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

191–200 of 241 posts

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

#191

Post by dandanisaur »

mikeshreds wrote: post #171
dmourati wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the whole leaving on good terms, really. But this whole "hey, we just want you to keep the code and answer questions for our other engineers" aspect really ought to have set off red flags. Pro-tip, hand write a nice letter to your boss/colleagues on your way out. Bingo, no burned bridges, and no risk of law suits for holding on to company IP.

Yeah, I hear you, hindsight 20-20. It was Mark's manager John Shimmin who made that request. John is a great guy, and Mark had (still has?) a great relationship with him. He genuinely wanted to help Shimmin, and did so faithfully for weeks. It's not fair to pin this on Mark and dismiss it with a "rookie move dude." Mark (and I) had no idea that facts could be twisted and ignored to create this kind of legal conflict.…

Unfortunately, the 'rookie move' is a fair assumption. Even if there was a small possibility of conflict: Your IP is your company and these things should have been covered.

It's a sad lesson and an emotional mistake. You didn't owe the employer/managers anything and should have cut all ties to the company especially since these projects are somewhat related.

You are both good guys for wanting to help out and it sucks that things got twisted up. I hope things work out well and I wish you all the best.

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

#192

Post by zerr »

jroseattle wrote: post #190

Back in 2000 (seriously!), I was introduced to a small group of guys in Redmond, WA. These guys were former Real Networks engineers, and had their original stock certificates in frames on the walls. The product they were building was a cross-platform media player. It would stream music/video/audio/etc. and work on PCs and Macs. They had been in operation for just a few months, and had a great prototype in place. I in…

If they literally stole the assets (source code), that's one thing, but if they just re-used their technical skills and experience - this seems completely legit to me. A lot of successful startups/companies/projects started that way - key people had previous experience in a similar field, in some big enterprises.

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

#193

Post by fr0styMatt2 »

auntienomen wrote: post #165
marnett wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how are they evil? I feel like I've missed something.

The name is a dead give-away. In Tolkien's stories, the palantir is a crystal ball which corrupts the mind of its user. At the least, the name strongly suggests that they lack a proper respect for the dangers of the technologies they're using.

That doesn't really explain anything.

I had a read of the article that was linked to from that Quora answer and I still couldn't glean 'evil' from that -- potential to become evil, yes; actively intending to do evil, not so much.

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

#194

Post by Pyxl101 »

mikeshreds wrote: post #170
7Figures2Commas wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they even make it through the discovery process without going bankrupt, which is the explicit, admitted goal of their opponent. No, it isn't. According to Business Insider, this is what was stated: I'm fairly confident we will figure something out eventually, and this won't be a long-term problem. But I think they've got to face the music here. And we're going to have to figure that out unfortunately with a bunc…

The filing is public, and referred to in the lawsuit. I'll summarize here: Smule has claimed we violated non-solicitation provision in our contract by recruiting each other to start a startup; that we appropriated Smule's code or methods to build Shred Video (though they don't make any specific trade secret claims); That Mark is guilty of fraud in his consulting relationship w/ Smule's engineers (this is detailed our…

Thank you for the clarification. That's helpful, having not had time to find and read the filing.

It would be helpful if you could link to the filing, for those of us interested to read it. I regularly read them when the case is interesting (e.g., Oracle v. Google). If the documents are public domain (with no public link), then presumably you could host them for sharing as well.

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

#195

Post by anseljh »

sandworm101 wrote: post #162
anseljh wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I said the document was untrustworthy, not necessarily incorrect. It is too old to be relied upon. It's not a question of whether the material is accurate. Any lawyer advising a client would be negligent if he or she looked to such dated summaries of the law. They aren't worth reading given the many current summaries are available elsewhere. Now if the firm wants to reissue the document, then perhaps.

Well, good thing you're not my client. :)

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

#196

Post by 7Figures2Commas »

mikeshreds wrote: post #170
7Figures2Commas wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they even make it through the discovery process without going bankrupt, which is the explicit, admitted goal of their opponent. No, it isn't. According to Business Insider, this is what was stated: I'm fairly confident we will figure something out eventually, and this won't be a long-term problem. But I think they've got to face the music here. And we're going to have to figure that out unfortunately with a bunc…

The filing is public, and referred to in the lawsuit. I'll summarize here: Smule has claimed we violated non-solicitation provision in our contract by recruiting each other to start a startup; that we appropriated Smule's code or methods to build Shred Video (though they don't make any specific trade secret claims); That Mark is guilty of fraud in his consulting relationship w/ Smule's engineers (this is detailed our…

> The fraud claim is fraudulent itself...

