2 ms·

It seems like it was more than an idea, a joint application was submitted and Jeremy delivered (and possibly financed) the company's first office, according to

It seems like it was more than an idea, a joint application was submitted and Jeremy delivered (and possibly financed) the company's first office, according to the article. The big issue I have with this story is the foundation on which Sam's claims about Jeremy's claim sit: >In my opinion, Jeremy’s claim is completely baseless and opportunistic—it obviously comes at a bad time for the company with the merger still pending, and Kyle understandably wanted to avoid a protracted litigation. That a founder doesn't want to argue facts in court, or that an investor thinks it is obvious such a claim would come at a bad time for the company, do not have any bearing on the veracity or pertinence of Jeremy's claim. Yet, this is what the blog post states.

weaksauce 10y ago
I disagree. The baseless part is because Sam doesn't think that finding an office space and potentially filling out a YC application being worth value especially since the shares would be somewhat vested after 1 year of work. The opportunistic part comes because of the timing; he was either looking to put the max strain on cruise to get his payout or it was simply odd timing. I would say that it's more likely that it was opportunistic timing to force their hand. I don't think it's common for a company to buy another company with pending litigation over ownership of ideas. At the very least, left unresolved, it would devalue the company by some factor. It has the underpinnings of a shakedown in my eyes. I'd like to hear the other side of the story but I can see this type of situation happening fairly frequently.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  I haven't seen the application, so I can only speculate that it may contain language that acknowledges Jeremy as an owner of the company. The shares wouldn't vest as a result of acceptance into YC, but would have already been Jeremy's by right of his prior founding of the company that applied to YC. Acceptance into YC would have nothing to do with Jeremy owning shares in Cruise. It may very well be a shakedown, but the blog post admits that there was a prior Cruise relationship with Jeremy and that he performed actual work; the article stops short of claiming that Jeremy contributed no funds to the company -- which you'd think would be a point that would be harped upon, especially given the bombastic language used in the preemptive legal filing being discussed. I don't know all of the facts in this case, so, it will be interesting to see what Jeremy says, if he responds.
  - weaksauce 10y ago
    You can look at what the YC app entails if you click on apply at the bottom of most HN pages. If they filed it together there is definitely talk about equity and ownership of the company among founders. founder required to have at least 10% ownership. IANAL so I don't know how binding applying to an incubator is if you don't have a partnership agreement filled out prior to the application. Without it in writing explicitly it's very gray. I imagine it's not as cut and dry as it seems; especially with legal definitions and practices sometimes going against common sense.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      I'm not sure about whether the YC documents become binding on the ownership of the company, but it would indicate that YC has had knowledge of another owner for awhile.
      - weaksauce 10y ago
        Yeah, I doubt it becomes binding but it could show evidence of intent in the case of undocumented partnerships like it seems they were before incorporating. A valid partnership can be formed without paperwork(though things like this can happen without proper contracts in place).

weaksauce 10y ago

I disagree. The baseless part is because Sam doesn't think that finding an office space and potentially filling out a YC application being worth value especially since the shares would be somewhat vested after 1 year of work. The opportunistic part comes because of the timing; he was either looking to put the max strain on cruise to get his payout or it was simply odd timing. I would say that it's more likely that it was opportunistic timing to force their hand. I don't think it's common for a company to buy another company with pending litigation over ownership of ideas. At the very least, left unresolved, it would devalue the company by some factor. It has the underpinnings of a shakedown in my eyes. I'd like to hear the other side of the story but I can see this type of situation happening fairly frequently.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
I haven't seen the application, so I can only speculate that it may contain language that acknowledges Jeremy as an owner of the company. The shares wouldn't vest as a result of acceptance into YC, but would have already been Jeremy's by right of his prior founding of the company that applied to YC. Acceptance into YC would have nothing to do with Jeremy owning shares in Cruise. It may very well be a shakedown, but the blog post admits that there was a prior Cruise relationship with Jeremy and that he performed actual work; the article stops short of claiming that Jeremy contributed no funds to the company -- which you'd think would be a point that would be harped upon, especially given the bombastic language used in the preemptive legal filing being discussed. I don't know all of the facts in this case, so, it will be interesting to see what Jeremy says, if he responds.
- weaksauce 10y ago
  You can look at what the YC app entails if you click on apply at the bottom of most HN pages. If they filed it together there is definitely talk about equity and ownership of the company among founders. founder required to have at least 10% ownership. IANAL so I don't know how binding applying to an incubator is if you don't have a partnership agreement filled out prior to the application. Without it in writing explicitly it's very gray. I imagine it's not as cut and dry as it seems; especially with legal definitions and practices sometimes going against common sense.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    I'm not sure about whether the YC documents become binding on the ownership of the company, but it would indicate that YC has had knowledge of another owner for awhile.
    - weaksauce 10y ago
      Yeah, I doubt it becomes binding but it could show evidence of intent in the case of undocumented partnerships like it seems they were before incorporating. A valid partnership can be formed without paperwork(though things like this can happen without proper contracts in place).