Live data from Hacker News

Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

techcrunch.com

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Match might have to find a model besides "buy the latest popular matchmaking firm"?

IIRC, they own one of the few online dating sites that actually generates a profit: match.com. All of their other properties, particularly Tinder and OkCupid, are basically meant to get younger people hooked so that they will eventually convert to paying for Match.com.

You mean the Tidner that will make $800M in revenue [0] this year?

[0] https://www.recode.net/2018/8/8/17662746/tinder-revenue-matc...

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#102

That is a brutal response from Match and IAC. Their statement also mentions that two separate banks were part of the valuation. I'd be curious what their proof is. A couple fun phrases from the statement: > his merry band of plaintiffs > but sour grapes alone do not a lawsuit make

Honestly, this makes me lose any respect I might have had for them - while the lawsuit seems odd, resorting to ad hominem attacks is extremely unprofessional, and especially so in a PR statement. Civility and basic courtesy is not copyrighted, use it in your public statements.

Remember that judges read a whole lot of boring legalese every day. They enjoy it when it is slightly less boring.

Moreover, the a lot of that legalese is generated directly or indirectly by the propensity of chancers with lawyers launching frivolous suits. So if I was a judge, I would be quite happy to read a nice explanation of how silly the plaintiff is being.

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did a dating site launch a dating app as a separate startup? What was the logic there?

Are you kidding? The same reason Mars produces different chocolate bars. The same reason facebook owns mutliple social networks. The same reason Apple produces multiple phones.

Yeah those are all pretty poor examples.

My question was specifically of why they were spawned from Match which was what the OP stated. They were not actually spawned from Match they were actually incubated under IACs Hatch [1].

Mars produces different chocolate bars for different markets Milky Way was a US product while Mars was an English product. Both Tinder and Match exist in the same markets.

Facebook owns multiple social networks b/c they were a threat to their business. Those are actually different products. The main differentiator between Tinder and Match is the Tinder is mobile-centric. FB did not spin up a separate start up under a different name when it launched it's mobile version did it? No because it had well-established brand awareness much like Match.

Apple also didn't produce a second company to launch the iPhone X did it? No because it had well-established brand awareness much like Match.

So yeah not so obvious.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinder_(app)

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#104
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did a dating site launch a dating app as a separate startup? What was the logic there?

It’s actually a well researched business case study and in the case of Tinder carried out perfectly. It’s too hard for existing company to disrupt itself because it takes too long for the new venture to make a significant difference to the bottom line, the value chain and company structure is too entrenched, the standard for excellence is too high for a nascent product or service. In business literature to avoid gett…

Thanks, yeah that makes sense. They weren't spawned from Match which was the source of my confusion they were wholly incubated under IAC Hatch, which makes a lot more sense.

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did a dating site launch a dating app as a separate startup? What was the logic there?

To target a different demographic. Because of the stigma associated with Match.com

Out of curiosity was is the stigma associated with Match?

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#106
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you ELI5 for me, because I don't understand this at all.

Tinder was a match.com spinoff startup and they gave the founders some stock and money... tinder did well and then when they re-acquired the company they did so at a valuation that allegedly improperly compensated some of the shareholders.

Note: they weren't really founders. Tinder was created by Hatch Labs, which they worked for and was owned by IAC.

I thought it was important to point that out as that's at the core of this lawsuit. The team was given options, but it was majority owned and controlled by Hatch Labs / IAC. When IAC acquired it, they're arguing IAC should've paid more.

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do judges usually react to colorful language like that?

These quotes are from a PR response statement to the lawsuit, not any official court filing by Match.

believe a lawyer looked at them.

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#108

That is a brutal response from Match and IAC. Their statement also mentions that two separate banks were part of the valuation. I'd be curious what their proof is. A couple fun phrases from the statement: > his merry band of plaintiffs > but sour grapes alone do not a lawsuit make

How do judges usually react to colorful language like that?

