4 ms·

Well, that private settlement certainly clears it up for them. As for the rest of us, who sat on the sidelines and watched the slap-fighting, it doesn't offer a

Well, that private settlement certainly clears it up for them. As for the rest of us, who sat on the sidelines and watched the slap-fighting, it doesn't offer a whole lot. Here's the crux I guess of the article: >Cruise and its founder Kyle Vogt now acknowledge that Guillory was a cofounder of the company. This is very much a sticking point that was extensively discussed in the prior hullabaloo regarding the YC-affiliated post on the matter. How this was agreed upon - the reasoning - being private isn't the most clarifying outcome for the public. I've no doubt this is on purpose for all the parties involved, and hope they are satisfied in private. As a longtime observer of human behavior, my belief is this announcement will do nothing to quell outside speculation. If the parties involved don't want a bunch of randos-on-the-internet making up their own scenarios, there is an easy fix. Just share with the class what happened so we all may learn.

GavinMcG 10y ago
What is there to fix? They've settled it. Why should they care to satisfy your curiosity?
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  To answer your questions in order: 1. Public perception of a contentious disagreement where both sides levied serious accusations and reputations may be relevant in future business dealings. 2. Because if they don't want people making up their own theories they'll at least say something in unison other than "we aren't saying anything" as it pertains to Answer #1. I'm not saying they owe any explanation - I'm just saying if they don't give one then they don't have room to bemoan idle speculation.
  - jrockway 10y ago
    > 1. Public perception of a contentious disagreement where both sides levied serious accusations and reputations may be relevant in future business dealings. That sounds exactly like why they said "we've reached a mutually-agreeable compromise." Now neither party will be negatively affected in future business dealings. > If they don't want people making up their own theories they'll at least say something Who cares? They have a billion dollars from General Motors. GM itself is a big enough company that opinions on HN don't matter and won't affect the sales of their final product. They defused a difficult set of complaints in a mutually-agreeable fashion without involving the courts. That's good business. As outsiders, we are not in any involved with them, and probably shouldn't spend any time caring, except to take away one lesson: talk your differences over and reach an amicable agreement. Don't invent drama when none is required!
    - 6stringmerc 10y ago
      Well regarding your perspective I think you've got a contradiction in the reasoning used: Unlike you state, they did involve the courts, at least initially. Settling out of court enabled a level of privacy which, as I was getting at, leaves the mechanics of agreement undisclosed (agreeing to not say anything). As outsiders sure that doesn't mean squat, but, in a larger view, some high profile disputes employ "trial in the court of public opinion" tactics. That seemed relevant in this particular instance, and when it goes unaddressed, it simply - again, as an outsider - leaves an odd impression to me.
      - galistoca 10y ago
        What people are saying is nobody really cares about "leaving an odd impression on an outsider". You're acting too serious about something that's really not your business.
        6stringmerc 10y ago
        I'm a writer so when a story has an inconclusive ending it gives me pause. Maybe you don't feel the same way and that's fine. I was simply commenting in the way I would about any other storyline I watch being played out. Caring is not particularly an accurate term, I'd say more like interest. I'm interested, and thus I've paid attention. I postulate, comment, and move on with life and store the data for later use.
        ctvo 10y ago
        All of your replies read like a bad attempt at prying into how much they paid to get this to go away. I have to agree with the others: it's none of your business, and no spinning of some reputation damage unless they do (?) will change that.
    - hueving 10y ago
      >Now neither party will be negatively affected in future business dealings. Well I wouldn't do any deals with the so-called 'cofounder' because he appears extremely opportunistic and doesn't contribute anything useful.
pmorici 10y ago
There is almost certainly a clause in the settlement that limits what the parties can say about the terms and each other. ie: confidential terms, non-disparagement, and specific language that can be used in response to questions about the settlement. In this case it sounds like the things they have agreed to say are that Guillory was a co-founder and the settlement was mutually agreeable.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Wouldn't doubt what you mention; I attempted to allude as to such. In legally precise language, yes I get the statement is the agreed upon statement. In general, casual observational language the agreed upon statement offers little in content.
will_brown 10y ago
>This is very much a sticking point that was extensively discussed in the prior hullabaloo regarding the YC-affiliated post on the matter. For all intents and purposes consider YC/Cruise/Vogt all one party. So it shouldn't be surprising that any YC post took a legal position consistent with Cruise/Vogt that: Guillory was not a co-founder and had no claim to ownership of Cruise. >Cruise and its founder Kyle Vogt now acknowledge that Guillory was a cofounder of the company. This is simply part of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, they didn't necessarily have to include this, but as a former commercial litigator I will give you my two cents... Guillory demanded that, because without that he purely seems interested in money and not the credit. In a way it is part reputation (important) part ego (not important). Nevertheless, the big arbitrator here (behind closed doors) is GM, cruise investors and $1B. GM is weighting the idea of no publicity is bad publicity with the fact they just bought a start up for $1B that doesn't have its shit together. Investors just captured their unicorn, and now have pending litigation, putting that in jeopardy for how many years. So at a certain point both GM and investors are going to put a lot of pressure on Cruise to settle the lawsuit ASAP, whatever it take, including give him credit as co-founder publicly.

