What an interesting story.<p>I&#x27;m surprised the Bakers did not try to repurchase their technology in the bankruptcy sale. If other firms scooped it up for as little as $7m, surely the Bakers could have raised that much from a few opportunistic venture capitalists who understood the technology was better under the care of the Bakers than any other third party.<p>Of course this was right when the dotcom bubble popped, so maybe raising $7m from VCs to buy back technology they just lost in a messy bubble popping deal would be incredibly difficult and require more dilution than it was worth.<p>Also, what if they had just recreated a new company with the same technology? Who would sue them? The acquirer of their IP was bankrupt. Why not rebuild the technology and wait until the secondary acquirer sues? By that time they could have had a fully formed legal argument for their rights to the IP, and probably a better argument than whatever they&#x27;re using against Goldman.<p>Ultimately, Dragon hired Goldman as an advisor. Only the Dragon board had the ability to approve or deny a deal. Goldman had no vote. Therefore all responsibility for poor decision making should fall on the board, not Goldman. Did Goldman give shitty advice, or none at all? Yes. But it sounds like Dragon knew the advice was shitty, but chose to proceed anyway. No way this case falls in their favor. I just hope they don&#x27;t lose even more money in the Goldman counter suit.<p>There best hope is a sympathetic jury (is it even a jury trial?) that rules emotionally based on the story of a nice couple of people getting screwed by the venerable Goldman Sachs. I hope for the Bakers&#x27; sake they win this case. They seem like remarkably caring people who got tangled up in the wrong place at the wrong time.