They should start giving him EIR offers. He's earned it several times over. That might be the best way to make everyone happy.
What logic compels you to conclude that if you get viciously and frivolously sued by someone and publicly badmouthed by him (on his weblog) you should give him a lucrative and prestigious employment (i.e. the Entrepreneur In Residence)?
Do you think a sane SV VC should employ a toxic person that publicly calls Zuckerberg a psychopat?
So far he filed a bunch of frivolous lawsuits against anyone who came into contact with him and looked at him funny. He always represents himself, so there's no cost for him but it hurts the defendants because they have to hire and pay for real lawyers.
His previous lawsuit has been dismissed by the judge http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716057
His other lawsuit (http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716056) is in shambles on procedural grounds because his California lawyer wants to withdraw from the case which would leave Greenspan as the only lawyer and, just like in this case, he sues on behalf of his company and a company can't represent itself, so his has to have an outside counsel to proceed.
Let's start with the fact that his startup (lawsuit) actually does more good for society than 95% of these VC-istan social media companies (that are just excuses to waste young peoples' careers). If nothing else, he's drawing attention to the "we'll fund your competitors if you don't play our way" aspect of VC-istan, pointing out the problems with a law, and one could argue that he's (indirectly) shining light on the VC-istan collusion problem.
I'm not saying that Greenspan deserves to be a billionaire, but he's way past having earned EIR-- if VC-istan were the meritocracy it claims to be. That's an obvious fact at this point.
Do you think a sane SV VC should employ a toxic person that publicly calls Zuckerberg a psychopat?
Wait, so having a disagreement with one powerful person means that someone deserves to be completely blacklisted? Isn't this the kind of antiquated corporate conformity that people went to California (back when it was great; before conformist corporate asshats got in) to escape?
I've been called worse and I, frankly, don't think a person deserves not to have a career just because he says something nasty, about me or anyone. That's just a ridiculous and mean-spirited idea.
His other lawsuit (http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716056) is in shambles on procedural grounds because his California lawyer wants to withdraw from the case which would leave Greenspan as the only lawyer and, just like in this case, he sues on behalf of his company and a company can't represent itself, so his has to have an outside counsel to proceed.
The courage alone that Greenspan has shown proves him to have superior courage to 95+ percent of the VC-istan cool kids, most of whom are useless, morally redundant, corporate shills.
If nothing else, Greenspan has established that he's intelligent. That alone confers merit in a world where it can't be assumed.