[mikeshreds]

In our case, we did not develop anything Shred-related (ideas or otherwise) while we were employed at Smule. So invention assignment is not at issue, because we did not moonlight on Shred Video while employed by Smule. I knew I wanted to build products for the GoPro audience, which is why I left Smule. Mark left for his own different reasons, and we only began prototyping on things that turned into Shred Video after he left Smule.

[7Figures2Commas]

> In our case, we did not develop anything Shred-related (ideas or otherwise) while we were employed at Smule. So invention assignment is not at issue, because we did not moonlight on Shred Video while employed by Smule.

Please recognize that assignment is likely an issue because Smule will almost certainly try to claim the opposite of what you're claiming. It doesn't mean that they will be able to prove their claims, but you should at least be aware of the fact that there are two sides to every legal dispute and both parties have the opportunity to make their case.

If this isn't matter isn't settled, the legal process provides the means to sort it all out and you'll have the opportunity to evaluate the evidence supporting Smule's claims as part of the discovery process.

[jnbiche]

> If this isn't matter isn't settled, the legal process provides the means to sort it all out and you'll have the opportunity to evaluate the evidence supporting Smule's claims as part of the discovery process.

If they even make it through the discovery process without going bankrupt, which is the explicit, admitted goal of their opponent.

[7Figures2Commas]

> If they even make it through the discovery process without going bankrupt, which is the explicit, admitted goal of their opponent.

No, it isn't. According to Business Insider, this is what was stated:

I'm fairly confident we will figure something out eventually, and this won't be a long-term problem. But I think they've got to face the music here. And we're going to have to figure that out unfortunately with a bunch of lawyers.

And here's the sad truth. You compare a 100-person company with 10, 30, 40 million dollars in the bank to a two-person startup. If it goes to litigation, if we're wrong, we'll win.

Right? We'll win. We'll put a giant law firm on it and we'll do all of the discovery and we'll do all the depositions and we'll win. And if we're right, we'll still win.

So it's not a great scenario. If you fork off a startup and there's IP overlap, it's just a big mess.

The Smule CEO doesn't at all suggest he's trying to put Shred out of business. Instead, he:

1. Seems to imply that a settlement is possible.

2. Laments the fact that this matter required legal action and that said legal action will put Shred's co-founders in a disadvantaged situation.

3. Acknowledges that this matter is the result of the fact that there seems to be some overlap between the kind of technology Smule creates and the kind of technology Shred creates.

Until Smule's claims are known in detail, it's premature to assume that Smule's action has no merit. Smule could be the good guy, or the bad guy. But lots of people here can't help but pick David over Goliath when very few meaningful facts are known.

[mikeshreds]

The filing is public, and referred to in the lawsuit. I'll summarize here:

Smule has claimed we violated non-solicitation provision in our contract by recruiting each other to start a startup; that we appropriated Smule's code or methods to build Shred Video (though they don't make any specific trade secret claims); That Mark is guilty of fraud in his consulting relationship w/ Smule's engineers (this is detailed our post); and We converted Smule's proprietary information into Shred Video (far as I understand, conversion is a fancy word for "stealing").

The "non-solicitation" claim is laughable, especially in California. The fraud claim is fraudulent itself, as the email record clearly shows Smule itself asked for Mark's help, and he was wholly transparent in the way he provided that help. Everything else comes down to whether we used Smule's proprietary code or methods.

When Smith says "I'm fairly confident we will figure something out eventually...unfortunately...with a bunch of lawyers," seems a reasonable interpretation that "a bunch of lawyers" is code for legal threats, and "figure something out" is code for us paying him (in equity or otherwise) to withdraw the legal threat.

[7Figures2Commas]

> The fraud claim is fraudulent itself...

I don't even think you realize what you're saying at this point.

I empathize with you. I really do. For what it's worth, years ago, I had to fight to regain control of a company I had started that was "stolen" by a former business partner. I was a twenty-something with very little money in the bank and my counsel was a local attorney. I sued a multi-millionaire represented by one of the top 5 law firms in the world. I was able to get what I wanted largely because my attorney gave me good advice and I listened to it.

I'm sure this is an emotional time for you but I would strongly recommend that you retain an attorney you trust before you do or write anything else.

[Pyxl101]

Thank you for the clarification. That's helpful, having not had time to find and read the filing.

It would be helpful if you could link to the filing, for those of us interested to read it. I regularly read them when the case is interesting (e.g., Oracle v. Google). If the documents are public domain (with no public link), then presumably you could host them for sharing as well.