The Future Is Yours: A Novel
Page 18
2. Defendant Adhvan Chaudry, under the terms of his Employment Contract, agreed that any Intellectual Property generated by him in the field of relevant Computer Sciences was the property of Plaintiff Alphabet Inc. through its subsidiary Google, Inc.
3. Defendant Adhvan Chaudry, during the period of his employment with Google, Inc., did willfully download documents pertaining to the design of Quantum Computing architecture (henceforth herein referred to as “Relevant Google IP”), and disseminated Relevant Google IP in defiance of his Employment Contract.
4. Defendant Adhvan Chaudry entered into partnership with Defendant Benjamin Boyce, and created new technology (henceforth herein referred to as “The Device”) using both (A) Relevant Google IP, and (B) original plans and designs developed during the period covered by his Employment Contract.
5. Therefore all value generated by development of The Device falls under the protections of Employment Contract, and is rightfully the property of Plaintiff Alphabet, Inc., through its subsidiary Google, Inc.
6. Additionally, the theft and public dissemination of said technology has caused financial injury against Plaintiff, due to future market concerns no longer available to Plaintiff.
DAMAGES
Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $250,000,000 together with underlying rights to Intellectual Property of the Device (designated in Addendum A) along with attorney fees and court costs.
Dated this 22nd day of July, 2021,
Thomas Keener, Esq.
TEXT MESSAGE EXCHANGE
BENJAMIN BOYCE
July 23, 2021 9:19 AM
Holy fuck what is even happening
Is this a joke?
Why are you not picking up?
Google is suing us for EVERYTHING
And YOUR DAD is representing them.
LEILA KEENER-BOYCE
I KNOW.
I’m on phone with him right now.
Don’t panic I’ll call you soon as I get off.
Don’t panic yeah right
CALL ME
TEXT MESSAGE EXCHANGE
LEILA KEENER-BOYCE
July 23, 2021 11:04 AM
Hey A, I know we haven’t been talking much, and probably for good reason. But we’re going to need to now.
ADHVAN CHAUDRY
Yeah I gathered that.
It’s all true. What the lawsuit says.
About downloading their IP.
OK let’s meet up and talk about it. Meaning please don’t say anything else in text or email, all this could potentially all end up in subpoena.
I don’t care. It’s true.
Before you freak out, just know that you might have a stronger case than you think. California employment and IP law is pretty strongly in your favor.
Plus I know all the tricks their lawyer is gonna try to use, so…
So you’re the ace up our sleeve?
I’m the QUEEN up your sleeve.
Ben is the king.
And I’m the Ace.
Lowest of all.
Cut the vague self-pity. It’s not a good look, and as usual, it’s not helping.
Just let me know when and where.
I’ll tell you everything.
Open book.
I’m ready to give up.
I’m not going to let you give up. We’re going to figure this out, just like you helped me figure out physics in college. I’m bringing Thai. Pad see ew with chicken now as I recall.
Fuck it, if I could lose everything, might as well go beef.
See you soon :)
EMAIL
From: Paolo Ventrini
To: Ben Boyce, Adhvan Chaudry
Boys, I’m sure you’re feeling a little freaked out, and honestly, you should be. But this is a pretty familiar carrot-and-stick approach. What they want is not so much the $250M of VC that we’ve raised (which of course is down to about half of that right now). What they want is our company. The fact that they offered a buyout first tips the hand. At this point they’re not gonna pay more than $1B, but I bet we can still get close to that if we sell now, save them the hassle and headache and expense of the lawsuit (which will drag on a couple years). We can all save face, save stress, and leave this whole thing filthy fucking rich.
REPLY
From: Ben Boyce
To: Paolo Ventrini, Adhvan Chaudry, Leila Keener-Boyce
Hey man, I hear you, but listen, we’re gonna fight. We got the best fuckin lawyer in the Valley on our team! (Adding Lei on CC, whatever you wanna say to us, you can say to her.) We got Adhi’s big brain too, he came up with this tech himself, I mean it was his dissertation for fuck’s sake. We are un fucking stoppable. Drag this shit out for two years, the fight’s just gonna keep us sharp. They got the money to outspend us now but give it some time, we are NOT gonna get beat on this. Look man we can already see 1 year out and this shit is just gonna be getting started at that point.
REPLY
From: Leila Keener-Boyce
To: Paolo Ventrini, Adhvan Chaudry, Ben Boyce
Paolo, I’m just chiming in here to be the voice of reason. Ben is right. We are not going to lose. And before you start calling the other Board members, if you haven’t already, let’s just be clear: Ben and Adhi and I are united on this, and you know where we stand.
