12 ms·

This case illustrates the dictum that "hard facts make bad law." In essence, the court went out of its way to try to do equity in what it viewed as a case of a

by grellas 17y ago

This case illustrates the dictum that "hard facts make bad law." In essence, the court went out of its way to try to do equity in what it viewed as a case of an opportunistic founder who tried unfairly to stick it to his co-founders. It is at best a mercy decision and an aberrant one at that (a legal outcome that turns basically on the idea that startups are "different" rests on pretty weak legal reasoning and is likely to remain a one-fer decision). Founders are often are ignorant about who owns IP as it is created in these sorts of loose, early stages. Very important to get this right (see a piece I wrote on this issue here: http://grellas.com/faq_business_startup_015a.html http://grellas.com/faq_business_startup_015a.html).

staunch 17y ago
If you think it's so weak (and that makes sense to me), could he likely appeal the decision and have it overturned?
- grellas 17y ago
  No, this is the end of the road (the case was decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the highest level of appeal court in the federal court system except for the U.S. Supreme Court - and this case has no chance whatever of being of sufficient interest to the Supreme Court for them to want to review it). At the same time, the case has almost no precedential value even apart from its poor reasoning. A narrow class of cases come before the federal courts that deal with straight state law issues, and they are decided in federal court only because there is a diversity of citizenship between the parties (i.e., the parties are citizens of different states). When a federal court decides such cases, it is forced to interpret state law and its decisions are regarded as minimally persuasive (because the state courts are their own best interpreters of state law). Thus, even if it were well-reasoned, it would scarcely carry much weight for future decisions in Idaho. And, since Idaho law is all that is involved, it would carry no weight at all for cases arising elsewhere.
  - staunch 17y ago
    Thanks for the reply. It's awesome having you on HN :-)

by grellas 17y ago

staunch 17y ago

If you think it's so weak (and that makes sense to me), could he likely appeal the decision and have it overturned?

grellas 17y ago
No, this is the end of the road (the case was decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the highest level of appeal court in the federal court system except for the U.S. Supreme Court - and this case has no chance whatever of being of sufficient interest to the Supreme Court for them to want to review it). At the same time, the case has almost no precedential value even apart from its poor reasoning. A narrow class of cases come before the federal courts that deal with straight state law issues, and they are decided in federal court only because there is a diversity of citizenship between the parties (i.e., the parties are citizens of different states). When a federal court decides such cases, it is forced to interpret state law and its decisions are regarded as minimally persuasive (because the state courts are their own best interpreters of state law). Thus, even if it were well-reasoned, it would scarcely carry much weight for future decisions in Idaho. And, since Idaho law is all that is involved, it would carry no weight at all for cases arising elsewhere.
- staunch 17y ago
  Thanks for the reply. It's awesome having you on HN :-)