5 ms·

As opposed to "I showed up and worked 20 hours on your idea, so I own it." ? I can't see either side being 'right' here.

dba7dba 11y ago
Bobby never said he owned it. He didn't have hidden agendas going into the competition. Billy says he owns it. Billy did have a hidden agenda. Bobby at least owns a lot more than 0.04% of the company. Had Billy hired the coders to do the work and say I own the company, I have no problem with that. But here, Billy tricks people to work on a project without fully disclosing his intention for virtually free, and than he claims he owns the company. It's pretty clear who's wrong and who's right.
- notNow 11y ago
  A fool and his code are soon parted. Sad but true.
- nimblegorilla 11y ago
  You're probably right, but remember that we are only hearing the story from Bobby's side.
  - SwellJoe 11y ago
    Unless Bobby has fabricated the emails and slack conversations (and there are 8 other people in the world who would be able to refute them if they were fabricated), I think we've heard it, at least partially, from Billy's side, as well. What has been included is more than damning enough; the email detailing "ownership" is all I need to see, given the terms of Startup Weekend (which are easily verifiable by looking at the website). Billy came into the weekend with the intention to commit fraud on Startup Weekend and on any developers he could sucker into working with him.
  - angersock 11y ago
    A side replete with evidence from emails and chats. It's like people have forgotten that we've got a lot easily-recordable evidence these days.
    - nimblegorilla 11y ago
      The only problem is that Bobby doesn't provide and emails and slack conversations until after things started to go sideways. It's like people have forgotten that anyone can cherry-pick evidence to put themselves in the best light.

5 ms·

As opposed to "I showed up and worked 20 hours on your idea, so I own it." ? I can't see either side being 'right' here.

by silverbax88 11y ago

dba7dba 11y ago
Bobby never said he owned it. He didn't have hidden agendas going into the competition. Billy says he owns it. Billy did have a hidden agenda. Bobby at least owns a lot more than 0.04% of the company. Had Billy hired the coders to do the work and say I own the company, I have no problem with that. But here, Billy tricks people to work on a project without fully disclosing his intention for virtually free, and than he claims he owns the company. It's pretty clear who's wrong and who's right.
- notNow 11y ago
  A fool and his code are soon parted. Sad but true.
- nimblegorilla 11y ago
  You're probably right, but remember that we are only hearing the story from Bobby's side.
  - SwellJoe 11y ago
    Unless Bobby has fabricated the emails and slack conversations (and there are 8 other people in the world who would be able to refute them if they were fabricated), I think we've heard it, at least partially, from Billy's side, as well. What has been included is more than damning enough; the email detailing "ownership" is all I need to see, given the terms of Startup Weekend (which are easily verifiable by looking at the website). Billy came into the weekend with the intention to commit fraud on Startup Weekend and on any developers he could sucker into working with him.
  - angersock 11y ago
    A side replete with evidence from emails and chats. It's like people have forgotten that we've got a lot easily-recordable evidence these days.
    - nimblegorilla 11y ago
      The only problem is that Bobby doesn't provide and emails and slack conversations until after things started to go sideways. It's like people have forgotten that anyone can cherry-pick evidence to put themselves in the best light.