del Senador Jovino Novoa http://www.senado.cl/blog/jnovoa/ tenemos esta nueva información en materia de Juzgados del  trabajo.

Finalmente, se aprobó la ley No. 20.022 que crea nuevos juzgados laborales y, además, establece, por primera vez, juzgados de cobranza laboral y previsional. Estos últimos van a estar a cargo de los juicios de cobranza propiamente tal, tanto en materia laboral como de previsión o seguridad social, como por ejemplo, el pago de las imposiciones, dejando a los juzgados laborales los conflictos netamente laborales, como por ejemplo, el despido por causales que no corresponde aplicar, el no respeto de la jornada laboral o de las vacaciones legales, etc.

Esto permitirá agilizar las causas laborales, lo que constituye una necesidad real y urgente de los trabajadores.

Esta ley regirá desde el 1 de marzo de 2007, salvo en lo que respecta a los tribunales de Cobranza Laboral y Previsional, los que debieran estar funcionando en marzo de 2006.

Si necesitan más información sobre los nuevos juzgados laborales, escríbanme! Pueden, además, revisar el siguiente INFORME

Ese informe se refiere es un excelente trabajo de Hedy Mathei F  de gran utilidad para abogados y estudiantes de Derecho.

Nuevos Juzgados del Trabajo:  Saludos Rodrigo González Fernández, consultajuridica.blogspot.com

 

Analyzing Judge Alito's Votes: By Case

During his 15 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Samuel A. Alito Jr. helped to decide 221 cases in which the court's opinion was divided. To shed light on Alito's views, The Washington Post reviewed these cases and coded Alito's votes. The results of this review are shown here by case. Read more about the analysis.

Although the newspaper used the Westlaw and Lexis online services to find these cases, many can be searched by case name on the 3rd Circuit's public Web site.

See also: Results shown by issue | Blog: Campaign for the Supreme Court | Story | Graphic.

From Washington post …http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2006/alito/cases/

Sincerely yours, Rodrigo González Fernández, consultajuridica.blogspot.com   parpolitic.blogspot.com

The Top Ten Lies of Venture Capitalists

Venture capitalists are simple people: we've either decided to invest, and we are convincing ourselves that our gut is right (aka, “due diligence”) or there's not a chance in hell. While we may be simple, we're not necessarily forthcoming, so if you think it's hard to get a “yes” out of venture capitalist, you should try to get a conclusive “no.”

This is because there's no upside to communicating a negative decision. Entrepreneurs will simply hate us sooner--instead the game is to string along entrepreneurs in case something miraculous happens to make them look better. (An example of a miracle would be Boeing approving a $5 million purchase order.)

Alas, entrepreneurs are also simple people: If they don't hear a conclusive “no,” they assume the answer is yes. This is an example of the kind of breakdown of communication between venture capitalists and entrepreneurs that causes much pain and frustration for entrepreneurs.

To foster greater understanding among the two groups, here is an exposé of the top ten lies of venture capitalists.