I don't even think you realize what you're saying at this point.

I empathize with you. I really do. For what it's worth, years ago, I had to fight to regain control of a company I had started that was "stolen" by a former business partner. I was a twenty-something with very little money in the bank and my counsel was a local attorney. I sued a multi-millionaire represented by one of the top 5 law firms in the world. I was able to get what I wanted largely because my attorney gave me good advice and I listened to it.

I'm sure this is an emotional time for you but I would strongly recommend that you retain an attorney you trust before you do or write anything else.

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

#197

Post by anseljh »

sandworm101 wrote: post #152
anseljh wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Lol, accepting your 'tradition' argument (I don't) any such traditions would be overturned by the very statute you cite. "3426.8.This title shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this title among states enacting it." That's the law. It overturns everything prior. All commonlaw interpretations (the closest legal thing to tradition) before…

I admit, my attention was divided earlier between Hacker News and my day job as a California IP litigator.

Here you go:

Yes, the UTSA statute is "the law". But it's not the ONLY law. Where there are gaps, courts look to case law, just like in any other area of law. And the UTSA was drafted with the old common law in mind, continuing much of it, but codifying it. That's why courts DO look at the older common law to inform their interpretations of the UTSA.

This is from page 1 of the Prefatory Note in the 1985 final draft of the UTSA:

"The Uniform Act codifies the basic principles of common law trade secret protection, preserving its essential distinctions from patent law."

With that, I'm done with this thread. We are way off-topic since the lawsuit in the original post doesn't even have a trade secret claim. I'm also done dispensing free legal advice for the night.

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

#199

Post by swhipple »

mikeshreds wrote: post #41
paulsutter wrote: post #30

My first instinct is to congratulate Shred for standing up to the big bully. That was really almost what I posted. But pick apart Shred's note, and really it's an emotional appeal based on two ideas: 1. That the sole test of stealing ideas is source code that has been copied verbatim. 2. That the only possible secrets of Smule are features implemented in released products. These are pretty weak legs to stand on. They…

Hi Paul thanks for your comments. In the code comparison, the 3rd party will also be able to look at methods (in addition to code copied directly). We're more than happy to include proprietary methods in the review. On stealing "ideas," do you have some advice here? Smule has never specified what ideas they think we stole. What do you think is our burden of responsibility in proving we did not steal ideas our opponen…

> On stealing "ideas," do you have some advice here? Smule has never specified what ideas they think we stole.

In their initial complaint filing [1] they mention "Synch Technology" (automated video/audio synchronization) several times.

"[...] specifically including the development of Smule's proprietary artificial intelligence technology that analyzes audio and video files and through the use of algorithms, automatically synchronizes video footage to audio files in a manner that results in a pleasing and and appropriate matching of the action and the music"

"[Shred] which purports to have developed a product that detects and segments key points of unstructured video and algorithmically synchronizes these videos to music in the same or similar manner as Smule's Synch Technology."

Some of the quotes and actions by your former boss leave a bad taste in my mouth, but if the AV synchronization is indeed similar to their own or developed using their resources, they will have a strong case that you've breached your contract.

[1] Found here, thanks to codingdave: http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APP...

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

#200

Post by anseljh »

mikeshreds wrote: post #94
lacker wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't seem telling to me, because Smule is probably just listening to their lawyers. And their lawyers are probably advising them to just wait for court. That seems like the right strategy for Smule regardless of the facts of the case.

What do you mean by "right strategy" in this sense? Doing a 3rd party review of Shred vs Smule code/methods will give them a trove of relevant information if they intend to win on the merits. In my understanding, refusing it is only the "right strategy" if your intent is to not have the case go to trial.

Try another point of view. If this review was done outside the case, then it would very likely have to be re-done later IN the case with expert witnesses who are disclosed to the other side through the formal discovery process. It's not crazy to want to avoid duplicating that cost. Also, they can challenge Shred's expert in court if they don't like who you pick.

And...I saw the court filings...you have a lawyer...stop talking to randos on HN for advice. :)

Post reply on HN