None of the names were given, but I was curious how easy it would be to figure out which vulture capital firm left a bad taste. Because that's going to be a big question for any entrepreneur who reads this story.
According to http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Epiphany-In... the company had 2 rounds of venture capital, one in March 1997 and the other in January 1998. Then in May 1998 Roger Siboni joined E.piphany as president and CEO. So that would be the negotiation described. And the January 1998 round would be the one with the bad VC.
Looking at http://ssb.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?Fetch... I see that Douglas J. Mackenzie joined the board in January 1998 and was a member of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. He also had only been at the VC firm for a few years at that point, so he'd fit the description of "junior partner".
I therefore believe that the VC firm that left the bad taste was Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and the man in the dealership very likely was Douglas J. Mackenzie.
I'm not sure if you're expecting a congratulatory note or not. I'm sure Steve Blank knew that people could find the identity if they really wanted to, and yet he chose not to share it. Having even a small hurdle to overcome means that the vast majority of people (most of whom don't need to know) would never really find out the identity of the bad VC.
Thus he can tell his story, and retain some civility...until someone comes along and is a bit too eager to show off his google-fu.
You know, almost everybody who reads Hacker News would benefit from knowing how Kleiner treats founders. This very much meshes with my experience with them at KnowNow, where I wasn't a founder but was a pre-funding employee. Ben's de-anonymization of Steve's story is a public service.
Perhaps, but I think a slight disservice to Blank. I understand the argument and see its merit, but I also think that anyone who would be involved with them could just as easily have done it themselves.
People get busy. If someone reading this starts looking at VC in a month, will they find this story again? If they do will they have time to go back and search for it? I'm betting not. And so they won't draw the connection.
Their odds of drawing the connection in a month are much, much better if they've seen the name instead.
Comments
None of the names were given, but I was curious how easy it would be to figure out which vulture capital firm left a bad taste. Because that's going to be a big question for any entrepreneur who reads this story.
From http://steveblank.com/about/ I find out that his last company, E.piphany, was founded in 1996. The time periods match, and the fact that http://steveblank.com/category/epiphany/ says that this story falls in category epiphany confirms it.
According to http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Epiphany-In... the company had 2 rounds of venture capital, one in March 1997 and the other in January 1998. Then in May 1998 Roger Siboni joined E.piphany as president and CEO. So that would be the negotiation described. And the January 1998 round would be the one with the bad VC.
Looking at http://ssb.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?Fetch... I see that Douglas J. Mackenzie joined the board in January 1998 and was a member of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. He also had only been at the VC firm for a few years at that point, so he'd fit the description of "junior partner".
I therefore believe that the VC firm that left the bad taste was Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and the man in the dealership very likely was Douglas J. Mackenzie.
This took me less than 10 minutes to figure out.
Does Business Insider read HN?
http://www.businessinsider.com/who-was-the-vc-who-screwed-st...
I'm not sure if you're expecting a congratulatory note or not. I'm sure Steve Blank knew that people could find the identity if they really wanted to, and yet he chose not to share it. Having even a small hurdle to overcome means that the vast majority of people (most of whom don't need to know) would never really find out the identity of the bad VC.
Thus he can tell his story, and retain some civility...until someone comes along and is a bit too eager to show off his google-fu.
You know, almost everybody who reads Hacker News would benefit from knowing how Kleiner treats founders. This very much meshes with my experience with them at KnowNow, where I wasn't a founder but was a pre-funding employee. Ben's de-anonymization of Steve's story is a public service.
Perhaps, but I think a slight disservice to Blank. I understand the argument and see its merit, but I also think that anyone who would be involved with them could just as easily have done it themselves.
Could, yes. But would they?
People get busy. If someone reading this starts looking at VC in a month, will they find this story again? If they do will they have time to go back and search for it? I'm betting not. And so they won't draw the connection.
Their odds of drawing the connection in a month are much, much better if they've seen the name instead.