5 ms·

Screw that, name and shame away. The nasty gits deserve it!

sharkweek 12y ago
Maybe? First, we're trusting one person's word over another on HN; this is one of the wonderful reasons courts exist. And let's say hypothetically the person who just posted this loses in court, this nice little shaming comes back and bites them as a defamatory attack.
- joeclark77 12y ago
  That's not how the legal system works in America. The process is the punishment. The software pirates have $2 million of somebody else's money that they can burn up going through a multi-year process. They will win this thing by forcing the OP to choose between giving up or being bankrupted by court costs. No way you can win. My suggestion would you find an experienced patent troll (er, I mean, intellectual property broker) and offer them a piece of the action if they can help you squeeze as much as possible out of your adversary. They presumably have the capital, skill, and ability to endure the legal process. Hey, I just discovered a good use for a patent troll!
  - danielweber 12y ago
    I really don't like people who steal software, but so far[1] we have one accusation here. Let's not completely destroy the accused right away based just on this. [1] It would be unfortunate if this drama played out on HN, he-said she-said style. Although the eventual resolution of this will be very interesting and relevant to developers and entrepreneurs so I expect to read about it here some day.
    - qeorge 12y ago
      That's very cool of you, Daniel. While of course I believe my version of events, it is after all just a Hacker News post. Whether or not I can share the eventual outcome of this matter, I do plan to write an article on concrete steps that developers can take to protect themselves in situations like this.
    - joeclark77 12y ago
      I don't see how that's a reply to my comment or justifies the downvotes. My comment was about how "the process is the punishment" and that there is not likely to be any justice in a court trial. The other party has $2 million of other people's money and have no incentive not to use it to bankrupt the OP with the legal process. That's a significant challenge and the OP needs a strategy if he wants to win something.
      - danielweber 12y ago
        I didn't downvote (nor upvote) you, but the other party absolutely does not want to blow its $2 million on a lawsuit. The OP's chances of recovery strictly went up when these company got funding. Compared to before, the OP has everything to gain and nothing to lose -- before, he had already written off this project as a bad project. Now, the company that has gotten funding needs to make sure that everything is on the up-and-up. Assuming OP's story is true, it's entirely in OP's power to say "we won't license the code, FOAD," which would force an expensive and possibly fatal rewrite of the code at this late date. OTOH, with that leverage, OP can name his price. If he demands too much, the VCs might just pull the plug. If the OP's goal is revenge, mission accomplished. But revenge doesn't put food on your family.
rayiner 12y ago
They might legitimately have no idea they "stole" the software. They probably didn't read the contract carefully, and they might assume that they did "pay" for it, albeit at a reduced price. That said, they have every incentive to burn the $2m fighting this claim, because otherwise they have nothing. The best result for OP would be a negotiated sale of the software for some $$, or perhaps equity in the business if they can stomach the risk. Nobody wins if the legal dispute eats up all the money and sours the business.
- rabidonrails 12y ago
  It would be strange that they charged-back and thought it was still completely justified to use the deliverables.
- markbnj 12y ago
  How does not reading the contract and then not paying what's owed equate to "legitimately" thinking they acquired the software at a reduced rate? I have to assume that during the initial dispute the contract was a matter of discussion. Anyway, as others have said: shut up, get lawyer.
- hga 12y ago
  Which gets to my point, and for which a lawyer, as an emotionally uninvolved 3rd party can be far more valuable than as someone who merely knows the law: Decide what you want to get out of this: Do you want to destroy the company? Perhaps take them over/replace them in some way? (A good lawyer will ask "What does this accomplish", although deterrence is not illegitimate in my viewpoint). Get paid for your work, with suitable interest and penalties? Get a piece of the action of the other company? If you're telling the truth, there's a good chance you've got them in an exquisitely delicate situation. While they've officially raised a lot of money, if it just happened there it's unlikely it's all been transferred to their bank account. Even if so, you can mess them up going forwards with justified legal action. For those panicking over defamation, truth is an absolute defense to it, you just have to be able to afford to get your day in court. Although I'll note everyone who's every been in a lawsuit, on whatever side, says it becomes a consuming thing, you've got to think about the opportunity cost. Something a good lawyer will bring up.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
I'm curious, why people are so afraid to name others? Whether to complain about cheats and crooks, or to commend and applaud someone doing something good, people are reluctant to give names. But this seems like an important information for everyone!
- hvs 12y ago
  Unless the person naming names is wrong and you end up with a witch hunt.
danielweber 12y ago
The problem with "name and shame" is that people don't always remember the parties right. More than 10 years ago, a larger company stole my start-up's work, including our typos. We (when I say "we" in this comment I mean all the people in the start-up) internally agreed to handle it through the court system. Anyway, we had a loose cannon, and at a security convention he was telling everyone he could how that other company stole our stuff (and went directly to the competitor's booth to bitch at them). A year later, people remembered that the software was stolen, but they didn't remember which party was which -- half of them thought our company was the thief. [1] This was before the days of blogs, so you might have better luck today with the public getting basic facts right, but you're spinning a giant gun around and it just might end up pointed at your face when you are done. [1] This was among the reasons we decided to handle it through the courts. It was also the last time said loose cannon ever went to a conference during my tenure there.