It's already been mentioned that this particular document was not for a judge, but if it had been it would probably depend on the judge.

Many judges treat legal writing as a form of literature, and like to use interesting or creative language instead of just sticking to a dry boring style. I'm sure such judges would not mind some colorful language in filings as long as it helps get the point across.

A good lawyer will know if they are dealing with such a judge and write their filings appropriately.

Here are some examples of judges deviating from dry boring writing.

Noble v. Bradford Marine, Inc., 789 F. Supp. 395 (S.D. Fla. 1992) [1]. The section titles in the opinion are "Hurling Chunks", "Like a Winged Monkey Flying Out of the Ashes...", "NOT!", and "A Schwing and a Miss".

Fisher v. Lowe, 122 Mich.App. 418, 333 N.W.2d 67 [2]. A tree was hit by a car, and the owner of the tree sued. Defendants won and plaintiff appealed. The appeals court wrote this opinion:

  We thought that we would never see
  A suit to compensate a tree.

  A suit whose claim in tort is prest
  Upon a mangled tree's behest;

  A tree whose battered trunk was prest
  Against a Chevy's crumpled crest;

  A tree that faces each new day
  With bark and limb in disarray;

  A tree that may forever bear
  A lasting need for tender care.

  Flora lovers though we three,
  We must uphold the court's decree.

  Affirmed
When West [3], published a copy of this case they kept to the spirit of of the judge's writing, and their summary was:

  A  wayward Chevy struck a tree
  Whose owner sued defendants three.
  He sued car's owner, driver too,
  And insurer for what was due
  For his oak tree that now may bear
  A lasting need for tender care.

  The Oakland County Circuit Court, John N. O'Brien, J.,
  set forth The judgment that defendants sought
  And quickly an appeal was brought.

  Court of Appeals, J.H. Gillis, J., Gave thought
  and then had this to say:
  1) There is no liability
  Since No-Fault  grants  immunity;
  2) No jurisdiction can be found
  Where process service is unsound;
  And thus the judgment, as it's termed,
  Is due to be, and is,
  
  Affirmed
 


[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/7...

[2] http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Documents/Fisher_v_Lowe.pd...

[3] a publishing company that took copies of the public domain court opinions and added notes pointing out each important legal point in the cases, labeled those points from an extensive legal subject classification they maintained, and added indexes and cross references to the other cases in the same volume and in their prior volumes. This was in an era when everything was done with paper documents, not electronic.

People who grew up with electronic documents and networks might find it quite interesting to look into how legal research worked in, say 1970. They might expect it to be cumbersome, but it was actually quite reasonable, due to metadata companies like West and Shepard's [4].

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard%27s_Citations

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#109
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judge hearing the case.

If I were a judge, I'd only have a slightly more negative or skeptical attitude towards IAC/Match as a result of that PR statement, at best. I'm not buying the wisdom yet. Anyone have something more convincing? Or am I wrong about most judge's mindsets? Don't judges 'see through' PR? Isn't their job about facts, not being influenced by rhetoric? Are our judges crap? BTW, this is one reason why AI ought to assist judg…

But, based on your statement, we safely assume you're not a judge or even a legal professional?

So without alternative argument from other legal professionals it is safe to assume that the legal professionals who crafted the statement, do so for it's effectiveness in achieving their goal, which is winning this suit and not for PR or convincing you personally.

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#110
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked for match group as a C-level executive and had a equity structure that was similar, but on a way smaller scale. They use outside firms and a methodology called baseball arbitration to come up with a FMV. Although I didn't like some of the decisions that impacted the value of my equity, I was always treated fairly.

Is this also known as pendulum arbitration? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_arbitration I assume the bank acts as arbitrator, and IAC is one of the parties proposing a valuation? How do they remove the bank's incentive to side with IAC?

Yeah, basically. If the founder disagrees with IAC's/Match's valuation, they can come up with their own valuation and the "independent" outside party picks the winner, with no modifications.
Post reply on HN