In the journey of entrepreneurship, history often repeats itself. The legal battle between Li Ziqi and Hangzhou Weinian once again reflects the tangled internal conflicts among partners. In the FMCG sector, internal disputes over equity and trademarks are common. Take the 'trademark dispute' as an example: the seven-year 'Jiangxiaobai' trademark battle went through four rounds, ultimately with Tao Shiquan's Jiangxiaobai company winning against Jiangjin Distillery and regaining the trademark rights. The uniqueness and exclusivity of a trademark represent its immeasurable value, especially when recognized by consumers and forming a certain market scale; the trademark represents brand value and is tied to interests. It's no wonder that Jiangxiaobai and Jiangjin Distillery spent significant human, material, and financial resources to reclaim the 'Jiangxiaobai' trademark. Behind it are real conflicts of interest. Throughout history, there has never been a shortage of such cases. The Inescapable 'Money' and 'Power' Chen Sheng once said to his companions while working in the fields: 'If we become rich and noble, let's not forget each other.' Later, he met his co-rebel partner, Wu Guang, and they hit it off, raising the banner against the Qin dynasty in the rain at Daze Township. As the rebel army grew, Chen Sheng declared himself King of Chen, and Wu Guang was made Acting King. But just months after the uprising, Wu Guang, the second-in-command, was beheaded by a subordinate named Tian Zang. Although history does not explicitly record whether Chen Sheng ordered Tian Zang to eliminate Wu Guang, it does note a detail: when Tian Zang presented Wu Guang's head to Chen Sheng, Chen Sheng not only did not punish Tian Zang but instead gave him the seal of Prime Minister of Chu and appointed him General. According to the Records of the Grand Historian: 'The Acting King was arrogant and did not understand military power; he could not be reasoned with, so he had to be killed.' In short, Chen Sheng could not control Wu Guang, so it was better to eliminate him. A weakness of human nature is that people can share hardships but find it difficult to share wealth. In the business world, many are like Chen Sheng and Wu Guang. Moving forward in history, the 'Red Bull trademark battle' a few years ago became a hot topic in the media. This little gold can, with brand assets in China reaching tens of billions of yuan, is actually a mixed-race child with ambiguous ownership. The Thai 'biological father', the Xu family, controls Red Bull's legal identity and holds the trademark license; while Red Bull's growth from nothing in the Chinese market relies on the Chinese 'adoptive father', Yan Bin. During his 20 years in China, Yan Bin made slogans like 'Drink Red Bull when thirsty or tired' and 'Your energy, beyond your imagination' popular across the streets. Red Bull China held the top spot in domestic beverage single-product sales, with annual revenue exceeding 20 billion yuan at its peak. The Xu family and Yan Bin then began negotiations that lasted for years. Over equity and dividend issues, the Xu family wanted to take back the highly profitable China Red Bull, while Yan Bin considered their behavior of 'picking peaches' (reaping benefits without effort) despicable. The two sides could no longer trust each other, and it was destined to end in a split. There is a saying: 'If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.' In fact, the evolution from initial entrepreneurship to parting ways does not follow many trajectories; the further you go with companions, the more human nature is involved. Back then, Xu Shubiao and Yan Bin's shared interest brought them together, creating today's China Red Bull. When huge interests are placed before them, the first to collapse is often the internal structure. The Xu family and Yan Bin each measured fairness by their own standards, and in the face of disputes over 'power' and 'money', human nature pales. When Two Tigers Fight, One Is Bound to Get Hurt The Red Bull dispute inevitably reminds one of the 'Wanglaoji' vs. 'JDB' battle. This eight-year legal feud is similar to the Red Bull dispute. Hongdao Group's Chen Hongdao signed a contract with Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Group (GP Group) to obtain the Wanglaoji trademark and the production and operation rights for the red can. Chen Hongdao, who focused on the herbal tea market, grew Wanglaoji from 100 million yuan in sales to 15 billion yuan over ten years. At its peak, it even surpassed Coca-Cola to become the top-selling canned beverage in China. The trademark dispute then began. As the creator of the Wanglaoji trademark, GP Group wanted to reclaim the usage rights. Hongdao Group had to 'reluctantly part with it' and used the 'JDB' trademark to compete with Wanglaoji for market share, leading to subsequent disputes over the red can, advertising, and a flurry of lawsuits. Over several years, the two sides fought nearly 20 lawsuits. The Supreme People's Court ultimately ruled that the Wanglaoji trademark belongs to GP Group, and both parties could share the packaging and decoration rights of 'Red Can Wanglaoji Herbal Tea' without harming each other's legitimate interests. When two tigers fight, one is bound to get hurt, but the other is not a complete winner either. On the surface, Wanglaoji won the lawsuit, but the internal friction caused by the fight led to the decline of Chinese herbal tea, which had