Hacker News Reader

> We tried every non-public method we knew of first.

Does this include empathizing with his position, considering the possibility that he isn't just greedy and crooked and actually believes he is in the right? Did this include truly putting yourself in his shoes and understanding where he is coming from?

I assume since you are biased to one side, you are not capable of such empathy. I know I wouldn't be. So, this goes to the point of public shaming, do you really think it is justified? Do you really think you are capable of being objective about this?

> I wanted people to know how hard Kyle tried to settle.

Sometimes, trying to settle is actually more hurtful to the other party. It comes from a place of "you are a nuisance, here is some nuisance change to go away." If this was truly about money and greed, he probably would have settled. The fact that Jeremy didn't tells me that he probably feels entitled...which means to really reach him you have to speak to his position, not your own.

I guess the real question becomes...does Jeremy actually believe he is entitled to that stake? If he does, and if you were in his shoes...would you accept a dismissive, though generous, offer or would you sue for what you believe is yours.

I don't know either side, but I can see how both sides would dig their heels in the ground if they both believe they are in the right.

I think airing this dispute out publicly, especially in your position and with your admitted bias, should be rethought and considered...because I can see no good coming from this.

The frustration is understandable, it's a shitty situation and I've also had a "useless" "co-founder" try and hold onto equity that didn't vest, after he left and contributed little.

> I think that happens in nearly all of these cases, which is part of why I find them so upsetting. People know that you can pressure people under extraordinary circumstances, like an acquisition closing, to give you something.

Yeah, this is a topic that deserves its own post for sure. Timing-wise though, if Jeremy has any claim at all, he needs to make it now before facing the acquirer's lawyers, so there's that angle too. I definitely think there's some nuance here, and am not sure what a superior system would look like.

> We tried every non-public method we knew of first. When it came time for the seal to be lifted, I wanted people to know how hard Kyle tried to settle.

Do you see the logic of my last point though, why people would perhaps not look favourably of your public disclosure of this topic, even if you're right? Moreover, what was going public on the individual supposed to accomplish? Because it could sort of look like someone in power trying to strong-arm someone not.

Regardless, I wish the Cruise team and yourself the best, and a speedy departure from this issue. It looks like technology and legal claims are going to continue to interact in increasingly complex ways down the road.

>Because it could sort of look like someone in power trying to strong-arm someone not.

If like the post suggests, both sides expect the merger to occur on schedule, what other purpose does going public at this moment serve that wouldn't be better served by a more detailed post after a resolution has been reached?

> I've also had a "useless" "co-founder" try and hold onto equity that didn't vest, after he left and contributed little.

What I am about write is blasphemy in this community, but needs to be said.

Contributions to a startup are not quantifiable. There are truism that float around the startup community like, "Ideas are worthless, execution is everything." these are helpful motivation tools but they create a black and white world, in a universe that is multi-dimensional.

When someone has an idea and someone else executes and the guy with the idea wants his "fair share" or in less extreme cases, like leaving before shares vest, there is this belief that one side is entitled to all equity and the other side didn't contribute anything.

In truth, the other side sees things differently, and that doesn't make one side right and the other wrong. It is never that black and white and general ideas like, "execution is everything" are great as general ideas but don't translate to every situation and each case needs to be evaluated independently.

If someone contributed to a startup and the other side has a different opinion about the value of that contribution. This is what the courts are for. Their job is to help decide, in this specific instance the value of that contribution was and how it relates to the nature of the agreement made between the parties.

Truism are not legal arguments and it's a mistake to assume that situations about contribution levels can be settled with them. Both sides believe they are in the right and are being wronged by the other party.

There are two ways to proceed from there. You can dig your heels in the ground on your position and try to pay to make the problem go away...Or you can accept that the other side also has a leg to stand on... try to understand their position and come to terms that leaves no one happy, but everyone satisified. Thats what compromise is about.

I think the startup community and this post is evidence of it believes that what they know is above the law.

This is a simple case of a dispute about money. Pretending it is about good guys and bad guys is being dishonest to yourself and others.

