About 2 years ago, my firm developed software under contract. About 4 months later, after falling behind on payments, the customer "charged back" all his previous payments (via PayPal), and kept the software (it was not yet finished, but functional enough to charge customers).
We recouped about half the money through PayPal's dispute process. We let the rest go, deciding it wasn't worth trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.
Fast forward to today, the very same company is on the front page of HackerNews:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8225738
The business' name is Pigeon.ly / fotopigeon.com (when we worked on it it was called pichurz.com / picturgram.com). The owners names are Fredrick Hutson and Alfonzo Brooks.
So, HN, what should we do? We have a signed contract with them which states that the software becomes our property in the event of non-payment. Should we assert ownership of the software? Of their business? Should we sue them? Should we reach out to their investors (Kapor Capital and Base Ventures)? Should we include Kapor Capital and Base Ventures in the suit?
I would really appreciate any advice HN can offer. We will of course rely on our attorney's advice primarily, but I am optimistic that someone here has dealt with a similar situation before.
Thank you for your time!
While the advice may be trite, it is particularly apt here to emphasize the importance of consulting with a lawyer who is strong on IP issues.
In particular, this would normally need a careful evaluation of the contract language, which may or may not define what happens in the particular case you describe. If it should not adequately define what happens in express contract language, then there are default rules that potentially govern what happens. Those rules may or may not support your position. I have bumped into cases where the default rules basically say that the contract assigns the IP rights to the customer regardless of non-payment, with the remedy for the developer simply being to sue for payment. I am not saying that such rules govern your case because it is not possible for anyone to really know your case absent a proper legal review by a knowledgeable lawyer. I am saying you may be making assumptions about your legal rights that may or may not be correct and you should not casually just assume that they are.
It goes without saying as well that you should be cautious about using pejorative language about the person who did this in public because of the obvious risk of setting yourself up for a defamation claim. Again, in the end you may be justified but why complicate your own claims by giving those who did whatever these people did free ammunition to fight you with.
I don't mean to sound unsympathetic. It hurts to get screwed and it sounds like that happened here. Just be careful to go about it the right way in trying to correct the wrong that did occur.