IANAL but it seems plausible they could argue that the 50% was for the original concept and all the work he had done on it up to that point. Or are they really

IANAL but it seems plausible they could argue that the 50% was for the original concept and all the work he had done on it up to that point. Or are they really arguing that they threw all that away and started with nothing after he left? I agree with those saying that ideas don't make a company, but startup companies don't suddenly become worth a billion real dollars to GM without ideas. If what GM is buying is largely IP, and that IP is largely based on the departed co-founder's ideas, then his claims seem reasonable to me. Edit: reading further I guess they are arguing that none of his IP is in what GM is buying. So I guess that will be the real point of contention.