|
|
|
|
|
|
by jparkside
4306 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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language you are relying on to protect you in a labor contract dispute over monies owed for work performed is likely superseded by California labor law, something your funders are also likely aware of, and would likely consider a risk to their $$$.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?