Entrepreneurial Mistakes #6: Delivering less than excelllence

Yesterday, the South Carolina Supreme Court listened to arguments in the Milliken vs. Morin case, the final time that this case will be heard in a South Carolina Court.  It was my honor and privilege to be able to participate in this proceeding, and I'm afraid I did not give due justice to the opportunity.

My attorney is a young associate who spent his formative years out of law school as a clerk for this same court.  He knows how it works, and knows the Justices.  He also has a keen legal mind he was able to wrap around the issues in the case quickly and with little help from me.  That being said, he is young and does not have decades of experience to help him navigate the proceedings as they are unfolding, and they unfold fast.

Blake's argument came first, and before he had taken his first breath, he was questioned by a Justice, challenging literally his first phrase.  He was trying to set context, and they challenged whether context was even important for a facial argument.  We are arguing that my employment agreement with Milliken was overly broad and made me unemployable after I had left the company.  They challenged the standard of review--to what standard should this agreement be held?  Could we include context, or must it stand by itself out of context?

Blake answered the questions admirably, only got flustered once, and did not give a single wrong answer.  The Justices came at him hard, challenging the phrasing of a "notice clause" which is buried in the margin of the third page of a finely printed agreement, in 7.5 point font, if that.  The Chief Justice even intentionally (I hope) misread the agreement, acting as if several "ors" were "ands," which for those of us who remember logic class (or digital circuits, in my case), make a tremendous difference in the outcome.

When Blake sat down, the Justices directed their questions just as hard at the opposing counsel.  "Do you mean that he can't test two things that don't work while working for Milliken, then after he leaves discover something that does?  Because of your agreement, he is not allowed to practice that and Milliken owns it?" one Justice asked. "He's not allowed to do anything related to textiles and chemicals?" another asked.

In this proceeding, Milliken acted like the shrewd manager in Luke 16.  Before Blake, I had a fine, experienced appeal specialist; they offered his firm significant business that would require him to drop me as a client.  They hired the best, most experienced lawyer available.  They had three of their own attorneys prepare him for every argument, so that nothing he presented was out of line with their future plans.  They used an out of state attorney, uncorrupted by the USC Law School club, to challenge the sale of the assets, disregarding the statements that had been made by their own attorneys in SC State Court.  In every way, they undermined the value of the assets, the financial stability of the opposition, and my ability to have our arguments presented fairly.  They did not just play well between the whistles, they poured mud near my goal line, repainted the lines, set up a wind storm, and bought my best player.  I'm sure if the refs were for sale, they would have done that, too.
 
At the end of the parable, Luke writes:

⁸ The rich man had to admire the dishonest rascal for being so shrewd. And it is true that the children of this world are more shrewd in dealing with the world around them than are the children of the light. ⁹ Here’s the lesson: Use your worldly resources to benefit others and make friends. Then, when your earthly possessions are gone, they will welcome you to an eternal home.^[c]

I accepted Milliken's bullying.  I allowed them to purchase the services of my law firm, to get away with sending this letter (see the comment below), to claim ownership of the patents after having lost the same ownership in SC State Court without further appeal, to scare off potential bidders on the technology, to place me in the hands of a very competent, but young, attorney.  In fairness, I may not have had the resources to tackle all of their maneuvering.  One resource that I have been given by God, though, is a keen analytical mind, and this is what I failed to apply, and in doing so failed to do as God has directed in this parable.  I did not take the time to go again through the arguments, and help Blake to finely tune his brief, to make sure that he understood the issues with crystalline precision so that he could have absolute confidence in his statements in front of the Court.  In one sense I was trusting God, knowing that He is bigger than any of these issues.  In another, though, I was taking Him for granted, failing to apply myself to what is clearly an important opportunity. This is where I failed, and can only ask for God's forgiveness and mercy.

At the end, one of the Justices asked Blake a direct question that came to the heart of the matter.  "Why are you pursuing this, if the ownership of the patents is not at question?" he asked.  Blake responded that Milliken would not acknowledge that the matter was settled, which is true.  But there is another element, one that was trained into me by my mother many years ago.  She taught me to stick up for the little guy, the person who can't defend himself.  She taught me that doing what was right, and seeking justice, is more important than accumulating wealth and glory for ourselves.

The truth, as is common, is a curious jumble of honor and sin.  Part of the reason for continuing was out of honor for for the court.  Before it was my decision alone, I was faced with the opportunity to put this issue in front of South Carolina's highest court--not the issue of my $25,000, but the issue of whether employers should be able to indenture their employees after they have left the company.  We had asked, and they agreed, to hear and rule on it, and following through was just honoring the Justices, giving them the opportunity to fix broken practices from the bench.  Part of it also was that Milliken would not offer a settlement, even though there was some discussion.  They refused to agree to a release.

I have had the privilege over the last several years to apply myself, in my own small way, to some of the greatest issues facing our world.  With the exit from Milliken, I have been able to play a role in addressing the indentured servitude that is placed on employees by certain companies through heavy-handed application of their employment agreements.  With Innegra, I helped develop a light weight, inexpensive ballistic fiber that, used property, can both save lives and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by reducing vehicle weight.  (That I am prohibited from helping it go forward solely by the belligerence of the current owners is a big frustration.)  With Dreamweaver, we get the privilege of addressing directly our country's reliance on fossil fuels, and hopefully reduce or eliminate the need for young men to go to foreign countries to die for our right to $3 gas. These opportunities are God's gifts to me, and if I fail to apply myself 1000%, then I am letting Him down.