1. “I liked your company, but my partners didn't.” In other words, “no.” What the sponsor is trying to get the entrepreneur to believe is that he's the good guy, the smart guy, the guy who gets it; the “others” didn't, so don't blame him. This is a cop out; it's not the other partners didn't like the deal as much as the sponsor wasn't a true believer. A true believer would get it done.
2. “If you get a lead, we will follow.” In other words, “no.” As the old Japanese say, “If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.” Well, she doesn't have balls, so it doesn't matter. The venture capitalist is saying, “ We don't really believe, but if you can get Sequoia to lead, we'll jump on the pile.” In other words, once the entrepreneur doesn't need the money, the venture capitalist would be happy to give him some more--this is like saying, “Once you've stopped Larry Csonka cold, we'll help you tackle him.” What entrepreneurs want to hear is, “If you can't get a lead, we will.” That's a believer.
3. “Show us some traction, and we'll invest.” In other words, “no.” This lie translates to “I don't believe your story, but if you can prove it by achieving significant revenue, then you might convince me. However, I don't want to tell you 'no' because I might be wrong and by golly you may sign up a Fortune 500 customer and then I'd look like a total orifice.”
4. “We love to co-invest with other venture capitalists.” Like the sun rising and Canadians playing hockey, you can depend on the greed of venture capitalists. Greed in this business translates to “If this is a good deal, I want it all.” What entrepreneurs want to hear is, “We want the whole round. We don't want any other investors.” Then it's the entrepreneur's job to convince then why other investors can make the pie bigger as opposed to re-configuring the slices.
5. “We're investing in your team.” This is an incomplete statement. While it's true that they are investing in the team, entrepreneurs are hearing, “We won't fire you--why would we fire you if we invested because of you?” That's not what the venture capitalist is saying at all. What she is saying is, “We're investing in your team as long as things are going well, but if they go bad we will fire your ass because no one is indispensable.”
6. “I have lots of bandwidth to dedicate to your company.” Maybe the venture capitalist is talking about the T3 line into his office, but he's not talking about his personal calendar because he's already on ten boards. Counting board meetings, an entrepreneur should assume that a venture capitalist will spend between five to ten hours a month on a company. That's it. Deal with it. And make board meetings short!
7. “This is a vanilla term sheet.” There is no such thing as a vanilla term sheet. Do you think corporate finance attorneys are paid $400/hour to push out vanilla term sheets? If entrepreneurs insist on using a flavor of ice cream to describe term sheets, the only flavor that works is Rocky Road. This is why they need their own $400/hour attorney too--as opposed to Uncle Joe the divorce lawyer.
8. “We can open up doors for you at our client companies.” This is a double whammy of lie. First, a venture capitalist can't always open up doors at client companies. Frankly, he might be hated by the client company. The worst thing in the world may be a referral from him. Second, even if the venture capitalist can open the door, entrepreneurs can't seriously expect the company to commit to your product--that is, something that isn't much more than a slick (10/20/30) PowerPoint presentation.
9. “We like early-stage investing.” Venture capitalists fantasize about putting $1 million into a $2 million pre-money company and end up owning 33% of the next Google. That's early stage investing. Do you know why we all know about Google's amazing return on investment? The same reason we all know about Michael Jordan: Googles and Michael Jordans hardly ever happen. If they were common, no one would write about them. If you scratch beneath the surface, venture capitalists want to invest in proven teams (eg., the founders of Cisco) with proven technology (eg., the basis of a Nobel Prize) in a proven market (eg., ecommerce). We are remarkably risk averse considering it's not even our money.
10. I'm at a Starbucks in Hawaii writing this blog. I've been at it for ninety minutes. I don't have my charger with me. My PowerBook is out of gas. You're going to have to be happy with the top nine lies of venture capitalists until “Dear God” ships the PowerBook Vaio.

Written at: Starbucks Ward Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Let the Good Times Roll by Guy Kawasaki

Blogger. n. Someone with nothing to say writing for someone with nothing to do.

 

With best regards, from consultajuridica.blogspot.com  Rodrigo González Fernandez

The Top Ten Lies of Venture Capitalists

Venture capitalists are simple people: we've either decided to invest, and we are convincing ourselves that our gut is right (aka, “due diligence”) or there's not a chance in hell. While we may be simple, we're not necessarily forthcoming, so if you think it's hard to get a “yes” out of venture capitalist, you should try to get a conclusive “no.”

This is because there's no upside to communicating a negative decision. Entrepreneurs will simply hate us sooner--instead the game is to string along entrepreneurs in case something miraculous happens to make them look better. (An example of a miracle would be Boeing approving a $5 million purchase order.)

Alas, entrepreneurs are also simple people: If they don't hear a conclusive “no,” they assume the answer is yes. This is an example of the kind of breakdown of communication between venture capitalists and entrepreneurs that causes much pain and frustration for entrepreneurs.

To foster greater understanding among the two groups, here is an exposé of the top ten lies of venture capitalists.

