[_delirium]

> I think you're going to have a hard time here trying to convince a developer community that a "refund" is something a client is entitled to in a work for hire situation.

Depends entirely on the contract. Many contracts include terms giving the client recourse in the case where unsatisfactory work product is delivered, especially if it's a pay-for-deliverable rather than pay-for-hours-worked contract. (But some don't, and some have more complex partial-payment or third-party mediation clauses.)

It does sound like regardless of the contract dispute over that payment, the original post's accusations about the code are still false, if the post here is not lying about what code they're using. That post claimed that Pigeon.ly is using stolen code to run their product, while Pigeon.ly claims they are not using that code in their product. Which would still leave a payment dispute but not a copyright issue.

[oddtarball]

True. It absolutely depends on the specific contract each of them signed. If the contract were to say "Not satisfied? Full refund!" or anything like that, they technically are not under contract to NOT use the code.

They would literally have legal basis, in that case, to run a startup from the very code they refused to pay for. Albeit unethical, it would be legal.

Either way, the contract would clear this up. It's still bad press. With $2M in funding, just pay the dev and move on with a stable image of doing the right thing even if it isn't legally required to do so.

[hluska]

I think the bigger issue is that Pigeon.ly is going to eventually want to hire developers. The kinds of developers who they are going to want to hire are the kinds of developers who will throughly Google any companies they consider working for. Based on the content and tone of this post, a very large percentage of qualified developers would turn and run the other way.

[seren]

> That post claimed that Pigeon.ly is using stolen code to run their product, while Pigeon.ly claims they are not using the code in their product.

Does it really makes a difference if the code is currently running or not? Let's say, hypothetically, the code was not production ready but used in an alpha version to pitch an investor ?

It is impossible to prove one way or another, but I wonder, if you could sue someone, on the basis that it "could have been used".

[_delirium]

It would make a pretty big difference to the legality of their product. If their product includes code they don't own the copyright to, that's a bigger problem than a payment dispute with a past contractor.

[jparkside]

This is Frederick, I can speak to our specific case. The code the original poster provided to us was never used in investor presentations. We rebuilt the product from scratch almost a year before we had any real traction or investor meetings.

[JackK]

You've just asked for a colonoscopy.

Don't let the title of this link ("Discovering Python") fool you. It's about the sort of case you've set yourself up for by not paying this guy in full. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ4Sn-Y7AP8

...and that's just the court case.

I'd be really surprised if the due diligence requirements of your funding contracts won't also require a similar discovery process to prove that not even a single line of code or hint of design work can be traced back to the original developer.

Not paying this guy risks your losing what you're thinking of as "committed" funding due to the loopholes in your funding contracts that likely protect the funders by requiring you to expose your code and that of the original coder to the funders' technical experts at your expense (as a part of the contractually-required "due diligence"), delaying your actually receiving further funding for at least the duration of the discovery process, but possibly forever, if the funder judges there might be a risk.

It also doesn't help that you originally advertized this work as a job in California, complete with "join our team" language. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NcKW-lnlOMSEzBEj7ywPF5nN.... Whatever contract language you are relying on to protect you in a labor contract dispute over monies owed for work performed is likely superseded by California labor law, something your funders are also likely aware of, and would likely consider a risk to their $$$.

Finally, don't you have enough stigma to deal with being a start-up (notoriously flaky), then adding the stigma of being an ex-con (notoriously untrustworthy), without adding the stigma of stiffing the coder you hired on contract (three strikes), practically cementing your start-up's status as among those most deserving to fail?