Maybe? First, we're trusting one person's word over another on HN; this is one of the wonderful reasons courts exist. And let's say hypothetically the person who just posted this loses in court, this nice little shaming comes back and bites them as a defamatory attack.

joeclark77 12y ago
That's not how the legal system works in America. The process is the punishment. The software pirates have $2 million of somebody else's money that they can burn up going through a multi-year process. They will win this thing by forcing the OP to choose between giving up or being bankrupted by court costs. No way you can win. My suggestion would you find an experienced patent troll (er, I mean, intellectual property broker) and offer them a piece of the action if they can help you squeeze as much as possible out of your adversary. They presumably have the capital, skill, and ability to endure the legal process. Hey, I just discovered a good use for a patent troll!
- danielweber 12y ago
  I really don't like people who steal software, but so far[1] we have one accusation here. Let's not completely destroy the accused right away based just on this. [1] It would be unfortunate if this drama played out on HN, he-said she-said style. Although the eventual resolution of this will be very interesting and relevant to developers and entrepreneurs so I expect to read about it here some day.
  - qeorge 12y ago
    That's very cool of you, Daniel. While of course I believe my version of events, it is after all just a Hacker News post. Whether or not I can share the eventual outcome of this matter, I do plan to write an article on concrete steps that developers can take to protect themselves in situations like this.
  - joeclark77 12y ago
    I don't see how that's a reply to my comment or justifies the downvotes. My comment was about how "the process is the punishment" and that there is not likely to be any justice in a court trial. The other party has $2 million of other people's money and have no incentive not to use it to bankrupt the OP with the legal process. That's a significant challenge and the OP needs a strategy if he wants to win something.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      I didn't downvote (nor upvote) you, but the other party absolutely does not want to blow its $2 million on a lawsuit. The OP's chances of recovery strictly went up when these company got funding. Compared to before, the OP has everything to gain and nothing to lose -- before, he had already written off this project as a bad project. Now, the company that has gotten funding needs to make sure that everything is on the up-and-up. Assuming OP's story is true, it's entirely in OP's power to say "we won't license the code, FOAD," which would force an expensive and possibly fatal rewrite of the code at this late date. OTOH, with that leverage, OP can name his price. If he demands too much, the VCs might just pull the plug. If the OP's goal is revenge, mission accomplished. But revenge doesn't put food on your family.

rayiner 12y ago

They might legitimately have no idea they "stole" the software. They probably didn't read the contract carefully, and they might assume that they did "pay" for it, albeit at a reduced price. That said, they have every incentive to burn the $2m fighting this claim, because otherwise they have nothing. The best result for OP would be a negotiated sale of the software for some $$, or perhaps equity in the business if they can stomach the risk. Nobody wins if the legal dispute eats up all the money and sours the business.

rabidonrails 12y ago
It would be strange that they charged-back and thought it was still completely justified to use the deliverables.
markbnj 12y ago
How does not reading the contract and then not paying what's owed equate to "legitimately" thinking they acquired the software at a reduced rate? I have to assume that during the initial dispute the contract was a matter of discussion. Anyway, as others have said: shut up, get lawyer.
hga 12y ago
Which gets to my point, and for which a lawyer, as an emotionally uninvolved 3rd party can be far more valuable than as someone who merely knows the law: Decide what you want to get out of this: Do you want to destroy the company? Perhaps take them over/replace them in some way? (A good lawyer will ask "What does this accomplish", although deterrence is not illegitimate in my viewpoint). Get paid for your work, with suitable interest and penalties? Get a piece of the action of the other company? If you're telling the truth, there's a good chance you've got them in an exquisitely delicate situation. While they've officially raised a lot of money, if it just happened there it's unlikely it's all been transferred to their bank account. Even if so, you can mess them up going forwards with justified legal action. For those panicking over defamation, truth is an absolute defense to it, you just have to be able to afford to get your day in court. Although I'll note everyone who's every been in a lawsuit, on whatever side, says it becomes a consuming thing, you've got to think about the opportunity cost. Something a good lawyer will bring up.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

I'm curious, why people are so afraid to name others? Whether to complain about cheats and crooks, or to commend and applaud someone doing something good, people are reluctant to give names. But this seems like an important information for everyone!

hvs 12y ago
Unless the person naming names is wrong and you end up with a witch hunt.

danielweber 12y ago

The problem with "name and shame" is that people don't always remember the parties right. More than 10 years ago, a larger company stole my start-up's work, including our typos. We (when I say "we" in this comment I mean all the people in the start-up) internally agreed to handle it through the court system. Anyway, we had a loose cannon, and at a security convention he was telling everyone he could how that other company stole our stuff (and went directly to the competitor's booth to bitch at them). A year later, people remembered that the software was stolen, but they didn't remember which party was which -- half of them thought our company was the thief. [1] This was before the days of blogs, so you might have better luck today with the public getting basic facts right, but you're spinning a giant gun around and it just might end up pointed at your face when you are done. [1] This was among the reasons we decided to handle it through the courts. It was also the last time said loose cannon ever went to a conference during my tenure there.