[korzun]

> In light of the defamatory nature of the poster’s statements, I felt compelled to respond.

Useless filler.

> Our agreement with the poster makes it clear that we own all work product produced pursuant to the agreement.

Again, useless filler. You own the work and they need their money for work in question.

> I consulted with several independent sources including a founding member of the CakePHP project

That's great. I audited hundreds if implementations that sucked. The different is that those developers still got paid.

It's your fault for not knowing what you are doing and not having another source involved earlier in the process to make sure things are going smoothly.

Also, you are showing your lack of experience. Project was 2 years long (multiple CakePHP releases, I bet?) ofcourse people will say it's outdated and written poorly.

You are also working with a low level agency (no offense) and then get the code reviewed by 'founding member of X', what do you expect? Are you even serious here?

> So we were left with no choice but to start from scratch with a new developer.

Let me audit that code, I'm 100% sure it will not be up to /my/ standards. Will you fire the developer and sue him for the salary you paid?

> The bottom line here is that through hard work and determination,

The bottom line here is that you really have no idea about technology.

[johnnyfaehell]

> That's great. I audited hundreds if implementations that sucked. The different is that those developers still got paid.

Say you go get your car fixed. It breaks down as you drive out. There are 3 other garages right next door who all look at your car and say you shouldn't put gum to plug a hole in the fuel pipe. Would you demand a refund? Of course you would, you went for a professional service and you didn't get what you were paying for.

> The bottom line here is that you really have no idea about technology.

He shouldn't have to. When someone says they can write you some code for money, they should be able sort everything out for you. If they can't provide what they said they would, can you honest expect people to pay? You shouldn't have to be technically proficient to get someone to write some simple custom software for you. Just like you shouldn't have to know all the ins and outs of plumbing not to get ripped off by a plumber.

[korzun]

Please don't use car analogy with someone who is in auto technology sector.

Two years without any auditing is a mistake of the founder, if your car is in the shop for two years for massive amount of work you will go there to check it out. And you better bring a friend who knows about cars if you don't have a clue.

I will give you a better analogy, you go to a random mechanic leave the car there for two years without checking on it. You have no clue about the problem or the car.

Then you finally get the car out and decide to bring it to another mechanic. What will happen in 99% of the cases is the mechanic will talk shit about the previous shop and find every little thing that's not 'up to code'. The coolant hoses (that were not part of the original job) are old now after sitting for two years. Oops.

You still have no clue about anything. So you hire your own mechanic who you think has a clue (but you can't gauge that) to do the 'fixes' and he tells you 'it's great now!'. Bullshit.

This is common in tons of other industries. With programming it's harder to tell what 'shit code' is. Especially when you have 2 year timeline working with a framework that changed significantly within that timeline.

Furthermore, you are missing my point. He does not have A level team to rewrite software. Let's not pretend the magical rewrite is a super car here, not with his team.

> He shouldn't have to. When someone says they can write you some code for money, they should be able sort everything out for you.

Again, missing the point. How do you know everybody else is not feeing him bullshit? If you don't know something, don't wait two years to get third party audit on a TWO YEAR OLD code.

Overall, I don't think you know what you are talking about either. You might think you do just like the founder but you are not fit to run a technology company.

[squeaky-clean]

The attitude of your posts is disgusting. Both the firm, and the startup made big mistakes here. The answer should be to get a lawyer, because none of us know all sides of the issue, and that is going to be the end result anyways. A lawyer, or drop it. There is no need to attack the above posters for having an opinion opposite of yours. And your analogy is worse than the one posted above. Regardless of whether or not you are in the auto technology sector (why do you even assume people know that about you before commenting)?

[korzun]

Do you have anything to contribute besides expressing your 'disgust' at my counter point because it's not covered with kittens?

This is the place for discussion, not a kindergarden.

If they wanted to get a lawyer they would have; but this is on HN and I will openly comment on it.

[shangxiao]

> This is the place for discussion

Exactly, so don't shit all over people with your superior "I'm in the auto technology sector so my analogy is better than yours" bullshit. His analogy and points are perfectly fine and I agree with him, but furthermore you being a jackass makes me automatically dismiss your arguments.

[korzun]

No, that was more of "It's funny that you are using this analogy, because I'm A) a car guy B) in an automotive sector".

He got me to bite. If you think this is some sort of superiority play, please go outside your bubble.