1. “I liked your company, but my partners didn't.” In other words, “no.” What the sponsor is trying to get the entrepreneur to believe is that he's the good guy, the smart guy, the guy who gets it; the “others” didn't, so don't blame him. This is a cop out; it's not the other partners didn't like the deal as much as the sponsor wasn't a true believer. A true believer would get it done.
2. “If you get a lead, we will follow.” In other words, “no.” As the old Japanese say, “If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.” Well, she doesn't have balls, so it doesn't matter. The venture capitalist is saying, “ We don't really believe, but if you can get Sequoia to lead, we'll jump on the pile.” In other words, once the entrepreneur doesn't need the money, the venture capitalist would be happy to give him some more--this is like saying, “Once you've stopped Larry Csonka cold, we'll help you tackle him.” What entrepreneurs want to hear is, “If you can't get a lead, we will.” That's a believer.
3. “Show us some traction, and we'll invest.” In other words, “no.” This lie translates to “I don't believe your story, but if you can prove it by achieving significant revenue, then you might convince me. However, I don't want to tell you 'no' because I might be wrong and by golly you may sign up a Fortune 500 customer and then I'd look like a total orifice.”
4. “We love to co-invest with other venture capitalists.” Like the sun rising and Canadians playing hockey, you can depend on the greed of venture capitalists. Greed in this business translates to “If this is a good deal, I want it all.” What entrepreneurs want to hear is, “We want the whole round. We don't want any other investors.” Then it's the entrepreneur's job to convince then why other investors can make the pie bigger as opposed to re-configuring the slices.
5. “We're investing in your team.” This is an incomplete statement. While it's true that they are investing in the team, entrepreneurs are hearing, “We won't fire you--why would we fire you if we invested because of you?” That's not what the venture capitalist is saying at all. What she is saying is, “We're investing in your team as long as things are going well, but if they go bad we will fire your ass because no one is indispensable.”
6. “I have lots of bandwidth to dedicate to your company.” Maybe the venture capitalist is talking about the T3 line into his office, but he's not talking about his personal calendar because he's already on ten boards. Counting board meetings, an entrepreneur should assume that a venture capitalist will spend between five to ten hours a month on a company. That's it. Deal with it. And make board meetings short!
7. “This is a vanilla term sheet.” There is no such thing as a vanilla term sheet. Do you think corporate finance attorneys are paid $400/hour to push out vanilla term sheets? If entrepreneurs insist on using a flavor of ice cream to describe term sheets, the only flavor that works is Rocky Road. This is why they need their own $400/hour attorney too--as opposed to Uncle Joe the divorce lawyer.
8. “We can open up doors for you at our client companies.” This is a double whammy of lie. First, a venture capitalist can't always open up doors at client companies. Frankly, he might be hated by the client company. The worst thing in the world may be a referral from him. Second, even if the venture capitalist can open the door, entrepreneurs can't seriously expect the company to commit to your product--that is, something that isn't much more than a slick (10/20/30) PowerPoint presentation.
9. “We like early-stage investing.” Venture capitalists fantasize about putting $1 million into a $2 million pre-money company and end up owning 33% of the next Google. That's early stage investing. Do you know why we all know about Google's amazing return on investment? The same reason we all know about Michael Jordan: Googles and Michael Jordans hardly ever happen. If they were common, no one would write about them. If you scratch beneath the surface, venture capitalists want to invest in proven teams (eg., the founders of Cisco) with proven technology (eg., the basis of a Nobel Prize) in a proven market (eg., ecommerce). We are remarkably risk averse considering it's not even our money.
10. I'm at a Starbucks in Hawaii writing this blog. I've been at it for ninety minutes. I don't have my charger with me. My PowerBook is out of gas. You're going to have to be happy with the top nine lies of venture capitalists until “Dear God” ships the PowerBook Vaio.

Written at: Starbucks Ward Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Let the Good Times Roll by Guy Kawasaki

Blogger. n. Someone with nothing to say writing for someone with nothing to do.

 

With best regards, from consultajuridica.blogspot.com  Rodrigo González Fernandez