Anyone else had this experience?
I have two choices, either drop the product or fight the case. I only have $3000 left in my bank and the lawyer would cost me around $15,000.
Any suggestion?
[I am not a lawyer]
The company hasn't been granted an injunction. Anyone can take anyone to court.
You're in position to know if your former company can make a plausible [not a correct] case before a judge, since the most relevant forms of evidence would be documents of which you are aware and knowledge about what work you are doing now and what work you did for the former company. You're also in a position to know if your former company has the resources and the will to fully pursue a lawsuit.
In addition, you're in position to judge how likely your chances for success are in regard to your current company and to judge the chances of success of alternatives to developing that particular product.
Finally, you're in position to judge whether this action is motivated by personal bad will or by legitimate business concerns and whether the lawsuit is a distraction from your former company's core mission or a fundamental part of its execution strategy.
To put it another way, your in position to know who is in the right here.
Good luck.
A motion does not need to be consistent or holeless to be successful.
Anyway, it is worth considering that time spent on legal matters is a distraction for a startup founder. Winning in court is not a substitute for building a product users love and growing revenue.
Winning in court is not success and is attractive because it is easier than executing a business. Pivoting into something else may be more productive than fighting as a business decision.
Give caving to their demands a serious thought for a minute- have a disinterested party (or two) look over any agreements you've signed and the motion for injunction. If they don't completely take your side, odds are you're going to lose at trial because you can't convince a jury. At that point you'd be right where you would be if you caved, only two years older with nothing to show for it and a great deal poorer.
This needs to be a cold, calculated financial decision on your part. Even if you're right and exonerated, does pursuing your product (versus some other product) pay enough to justify the additional costs?
To argue the matter on the principles is a privilege of the wealthy.
I looked at the motion, it seems like they dont want me to apply for Ycomb!
I dont have any agreement with the company. So I am allowed to make it. Plus I didnt take anything away from them. So I am good!