Surprised I found this on Techmeme and not here.
No matter what the outcome actually became, this was a shtfest, rollercoaster, HBO drama, discussion, and learning experience all in one.
I almost feel like @sama's blog post helped Jeremy's case even before it became a case... at the very least, it raised suspicion and caused more conservative readers who don't take "things posted on the internet" at face value to at least think about the underlying reason/cause for his public post.
Anyone want to speculate about how much YC & Vogt just lost? They acknowledged him as cofounder based on a document in which he's listed as 50% owner; such a concession sounds like a complete victory for Guillory, implying he still owns 50% of the initial equity, and Cruise was bought for $1b. But presumably as cofounder he would have been diluted equally by the YC and any other subsequent investments. YC only takes 1.5%, IIRC, which is fairly negligible, but Cruise did 4 rounds according to https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/cruise#/entity . So how much of that $1b did Vogt wind up getting? And does it come out of Guillory's share entirely? (That wouldn't make sense, since Guillory might not even have 50% left.)
It's almost certain the settlement wasn't for the equity he would have been entitled based on the document that implies he had 50% equity at the time. That is the disaster, worst-possible outcome from a trial so there would be absolutely no reason to settle for that amount. If you're willing to accept that outcome you would be willing to go to trial and hope for the chance that you're willing to win.
It would've been an amount that Guillory was happy to accept, and that Cruise was willing to part with in order to reduce the risk that the legal uncertainty would spoil their acquisition offer. I have no guess as to what this value was, other than to say it would need to be an amount far-below what you would get if you assumed Guillory received 50% equity.
Additionally, Guillory probably traded some amount of financial compensation for the public admission that he was a co-founder.
> That is the disaster, worst-possible outcome from a trial so there would be absolutely no reason to settle for that amount.
Not entirely true: the disaster, worst-possible outcome from the trial is that plus an order to pay the other sides costs, plus having racked up a bunch of your own costs.
Which is why one might, conceivably settle for that without the expense and delay of trial.
>If you're willing to accept that outcome you would be willing to go to trial and hope for the chance that you're willing to win.
No, you're forgetting that a long legal battle could have ruined the deal completely. It's very feasible that they settle for the almost worst-outcome of the trial to avoid killing the very deal that made it worth so much.
I would bet that they paid him off anywhere from a couple hundred thousand to a couple million, and agreed to acknowledge him as a cofounder. Just enough to get his next venture off the ground and make it look impressive to potential investors. That way, Kyle/Cruise/YC wins on everything important to them, Guillory wins on everything important to him, and any costs can be pushed off on unsuspecting investors who were not party to the agreement.
If you were to win a settlement and get what you wanted, would you immediately start running your mouth and riling up the other party? I don't think so. I'm sure this was fine for everyone.
Cheers.