Edit: spelling

I agree with most of your post. I was trying my best to find common ground with sama's perspective in his. Because I have had similarly crappy situations that did make me incredibly frustrated. You bring up good points though:

> What I am about write is blasphemy in this community, but needs to be said. > Contributions to a startup are not quantifiable. There are truism that float around the startup community like, "Ideas are worthless, execution is everything." these are helpful motivation tools but they create a black and white world, in a universe that is multi-dimensional.

Amen, who gives a damn how fast you clmb the ladder if it's placed in the wrong spot? And it's such a simplistic point; often times the whole point of execution is to find a better idea. These ideas could be discovered through a combination of mental reflection, talking to customers, building prototype, ...

> I think the startup community and this post is evidence of it believes that what they know is above the law. > This is a simple case of a dispute about money. Pretending it is about good guys and bad guys is being dishonest to yourself and others.

Yep. I don't care how many Airbnb's and Dropbox's you fund, you don't get to say what constitutes good and bad in a community.

At the end of the day, I think Sam got frustrated, acted a bit impulsively, and probably regrets how things turned out with the original post. But hey, mistakes build leaders, so if someone as public as him can reflect on it then all the better.

> so if someone as public as him can reflect on it then all the better.

I eagerly await this much anticipated reflection. For what I can tell he is a sincere, integrity driven, human being. Money has a way to messing with us and causing us to do all sorts of things we regret. I just hope he can see past his blind spots once the initial frustration wears off.

> I wanted people to know how hard Kyle tried to settle.

Why?

Why is it so important that everyone knows that Kyle is the good guy and Jeremy is the bad guy? You're taking a preemptive step to defend Kyle's reputation by tearing down Jeremy's, for no tangible benefit (and to be honest, at the cost of your reputation and YC's).

What do you think that Kyle or Cruise (or you, or YC) gain from this post?

And even if you really needed to defend your man, there was the opportunity to write a post that said "This suit has been filed, we wish there had been some other way forward but every attempt to resolve this amicably has failed. I have personally been involved in those attempts, and I believe that Kyle, Cruise, and YC have taken every possible step we could to avoid a law suit, without success."

> We tried every non-public method we knew of first

And when you ran out of non-public methods, you filed a suit. And that's where you should have stopped. The post is not about finding a solution, it's about declaring your (and Kyle's) moral superiority in this matter.

> I find them so upsetting

This, I think, is the key statement. You are emotionally (and financially) invested in this, and you want to rant about it publicly, but it's not helpful.

Your emotions have caused you to take steps that don't contribute to the solution, but your job in this is to do everything you can to get to a solution.

Just delete the post dude, it's for a court to settle not a forum

I'd bet there is a 50% chance that Sam's post will help settle the case before it gets to a judge. Most of the time Judges don't even want to hear the case since legal battles are bad for both sides- they do all sorts of things to force two sides to settle. The guy worked there a month with imo should be the headline- and if there are no facts missing (which is likely and possible) my bet is this will help resolve this before a court acts.

I'm troubled by this post, actually, because of the implication and usage (overt or otherwise) of the HN audience. Especially with an earlier revision with that line about not tolerating such behavior in Silicon Valley, and the general tone of the post including going after the defendant's professionalism. This post smells pretty bad, and is pretty much just dirty laundry or posturing.

This is a really, really surprising post for Sam to write, and I think even he knows it's wrong with the lawyers bit. They would stop him for a multitude of reasons, some legal, some tactical, some ethical. All of them would be valuable legal advice.

I'm troubled by a mix of things here: the wide audience afforded an investor in the plaintiff simply by name recognition in this community, the aforementioned characterizations of the defendant (who most of us have never heard of, and therefore are relying on the post to describe), and the circumvention of process that this post demonstrates, whether intentional or otherwise, not to mention the implicit attempt to steer public sentiment on a person. I'm not ascribing any malice here, to be clear, I'm just still processing the frame of mind that would consider this post a good idea at all. I actually disagree that it should be pulled, because the gun has been fired now (and pulling it makes it worse).

There are only two explanations of overall motive here, and neither is kind. Nobody wins here, Sam, Cruise, Kyle, or Jeremy. Especially not Jeremy, and one need only scroll down to find the number of comments that bought in immediately to Sam's narrative and are talking about refusing to work with Jeremy in any capacity.

