>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

>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.