GavinMcG 10y ago

What is there to fix? They've settled it. Why should they care to satisfy your curiosity?

6stringmerc 10y ago
To answer your questions in order: 1. Public perception of a contentious disagreement where both sides levied serious accusations and reputations may be relevant in future business dealings. 2. Because if they don't want people making up their own theories they'll at least say something in unison other than "we aren't saying anything" as it pertains to Answer #1. I'm not saying they owe any explanation - I'm just saying if they don't give one then they don't have room to bemoan idle speculation.
- jrockway 10y ago
  > 1. Public perception of a contentious disagreement where both sides levied serious accusations and reputations may be relevant in future business dealings. That sounds exactly like why they said "we've reached a mutually-agreeable compromise." Now neither party will be negatively affected in future business dealings. > If they don't want people making up their own theories they'll at least say something Who cares? They have a billion dollars from General Motors. GM itself is a big enough company that opinions on HN don't matter and won't affect the sales of their final product. They defused a difficult set of complaints in a mutually-agreeable fashion without involving the courts. That's good business. As outsiders, we are not in any involved with them, and probably shouldn't spend any time caring, except to take away one lesson: talk your differences over and reach an amicable agreement. Don't invent drama when none is required!
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    Well regarding your perspective I think you've got a contradiction in the reasoning used: Unlike you state, they did involve the courts, at least initially. Settling out of court enabled a level of privacy which, as I was getting at, leaves the mechanics of agreement undisclosed (agreeing to not say anything). As outsiders sure that doesn't mean squat, but, in a larger view, some high profile disputes employ "trial in the court of public opinion" tactics. That seemed relevant in this particular instance, and when it goes unaddressed, it simply - again, as an outsider - leaves an odd impression to me.
    - galistoca 10y ago
      What people are saying is nobody really cares about "leaving an odd impression on an outsider". You're acting too serious about something that's really not your business.
      - 6stringmerc 10y ago
        I'm a writer so when a story has an inconclusive ending it gives me pause. Maybe you don't feel the same way and that's fine. I was simply commenting in the way I would about any other storyline I watch being played out. Caring is not particularly an accurate term, I'd say more like interest. I'm interested, and thus I've paid attention. I postulate, comment, and move on with life and store the data for later use.
        ctvo 10y ago
        All of your replies read like a bad attempt at prying into how much they paid to get this to go away. I have to agree with the others: it's none of your business, and no spinning of some reputation damage unless they do (?) will change that.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >Now neither party will be negatively affected in future business dealings. Well I wouldn't do any deals with the so-called 'cofounder' because he appears extremely opportunistic and doesn't contribute anything useful.

pmorici 10y ago

There is almost certainly a clause in the settlement that limits what the parties can say about the terms and each other. ie: confidential terms, non-disparagement, and specific language that can be used in response to questions about the settlement. In this case it sounds like the things they have agreed to say are that Guillory was a co-founder and the settlement was mutually agreeable.

6stringmerc 10y ago
Wouldn't doubt what you mention; I attempted to allude as to such. In legally precise language, yes I get the statement is the agreed upon statement. In general, casual observational language the agreed upon statement offers little in content.

will_brown 10y ago

>This is very much a sticking point that was extensively discussed in the prior hullabaloo regarding the YC-affiliated post on the matter. For all intents and purposes consider YC/Cruise/Vogt all one party. So it shouldn't be surprising that any YC post took a legal position consistent with Cruise/Vogt that: Guillory was not a co-founder and had no claim to ownership of Cruise. >Cruise and its founder Kyle Vogt now acknowledge that Guillory was a cofounder of the company. This is simply part of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, they didn't necessarily have to include this, but as a former commercial litigator I will give you my two cents... Guillory demanded that, because without that he purely seems interested in money and not the credit. In a way it is part reputation (important) part ego (not important). Nevertheless, the big arbitrator here (behind closed doors) is GM, cruise investors and $1B. GM is weighting the idea of no publicity is bad publicity with the fact they just bought a start up for $1B that doesn't have its shit together. Investors just captured their unicorn, and now have pending litigation, putting that in jeopardy for how many years. So at a certain point both GM and investors are going to put a lot of pressure on Cruise to settle the lawsuit ASAP, whatever it take, including give him credit as co-founder publicly.