What a complete shit deal, all around.

Indeed. This looks a lot more like a high profile investor using his audience to litigate the issue in the court of public opinion and dragging some guys name (who may or may not have a claim to Cruise) through the mud.

Personally, I've seen in the past people who have contributed significantly to projects which later became successful and did not reap the rewards of their work because of, among other things, harassment via the legal system. IMO, this doesn't look good for sama.

> IMO, this doesn't look good for sama.

I'll say it: if I were in a position to take his investment, this post would give me serious, serious pause.

To be clear, I'm all about transparency and talking about things like this in the open, but not like this. There's a lot we need to talk about as an industry, but this doesn't help.

Most founders would LOVE an investor help defend in a situation like this. Typically founders are left charging off into battle countless times with little but moral support. "yeah you go fight that battle for us- thanks and let us know how it goes".

Good for Sam for actually at least attempting to help and take a few of the arrows for the founder/ CEO. Sam is actually taking a bit of risk doing this legally and PR wise and while I'm not saying his approach is perfect (he already edited a few lines) - It took a lot of balls to wade in here, I rarely see investors do so- and I think it will help settle the case faster which is really good for both sides.

> Most founders would LOVE an investor help defend in a situation like this.

There's a lot of value in having an investor try and solve the problem. That should include offering advice like "don't let this derail the acquisition, make him a reasonable offer and get it all sorted out", and being willing to actively participate in the process of hashing out an agreement.

Sam can, and should, defend the value of Cruise as an entity, but he's gone beyond that to defending Kyle by attacking Jeremy. That's no longer about solving the problem - now it's about people and emotions.

Nobody wins in a court case. If Sam uses PR to put enough attention on what has occurred to settle it that's a legitimate tool. The other side doesn't have that tool but they can come here and post their side of it. As these posts show, plenty of folks here are willing to play Devil's Advocate. I'd love to see the other side - i.e. was there a demand letter and was it sent- and to whom?

I can tell you- the ONLY thing that I can think of that would trouble me is if we find out the guy never even had a lawyer. Then it would appear to be an over reaction. It's not clear exactly what actions the other side has taken (or not done).

But on the face of it- nothing wrong with using PR to settle this. It could also get sympathy from GM and they just get creative around using an escrow to just close without settling any of this.

> This is a really, really surprising post for Sam to write

It's actually not surprising if you follow YC and HN for any length of time. The prevailing tone coming from sama, pg, and the mods at HN is that:

- They and they alone are in a position to speak on behalf of all of "Silicon Valley". - They are above the law (see for example all of the mental backflips and excuses given regarding AirBnB's clear-cut and widespread facilitation of lawbreaking).

You can see this arrogance peeking out here and there, such as the now-deleted statement you highlighted (side note: isn't it also incredibly arrogant to think that they can simply delete things from the internet and pretend they never said them?). It feels like it's been happening more and more lately. I expect that in the absence of any kind of reality check, it will continue to come out more and more.

(side note: isn't it also incredibly arrogant to think that they can simply delete things from the internet and pretend they never said them?).

There is a right to be forgotten, no?

(Presuming this is not facetious.)

Only in the EU, and arguably, not really.

Oddly enough I'm reading this after the AirBnB next door, one of whose many guests has broken their front door, smashed it closed two meters from where I'm sleeping at 1:40AM. YC reaching out from the physical world and I wake up and visit HN.

People know that you can pressure people under extraordinary circumstances, like an acquisition closing, to give you something.

Seems like a great opportunity to learn something: don't expose yourself to such risk. Involve lawyers early when fundamentals of your business are concerned. Don't just wait until you really really need to clear everything up fast, because there's a big pot of monery with an expiration date.

I know, hindsight and all that. But still, I don't see a priori why it should be morally wrong to "pressure people" in extraordinary circumstances. Jeremy couldn't build that pressure himself, Cruise started the merger thing and basically handed a loaded weapon to him.

And if it weren't just an individual, but some public company on the other side, there might be fiduciary duties to exercise that "unfair" pressure – not exactly in this situation, but pressuring people isn't amoral per se, I think.