You're getting downmodded because of that last sentence.
With regards to the non-silly part of your argument: I actually agree with everything but the last sentence of your first graf. The poster here has "a good case". Would probably even win. The problem is: if the "other founder" wants to, he can trivially drag this out over ~18 months. During that time period:
* The business is going to suffer as this guy wades through pointless legal drama
* He's going to hemorrhage money --- money that could be plowed into company development --- on legal fees
* Under normal circumstances, nobody is going to consider investing in a company that is embroiled in legal drama over its ownership
* Even if he gets a favorable outcome in court (the odds favor this outcome but do not strictly require it), he'll probably still end up conceding some degree of ownership
He's been dealt 7 - 2. He's paid the blind. I'm saying that going all in on 7 - 2 is a stupid play. If he invests 18 months in developing a new company, his odds are almost certainly better.
He doesn't have to let the other guy "win"; he has the same axe hovering over the other guy's neck. The business is tainted; maybe they can do a buyout, but otherwise, they're both going to have to walk.
No, I am getting downmodded because my advice to fight on is against popular opinion. The reason for my last sentence is quite evident. You have written numerous comments advising the op to walk away.
Your argument that he cannot afford the legal fees and thus should not pursue the business is not well founded. Furthermore, he never said he was looking for investors. In fact, I am led to believe that the product is almost market ready and the op is able to dedicate the time to completing it.
The "friend" is obviously in the same boat financially as the op. Neither one can afford to drag out a court case for an extended period of time and the only incentive to do so would be if the software succeeds. In that case the gentlemen could settle favorably and still "win".
With regards to the non-silly part of your argument: I actually agree with everything but the last sentence of your first graf. The poster here has "a good case". Would probably even win. The problem is: if the "other founder" wants to, he can trivially drag this out over ~18 months. During that time period:
* The business is going to suffer as this guy wades through pointless legal drama
* He's going to hemorrhage money --- money that could be plowed into company development --- on legal fees
* Under normal circumstances, nobody is going to consider investing in a company that is embroiled in legal drama over its ownership
* Even if he gets a favorable outcome in court (the odds favor this outcome but do not strictly require it), he'll probably still end up conceding some degree of ownership
He's been dealt 7 - 2. He's paid the blind. I'm saying that going all in on 7 - 2 is a stupid play. If he invests 18 months in developing a new company, his odds are almost certainly better.
He doesn't have to let the other guy "win"; he has the same axe hovering over the other guy's neck. The business is tainted; maybe they can do a buyout, but otherwise, they're both going to have to walk.