Hacker News Reader

Comment by danielpal | Hacker News Reader

I just read both complains. This one is frankly ridiculous. The fact is that Kyle incorporated the company before he met Jeremy. And from Jeremy's complain, he is trying to build the case by saying he was more competent than Kyle. Yet why didn't he continue with the idea by himself if he was so competent?

The only proof he is using to say he was a co-founder is a YC application. This is I hope a non-binding document. I hope judge agrees that the only way to get equity in a company is if its granted in the form of shares. Jeremy was never granted any shares so he own's 0 shares.

He also acknowledges he did no provide any IP to the company. So if he didn't provide any IP and didn't receive any shares he should be entitled to 0.

I really hope Kyle wins and Jeremy is found guilty of tortorous interference and is obligated to pay for Kyle legal fees.

View on HN

> Yet why didn't he continue with the idea by himself if he was so competent?

The complaint clearly explains this. He just got married and needed a job to pay the bills.

I really hope you just missed this.It would be a shame if you are one of the few entitled folks who doesn't understand the real struggle most people feel to support themselves and their family. The type of person who thinks everyone has the same opportunities you do. I really hope you just missed that line in the complaint.

> The only proof he is using to say he was a co-founder is a YC application.

Which, according to Jeremy's complaint, claims that the application was submitted by Kyle and repeatedly described Jeremy as a co-founder and their equity arrangement.

> He also acknowledges he did no provide any IP to the company. So if he didn't provide any IP and didn't receive any shares he should be entitled to 0.

That's not how it works, but that aside, this complaint claims that Jeremy provided "self-driving car concepts, technology, intellectual property, and expertise". I don't understand your statement about "he did [not] provide any IP to the company".

That's not how it works. If you and I decide to start a company and you give me a verbal agreement that it's a 50/50 split, then it's pretty strong evidence of the ownership of the company unless some other document supersedes it.

From what I can tell so, no such document exists.

What about the incorporation docs? :)

> This is I hope a non-binding document.

There's no such thing as a non-binding document.

A promise or agreement or contract can be binding or non-binding on any or all points. A document is just what it states, something that could potentially document the parties intent and agreement or lack therof.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com