Hacker News Reader

Comment by dharmon | Hacker News Reader

The latter two are arguable. Is it really the same IP and organization? And how much of that IP is her personal experience? Do investors really have claim to that?

I agree she handled this very poorly, but just trying to look at the other side. Is she really so stupid to literately pitch the same exact company on TV, just with the LA changed to Global in the name?

It's possible she is, but starting from that assumption is an excuse to avoid thinking, in my opinion.

And on his side, if it was really as bald-faced as he claims, why is he moaning about it on his blog in a resigned manner rather than taking legal action?

View on HN

...why is he moaning about it on his blog in a resigned manner rather than taking legal action?

The obvious answer is that it is far cheaper to talk about what will happen if lawyers get involved than to actually involve them. It is in everyone's interest to resolve this through negotiation. There is no need to openly state the obvious fact that lawyers can get involved if needed.

An example of a desirable result is that all assets are transferred back to the original company, the CEO remains in charge, chastened by the experience, Mark Cuban is cut into the deal with the original company, and previous investors get a piece of some future deal with Mark Cuban.

This result is much better for EVERYONE than anything achievable with lawyers. But you can't get there if you get people unnecessarily outraged.

John Fogerty was sued for writing songs like John Fogerty. He nearly lost. http://mentalfloss.com/article/27501/time-john-fogerty-was-s...

You can't separate yourself from your partners and claim you own the brand, the merchandise, the copyrights, the trademarks, the domain name, and other assets alone.

Well, by IP I mean primarily brand in this case, which is obvious to a casual observer like myself.

I'd be willing to bet the rest hasn't changed much if someone were to do some digging.

And, honestly, I don't know what he's trying to accomplish with the blog post. The post seems like a very bad idea for several reasons at least.

You don't see a problem with her stealing the IP of a company without notifying its primary stakeholders and starting a new one?

Of course I have a problem with that. I'm saying we don't know that's what happened.

What she did was foolish, but re-using a company name is a far cry from stealing IP.

Has anyone looked to see what the old company does vs. the new one?

>why is he moaning about it on his blog in a resigned manner rather than taking legal action?

Lawyers cost money

Reply on news.ycombinator.com