once surpassed the cola market size. Although JDB continued with aggressive advertising strategies, including sponsoring popular talent shows like 'The Voice of China', it could not recover from the loss of the 'Wanglaoji' trademark, and sales continued to decline. From an industry perspective, the escalation from founder disputes to malicious competition not only diluted consumers' perception of herbal tea's 'preventing heatiness' value but also caused unnecessary internal friction on brand and social resources, affecting the sustained prosperity of the entire herbal tea category. Reviewing past events, it seems that 'if we become rich, let's not forget each other' is an unattainable utopia. Even the closest husband-and-wife entrepreneurial partnerships have never stopped fighting over equity due to interests. Dangdang is a typical family business, with characteristics of a family enterprise in corporate governance and equity structure. Initially, Dangdang benefited from this, with Li Guoqing and Yu Yu complementing each other's strengths, and it was once listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Despite being a couple, the tug-of-war between Li Guoqing and Yu Yu was essentially a struggle for company interests. Li Guoqing wanted to use the company seal as a bargaining chip to regain an advantageous position in negotiations, while Yu Yu wanted Li Guoqing to leave Dangdang in a cost-effective way. The deadlock escalated the conflict: divorce litigation, seizing the company seal, and social media battles, dominating the hot search rankings. Image source: 'Yang Lan Interview' Yu Yu once said on 'Yang Lan Interview': 'I really want to advise people: couples should not start a business together; life is already hard enough.' Indeed, whether it's a close marital relationship or like-minded partners, they often end up as enemies in court: the family dispute at Zhen Gongfu; the equity disputes among the co-founders of Xi Shao Ye; and the split of the two founders of 'Luoji Thinking' due to unequal equity distribution. Similar incidents are everywhere and are not uncommon in the business world. Behind the Calculation of Interests Lies the 'Good and Evil' of Human Nature Looking broadly, when partners tear each other apart from the inside out, the results are often damaged companies or even bankruptcy, investors liquidating assets and parting ways, those who leave starting rival businesses, and mutual attacks on social media. Because interests make human nature more naked and desires more inflated, when 'money and power' prevail, the entanglement between human nature and interests becomes even more tangled. There is no definitive answer to who wins or loses between the two, because there is no one-size-fits-all contract, and it's hard to have eternal cooperation. 'To achieve unity, you first need a common enemy,' Churchill's words reveal the true meaning of partnership. When a company first starts, the biggest issue is survival. When facing survival problems together, partners are truly companions who keep each other warm. Once survival is resolved, it's time to test human nature. The original entrepreneurial intention may deviate, and the equity and interest distribution mechanism is inherently lagging. At this point, founding members are likely to have disagreements on business strategy: unequal interests, conflicting opinions, role confusion, and the problem of subordinates overshadowing superiors. It's like a few buddies who once shared a trench and lived together suddenly being divided into different classes, creating a sense of disparity, both psychologically and in terms of rank. This requires a flexible space for dynamically matching the value of each party. The equity ratio depends on the founder's contribution or value, and this ratio is a dynamic indicator. Under this premise, human nature is not repeatedly tested, and it's still possible to 'part amicably'. As the prototype for the movie 'American Dreams in China', in reality, Yu Minhong, Xu Xiaoping, and Wang Qiang made New Oriental the first Chinese education stock, known as the 'Three Carriages of New Oriental', but they eventually 'split up'. However, after parting, they maintained their revolutionary friendship, meeting two or three times a year. In 2018, Lei Jun adjusted Xiaomi's organizational structure, and co-founders Zhou Guangping and Huang Jiangji resigned from their positions. Of Xiaomi's original 'Eight Great Guardians', only Lin Bin, Lei Jun, Li Wanqiang, Liu De, Wang Chuan, and Hong Feng remained. Lei Jun held a farewell party for the two, and Huang Jiangji praised Lei Jun on Weibo: 'The most loyal and righteous boss, Lei Jun.' For companies like Xiaomi and New Oriental, a dignified parting is beneficial: together they gain, apart they are both fine. Therefore, a reasonable dynamic equity distribution mechanism is the premise of respecting human nature, but good equity design often requires a 'heart for others'; the more you give to others, the more you receive. Starting from 'human nature', this is the essence of equity design. So it is more certain that in the face of interests, human nature still plays a dominant role. At any time, do not test human nature, and do not try to eliminate the evil in human nature. What we can do is respect the existence of 'evil', then strive to inspire the 'good' in human nature, and finally achieve 'relieving generals of their commands over a cup of wine'. Are you 'watching' me?