Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When Your Former Boss Sues You for Starting a Startup

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 241 posts

Re: When Your Former Boss Sues You for Starting a Startup

#141

Post by agumonkey »

sandworm101 wrote: post #110
grizzles wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no "misappropriation" here. Employment does not qualify as "improper means". [1] Just imagine for a moment the slippery slope this would create if companies were able to criminalize knowledge on the basis of prior employment. Literally any work process you performed could be considered protected IP. You could work one job and never be employable again. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Trade_Secrets…

Yes. That is reality. Talk to anyone in aerospace. Techniques developed for employer A cannot be taken to employer B. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that there are laws on the books to prevent it. Imagine the slippery slope if former employees of Coke were allowed to take the recipe over to Pepsi. We wouldn't have any long-lived product lines. (That actually happened. Pepsi called the FBI) For below: 18 U.S.…

For 'eternal' products like Coke I guess it's impossible, but for other still moving markets I thought a simple N-years NDA clause was enough to let ex-employee not screw you until you have enough head start.

Re: When Your Former Boss Sues You for Starting a Startup

#142

Post by jnbiche »

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #48
mikeshreds wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a last nuclear option, and we're not in danger of losing our company to the lawsuit. Everything in the post is 100% true. We did get a lawyer involved when we started Shred Video, and are 100% sure our IP is clean and usable. It will take probably two years for the case to get fully adjudicated, and the legal recourse for preventing frivolous lawsuits like this is insufficient. Starting a startup is plent…

> It will take probably two years for the case to get fully adjudicated... During which time many prospective investors, partners and customers won't want to touch you with a 10 foot pole. > ...and the legal recourse for preventing frivolous lawsuits like this is insufficient. To be honest, this doesn't look like a frivolous lawsuit, even if this goes to trial and is adjudicated in your favor. Your post indicates tha…

> Your post indicates that you and your co-founder quit your jobs at Smule to start Shred.

Are you insinuating that 2 employees quitting a company together and starting a company in the same "general space" is reasonable grounds for a lawsuit?

> If you believe that your defense will be successful because you can prove you didn't steal code outright, you are being incredibly naive. It's not that simple.

And that's to the shame of our legal system, and to the detriment of our country's economy.

Re: When Your Former Boss Sues You for Starting a Startup

#145

Post by fitzwatermellow »

mikeshreds wrote: post #2

Hi All I'm a founder of Shred Video and the author of this article. Happy to answer any questions about our experience.

This sucks. I use ChucK for composing and Ge Wang's CCRMA class notes are fire. I was under the impression he was a pretty chill guy. Is he really down with this course of action as a co-founder?

ps comp vision on mobile is the future so no matter what keep on building ;)

Re: When Your Former Boss Sues You for Starting a Startup

#146

Post by jnbiche »

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #75
mikeshreds wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In our case, we did not develop anything Shred-related (ideas or otherwise) while we were employed at Smule. So invention assignment is not at issue, because we did not moonlight on Shred Video while employed by Smule. I knew I wanted to build products for the GoPro audience, which is why I left Smule. Mark left for his own different reasons, and we only began prototyping on things that turned into Shred Video after…

> In our case, we did not develop anything Shred-related (ideas or otherwise) while we were employed at Smule. So invention assignment is not at issue, because we did not moonlight on Shred Video while employed by Smule. Please recognize that assignment is likely an issue because Smule will almost certainly try to claim the opposite of what you're claiming. It doesn't mean that they will be able to prove their claims…

> If this isn't matter isn't settled, the legal process provides the means to sort it all out and you'll have the opportunity to evaluate the evidence supporting Smule's claims as part of the discovery process.

If they even make it through the discovery process without going bankrupt, which is the explicit, admitted goal of their opponent.

Re: When Your Former Boss Sues You for Starting a Startup

#147

Post by anseljh »

sandworm101 wrote: post #137
anseljh wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is SUPER wrong. Customer lists were one of the original trade secrets under common law, and they still are trade secrets--as long as they're kept secret. More modern applications: "Business Information Trade secrets in this category may include: ... Customer lists" http://www.fenwick.com/FenwickDocuments/Trade_Secrets_Protec... "California court affirms that customer lists can qualify as trade secrets" http://ww…

Note the words "can qualify" and "may include". It's not a matter of secret keeping. It is a fact-specific analysis turning on the nature of the product and the specific information on the list. Whether or not one could theoretically gather the information from public sources, sources outside the list, is also a factor. A simple list of buyers for a simple product may not qualify regardless of attempted protections.…

California trade secrets law has not changed drastically since 2005. If you have actual information to the contrary, by all means, point to it.

You're correct that there's more to it than just keeping something secret:

- It has to also be valuable because of the secrecy, so the number I'm thinking in my head doesn't count. But customer lists typically do have value because of secrecy.

- Trade secrecy can be destroyed if the secret gets out.

There's no reason to argue in the abstract. Here's how California law actually defines "trade secret" -- Civil Code 3426.1(d):

(d) “Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

(1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

(2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh...

Re: When Your Former Boss Sues You for Starting a Startup

#148

Post by anseljh »

sandworm101 wrote: post #140
anseljh wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law of customer lists being trade secrets is literally centuries old. Perhaps you're remembering a recent case about whether LinkedIn contacts could qualify as trade secrets, which tested where to draw the line: http://blogs.orrick.com/trade-secrets-watch/2014/10/27/new-s...

No. The tradition is old. The law has been revisited and updates many hundreds of time.

Um. That "old" "tradition" is binding law until it's overruled. It hasn't been.

Again, here are the current California trade secrets statutes:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh...

Post reply on HN