104 ms·

This is false.

by kvogt 10y ago

This is false.

foobarqux 10y ago
Surely your lawyers advised you to keep silent?
hitekker 10y ago
I support your version of events. Hang in there!
iandanforth 10y ago
Then the YC application quotes are inaccurate? Incomplete? Fabrications? "Cruise Automation is a Delaware C Corporation created in September 2013. 50/50 split between Kyle and Jeremy." Edit: Added quote.
- Dwolb 10y ago
  It looks like you can search Delaware's database if anyone has a spare $20 to pull information. [1] [1] https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch...
  - ilolu 10y ago
    You can search basic information without paying. Just searching for Cruise Automation reveals Incorporation date as 24/09/2013
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    Ok but one would think that some enterprising lawyer at GM or Ycombinator or on retainer to Sam Altman, investor, would think to do this, right? Without looking at the incorporation documents on file, I'm sure they don't say that Jeremy gets 50% of the stock. If they did, there wouldn't be a lawsuit. It would be cut and dry. I think what Jeremy is arguing is that he and Kyle had an agreement in the early days before paperwork, and that that agreement was not properly documented when the paperwork was written up. This is an extremely difficult thing to prove, and Kyle and his investors will no doubt lean heavily on the actual paperwork to sway the court.
    - _sentient 10y ago
      This is wrong. Both the original suit and counter-complaint directly reference the fact that Kyle founded the company before meeting/engaging with Jeremy.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - snowwrestler 10y ago
        You're right about the date of incorporation, so my comments about "before paperwork" were wrong. Anyway, my main point above was that giving Delaware $20 to download the incorporation documents is not likely to resolve the case. Thanks.
        baseh 10y ago
        I dont think it has officers names on that $20 report. >If you are requesting the $20 detailed information option, this application will not return actual images of the documents on record. This application will return a page listing the 5 most recent filings, franchise tax assessment, total authorized shares if applicable and tax due. Officer and Director names and addresses are maintained on the images of the annual reports and are not available through this application. If you wish to order a copy of an annual report please call 302-739-3073 for more information
- OmarIsmail 10y ago
  The YC application isn't a legal document and Kyle (having gone through YC) knows this. Legally he'd have full ownership and in the application specify 50/50 meaning if/when they formalize the relationship that is what the equity split will be. YC doesn't really care what the actual current/legal split is at the time you write the application. What they care about is what the split will be by the time you start YC because that is what is relevant to them. And (my guess) is that the real reason they care about the split is that they're looking for red flags. i.e. is the cap table already messy with lots of people on it? Is the split NOT 50/50 signalling the founders don't consider each other equals which is a bad sign, etc.
  - robbiemitchell 10y ago
    Email isn't a legal document, either, but putting things in writing, or even saying them, can change the shape of a legal negotiation.
  - CPLX 10y ago
    > The YC application isn't a legal document Of course it is. All documents are legal documents.
kzhahou 10y ago
You should probably not comment.
- educar 10y ago
  Not sure if we can actually prove in court that the man behind the nick is vogt himself.
  - aetherson 10y ago
    Well, I mean, presumably a lawyer associated with the case who was interested in proving it could depose Mr. Vogt and ask him under oath if he posted that comment.
  - tclmeelmo 10y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8994651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8994651 Also interesting because it makes reference to the earliest prototype.
cant_kant 10y ago
Kyle Vogt said: "This is false." Talk to your lawyer before posting on social media.
confiscate 10y ago
That would seem to be the case. If Jeremy's claims were true there wouldn't be any lawsuit, as Jeremy would already have what he is currently suing for. It amazes me from the other HN replies comments how much debate and confusion there is, about something so obvious.

This is false.

by kvogt 10y ago

This is false.

foobarqux 10y ago

Surely your lawyers advised you to keep silent?

hitekker 10y ago

I support your version of events. Hang in there!

iandanforth 10y ago

Then the YC application quotes are inaccurate? Incomplete? Fabrications? "Cruise Automation is a Delaware C Corporation created in September 2013. 50/50 split between Kyle and Jeremy." Edit: Added quote.

Dwolb 10y ago
It looks like you can search Delaware's database if anyone has a spare $20 to pull information. [1] [1] https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch...
- ilolu 10y ago
  You can search basic information without paying. Just searching for Cruise Automation reveals Incorporation date as 24/09/2013
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Ok but one would think that some enterprising lawyer at GM or Ycombinator or on retainer to Sam Altman, investor, would think to do this, right? Without looking at the incorporation documents on file, I'm sure they don't say that Jeremy gets 50% of the stock. If they did, there wouldn't be a lawsuit. It would be cut and dry. I think what Jeremy is arguing is that he and Kyle had an agreement in the early days before paperwork, and that that agreement was not properly documented when the paperwork was written up. This is an extremely difficult thing to prove, and Kyle and his investors will no doubt lean heavily on the actual paperwork to sway the court.
  - _sentient 10y ago
    This is wrong. Both the original suit and counter-complaint directly reference the fact that Kyle founded the company before meeting/engaging with Jeremy.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - snowwrestler 10y ago
      You're right about the date of incorporation, so my comments about "before paperwork" were wrong. Anyway, my main point above was that giving Delaware $20 to download the incorporation documents is not likely to resolve the case. Thanks.
      - baseh 10y ago
        I dont think it has officers names on that $20 report. >If you are requesting the $20 detailed information option, this application will not return actual images of the documents on record. This application will return a page listing the 5 most recent filings, franchise tax assessment, total authorized shares if applicable and tax due. Officer and Director names and addresses are maintained on the images of the annual reports and are not available through this application. If you wish to order a copy of an annual report please call 302-739-3073 for more information
OmarIsmail 10y ago
The YC application isn't a legal document and Kyle (having gone through YC) knows this. Legally he'd have full ownership and in the application specify 50/50 meaning if/when they formalize the relationship that is what the equity split will be. YC doesn't really care what the actual current/legal split is at the time you write the application. What they care about is what the split will be by the time you start YC because that is what is relevant to them. And (my guess) is that the real reason they care about the split is that they're looking for red flags. i.e. is the cap table already messy with lots of people on it? Is the split NOT 50/50 signalling the founders don't consider each other equals which is a bad sign, etc.
- robbiemitchell 10y ago
  Email isn't a legal document, either, but putting things in writing, or even saying them, can change the shape of a legal negotiation.
- CPLX 10y ago
  > The YC application isn't a legal document Of course it is. All documents are legal documents.

kzhahou 10y ago

You should probably not comment.

educar 10y ago
Not sure if we can actually prove in court that the man behind the nick is vogt himself.
- aetherson 10y ago
  Well, I mean, presumably a lawyer associated with the case who was interested in proving it could depose Mr. Vogt and ask him under oath if he posted that comment.
- tclmeelmo 10y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8994651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8994651 Also interesting because it makes reference to the earliest prototype.

cant_kant 10y ago

Kyle Vogt said: "This is false." Talk to your lawyer before posting on social media.

confiscate 10y ago

That would seem to be the case. If Jeremy's claims were true there wouldn't be any lawsuit, as Jeremy would already have what he is currently suing for. It amazes me from the other HN replies comments how much debate and confusion there is, about something so obvious.