EMAIL—JULY 26, 2021
From: Leila Keener-Boyce
To: Thomas Keener
Dad,
Usually it’s tough to get you to even read an email, much less respond, but something tells me this one might be different. And yes, I would prefer to conduct our dialogue in this way rather than on the phone or in person. Yes, I’m aware that means there is a paper trail. That is the point.
First off, the fact that you took this client without talking to me is absurd, but let’s not even deal with that. I’m sorry for leaving to go work with Ben, but it’s petty of you to respond in this way. In a way that genuinely could jeopardize my career, and any potential relationship between us in the future.
Second, we both know the relevant IP and employment laws here, and the fact that both the statutes and the precedents in California are overwhelmingly in favor of individuals, new enterprises, and, above all, innovation—in other words, what The Future is all about.
Acquisition is simply never going to happen. Your best strategy is to outspend and wear down my clients with endless litigation, but they don’t have a big firm (like yours) as an expensive albatross around their neck. We are agile and I am willing to go to the mat on this for years to come.
Now, normally here I would propose discussing a modest settlement, but I know that (A) Alphabet doesn’t give a shit about that type of pocket change, (B) you wouldn’t be willing to lose face like that, and (C) Ben is too stubborn to agree to that type of a loss anyway.
So instead let’s discuss an alternative arrangement that’s best for both parties, and gets your client what they really want: access to the technology. The Future is primarily in the business of consumer electronics. However, we may be willing to entertain the possibility of a managed exclusive licensing agreement, wherein a mutually beneficial partnership could be reached.
I hope you will do what’s right—for the world, for your client, and for our family—as you make your way to the bargaining table.
Love,
Leila
REPLY
Leila,
Nice to hear from you. This is certainly not personal. I serve my clients. It is sad and unfortunate that you chose your husband’s flash-in-the-pan moonshot over a third-generation family business, but I should not be too surprised.
Regarding the relevant employment and IP laws, let me share w
ith you a bit of history, which you may or may not know. In the 1870s, California was still a fairly new state, but the influx of Gold Rush money and the expansion of the railroads put it on the map, economically speaking. The state and its government were rapidly growing, and they needed to develop a comprehensive legal code for financial matters, and quickly. The governor at the time wrote to New York, asking for a copy of their employment codes, and asked to see them for reference as California developed their own. The California state legislature received their codes and, in a hurry, enacted them immediately—without even reading through them. If it was good enough for NY, it was good enough for us.
The only problem was, the document they’d received was not actually the NY codes…it was a proposed bill for what they might be, offered and supported by a fringe wing of libertarians paranoid about the Gilded Age overreach of big business.
You would think that a bill so enacted would not last long. But in fact, it proved to be good for innovation. And it is always politically harder to ramp up restrictions on individual liberty. So California is a state in which no non-compete agreement stands a legal snowball’s chance in hell. 140 years of legal precedent now supports a set of laws that were passed, essentially, by mistake.
No lawyer has sought to challenge those restrictions in any meaningful way. But the time has come to do so. Look at what has already happened with Facebook, and every other company that has overreached in this field. Popular will is shifting against unchecked technological progress. The tide is about to turn.
I have been personally interested in pursuing a case in this crusade for quite some time. At last, the time has come, as has the right defendant—because what Ben’s company is attempting is, on its face, profoundly irresponsible.
I appreciate the entrenchment of your position. But please know that this, for me, is just as important, albeit for ideological reasons, rather than personal ones.
My client has no interest in a limited licensing arrangement. Chaudry was in their employ when he made the breakthrough that evolved this idea from a grad-school fantasy to a viable technology. He stole hundreds of millions of dollars in research IP to make it all possible. It is flagrantly irresponsible and dishonest.
So, my beautiful girl, I will, as they say, see you in court.
Yours,
Dad
TEXT MESSAGE EXCHANGE
ADHVAN CHAUDRY
July 27, 2021 11:04 AM
Hey Lei.
Proud of you for standing up to your dad.
LEILA KEENER-BOYCE
Thanks. Really hope I’m doing the right thing here! Any chance you could give me a hint about how it’s all gonna play out? Might help me sleep better at night.
You know I can’t.
Honestly, I’m trying to use the Prototype as little as possible.
I tend to get down when I do.
Do things really look that dark ahead?
