5 ms·

Just delete the post dude, it's for a court to settle not a forum

by mtkd 11y ago

jboydyhacker 11y ago
I'd bet there is a 50% chance that Sam's post will help settle the case before it gets to a judge. Most of the time Judges don't even want to hear the case since legal battles are bad for both sides- they do all sorts of things to force two sides to settle. The guy worked there a month with imo should be the headline- and if there are no facts missing (which is likely and possible) my bet is this will help resolve this before a court acts.
jsmthrowaway 11y ago
I'm troubled by this post, actually, because of the implication and usage (overt or otherwise) of the HN audience. Especially with an earlier revision with that line about not tolerating such behavior in Silicon Valley, and the general tone of the post including going after the defendant's professionalism. This post smells pretty bad, and is pretty much just dirty laundry or posturing. This is a really, really surprising post for Sam to write, and I think even he knows it's wrong with the lawyers bit. They would stop him for a multitude of reasons, some legal, some tactical, some ethical. All of them would be valuable legal advice. I'm troubled by a mix of things here: the wide audience afforded an investor in the plaintiff simply by name recognition in this community, the aforementioned characterizations of the defendant (who most of us have never heard of, and therefore are relying on the post to describe), and the circumvention of process that this post demonstrates, whether intentional or otherwise, not to mention the implicit attempt to steer public sentiment on a person. I'm not ascribing any malice here, to be clear, I'm just still processing the frame of mind that would consider this post a good idea at all. I actually disagree that it should be pulled, because the gun has been fired now (and pulling it makes it worse). There are only two explanations of overall motive here, and neither is kind. Nobody wins here, Sam, Cruise, Kyle, or Jeremy. Especially not Jeremy, and one need only scroll down to find the number of comments that bought in immediately to Sam's narrative and are talking about refusing to work with Jeremy in any capacity. What a complete shit deal, all around.
- ones_and_zeros 11y ago
  Indeed. This looks a lot more like a high profile investor using his audience to litigate the issue in the court of public opinion and dragging some guys name (who may or may not have a claim to Cruise) through the mud. Personally, I've seen in the past people who have contributed significantly to projects which later became successful and did not reap the rewards of their work because of, among other things, harassment via the legal system. IMO, this doesn't look good for sama.
  - jsmthrowaway 11y ago
    > IMO, this doesn't look good for sama. I'll say it: if I were in a position to take his investment, this post would give me serious, serious pause. To be clear, I'm all about transparency and talking about things like this in the open, but not like this. There's a lot we need to talk about as an industry, but this doesn't help.
  - jboydyhacker 11y ago
    Most founders would LOVE an investor help defend in a situation like this. Typically founders are left charging off into battle countless times with little but moral support. "yeah you go fight that battle for us- thanks and let us know how it goes". Good for Sam for actually at least attempting to help and take a few of the arrows for the founder/ CEO. Sam is actually taking a bit of risk doing this legally and PR wise and while I'm not saying his approach is perfect (he already edited a few lines) - It took a lot of balls to wade in here, I rarely see investors do so- and I think it will help settle the case faster which is really good for both sides.
    - timv 11y ago
      > Most founders would LOVE an investor help defend in a situation like this. There's a lot of value in having an investor try and solve the problem. That should include offering advice like "don't let this derail the acquisition, make him a reasonable offer and get it all sorted out", and being willing to actively participate in the process of hashing out an agreement. Sam can, and should, defend the value of Cruise as an entity, but he's gone beyond that to defending Kyle by attacking Jeremy. That's no longer about solving the problem - now it's about people and emotions.

Just delete the post dude, it's for a court to settle not a forum

by mtkd 11y ago

Just delete the post dude, it's for a court to settle not a forum

I'd bet there is a 50% chance that Sam's post will help settle the case before it gets to a judge. Most of the time Judges don't even want to hear the case since legal battles are bad for both sides- they do all sorts of things to force two sides to settle. The guy worked there a month with imo should be the headline- and if there are no facts missing (which is likely and possible) my bet is this will help resolve this before a court acts.

jsmthrowaway 11y ago

I'm troubled by this post, actually, because of the implication and usage (overt or otherwise) of the HN audience. Especially with an earlier revision with that line about not tolerating such behavior in Silicon Valley, and the general tone of the post including going after the defendant's professionalism. This post smells pretty bad, and is pretty much just dirty laundry or posturing. This is a really, really surprising post for Sam to write, and I think even he knows it's wrong with the lawyers bit. They would stop him for a multitude of reasons, some legal, some tactical, some ethical. All of them would be valuable legal advice. I'm troubled by a mix of things here: the wide audience afforded an investor in the plaintiff simply by name recognition in this community, the aforementioned characterizations of the defendant (who most of us have never heard of, and therefore are relying on the post to describe), and the circumvention of process that this post demonstrates, whether intentional or otherwise, not to mention the implicit attempt to steer public sentiment on a person. I'm not ascribing any malice here, to be clear, I'm just still processing the frame of mind that would consider this post a good idea at all. I actually disagree that it should be pulled, because the gun has been fired now (and pulling it makes it worse). There are only two explanations of overall motive here, and neither is kind. Nobody wins here, Sam, Cruise, Kyle, or Jeremy. Especially not Jeremy, and one need only scroll down to find the number of comments that bought in immediately to Sam's narrative and are talking about refusing to work with Jeremy in any capacity. What a complete shit deal, all around.

ones_and_zeros 11y ago
Indeed. This looks a lot more like a high profile investor using his audience to litigate the issue in the court of public opinion and dragging some guys name (who may or may not have a claim to Cruise) through the mud. Personally, I've seen in the past people who have contributed significantly to projects which later became successful and did not reap the rewards of their work because of, among other things, harassment via the legal system. IMO, this doesn't look good for sama.
- jsmthrowaway 11y ago
  > IMO, this doesn't look good for sama. I'll say it: if I were in a position to take his investment, this post would give me serious, serious pause. To be clear, I'm all about transparency and talking about things like this in the open, but not like this. There's a lot we need to talk about as an industry, but this doesn't help.
- jboydyhacker 11y ago
  Most founders would LOVE an investor help defend in a situation like this. Typically founders are left charging off into battle countless times with little but moral support. "yeah you go fight that battle for us- thanks and let us know how it goes". Good for Sam for actually at least attempting to help and take a few of the arrows for the founder/ CEO. Sam is actually taking a bit of risk doing this legally and PR wise and while I'm not saying his approach is perfect (he already edited a few lines) - It took a lot of balls to wade in here, I rarely see investors do so- and I think it will help settle the case faster which is really good for both sides.
  - timv 11y ago
    > Most founders would LOVE an investor help defend in a situation like this. There's a lot of value in having an investor try and solve the problem. That should include offering advice like "don't let this derail the acquisition, make him a reasonable offer and get it all sorted out", and being willing to actively participate in the process of hashing out an agreement. Sam can, and should, defend the value of Cruise as an entity, but he's gone beyond that to defending Kyle by attacking Jeremy. That's no longer about solving the problem - now it's about people and emotions.