It’s not that. It’s just…
If you hoped for one thing in all the world, and you knew it wasn’t gonna happen…
What would you do?
I’d start hoping for something else.
EMAIL—JULY 28, 2021
From: Carrie Chan
To: Ben Boyce, Adhvan Chaudry
Hi Ben and Adhvan,
Our marketing team just completed our latest research with a focus group, the full report is attached. Two key takeaways that I would highlight here—
1. In response to the question “How would you characterize your view of the company The Future?” the options are Favorable/Unfavorable/No opinion, and we’ve jumped from 22/46/32 (right after the party debacle) up to 38/32/30. That’s a massive improvement in a short time, which I primarily attribute to the Wired article and subsequent social chatter.
2. That said, another key metric was on the question “Would you be interested in purchasing a product that lets you look one year in the future?” Our Yes/No/Not sure answer split on the latest round came in at 22/48/30. Which is pretty low, especially given that our initial market price (I know we’re still hashing it out) is gonna be in the ballpark of double what most people pay for their priciest personal electronics.
I think we should recalibrate our sales goals, and take a more targeted approach with the rollout (if you look at the demo data, it’s clear there’s a much higher WBR for the coastal early-adopter crowd). Also let’s look to significantly step up our marketing budget, so we can tell the world what we’ve got here. In short: the culture of secrecy is damaging our prospects in the marketplace.
Carrie Chan
Chief Communications Officer
The Future LLC
REPLY
From: Ben Boyce
To: Carrie Chan, Adhvan Chaudry
Hey Carrie,
You know Henry Ford’s take on this issue? “If I’d asked people what they WANTED, they would’ve said ‘faster horses.’ ”
Real innovation isn’t something you can run through your little market-testing playbook. We are going to market on schedule and at full production. We are going ALL IN. If we HALF-ASS, we will be dealing with CLONES, and we risk getting beaten out before we can dominate the market. Adhi, back me up on this.
Ben
REPLY
From: Adhvan Chaudry
To: Ben Boyce, Carrie Chan
B—
Henry Ford never actually said that.
It’s a business-book myth.
He also certainly never used caps-lock.
What people actually wanted back then was less horseshit.
In fact, they still do.
But I digress.
I agree with you that Focus Groups are horseshit…
but I agree with Carrie that we can learn from this.
Here’s a better way to look at the issue.
A thought experiment.
Put a peephole in a locker room,
and ask guys if they want to look through it.
Most will say no, that’s sick.
But put dark paint around that hole,
and see how many guys walk out with dark circles around their eyes.
Then you have your answer about real interest.
You want to know if/how people will use the tech…
you need to start giving it to them.
In other words, we need to go to Beta.
People will use it.
They will be hooked.
Word will spread.
Demand will build.
And we can get a more accurate market gauge before we go into production.
—A
REPLY
From: Carrie Chan
To: Adhvan Chaudry, Ben Boyce
Well guys, it sounds like your minds are made up here, look forward to seeing how the strategy plays out.
REPLY
From: Carrie Chan
To: Ben Boyce
What the actual fuck? When I talked to you about this in person, you seemed receptive. Then as soon as anyone else is around or on CC, you get all high and mighty, playing the part of the maligned entrepreneur boxed in by the small-minded marketing girl. I am genuinely trying to help.
You’re running a playbook that you won’t let me see. Both in the office, and in your personal life.
Carrie
REPLY
From: Ben Boyce
To: Adhvan Chaudry
Hey man, appreciate you chiming in on the beta test, but you sure we can handle that with real out-in-the-wild users? I’m just worried about how people are gonna use it. Maybe we take a step back here, reevaluate, get solid on everything.
REPL
Y
B—
Don’t second-guess your instincts.
We have already done the beta test.
Or rather, we will do it soon…
and I was already able to view the results.
I used the Prototype and accessed our records one year from now,
and am attaching the Beta Test Report.
As you can see…the beta will be a success.
Some hiccups of course, but it’s part of our path to market.
We can even use this data to help determine which subjects we pick,
to be maximally confident in how it will go.
We are bulletproof on this.
—A
Note: Attached report on Beta Test has been REDACTED.
REPLY
Hey man that’s great news. I’m down to proceed. One question though: Isn’t that the type of circular info-gathering you warned about? That we’re trying to avoid? And also, if we’re going to use this data, do we want to maybe filter out the users who are problematic?
REPLY
B—
Drastic times, drastic measures.
We can’t change any variables, or we risk completely changing the outcome,
and the users have been anonymized in our data set