創投(tou)分享會(hui)注：網易和陌陌的對戰愈演愈烈。亂象之中，創投分享會發現，其實陌陌一早就在招股書中寫明了與網易公司之間糾紛的潛在風險。
英文(wen)(wen)原文(wen)(wen)見(jian)文(wen)(wen)末，中文(wen)(wen)翻(fan)譯如下(xia)：
2014 年 11 月，聯合創始人、董事會主席兼首席執行官唐(tang)巖先生(sheng)，收到了一封律師(shi)(shi)函，來自(zi)一家位于(yu)(yu)中(zhong)華人民共(gong)(gong)和國的(de)律師(shi)(shi)事務所，委(wei)托方(fang)為網之易(yi)信息科技 (北京) 有限公司(si)，該(gai)(gai)公司(si)即(ji)網易(yi)科技 (Netease) 在中(zhong)華人民共(gong)(gong)和國的(de)關聯注(zhu)冊公司(si)。唐(tang)先生(sheng)自(zi) 2003 年 12 月至 2011 年 9 月就(jiu)職于(yu)(yu)該(gai)(gai)公司(si)。
律師(shi)函(han)聲稱，因為(wei)唐(tang)先(xian)生在 2011 年 7 月(yue)創辦(ban)了北(bei)京(jing)陌(mo)陌(mo) (Beijing Momo) ，而北(bei)京(jing)陌(mo)陌(mo)于 2011 年 8 月(yue)發布了我(wo)公(gong)司(si)(si)的(de)應用(yong)程序(xu)，這段時間(jian)唐(tang)先(xian)生仍就職(zhi)于網之易(yi)(yi)公(gong)司(si)(si)，因此他(ta)違(wei)背了與網之易(yi)(yi)簽署的(de)員工協議(yi)(yi)，違(wei)反了協議(yi)(yi)中所規定(ding)的(de)，致力于為(wei)網之易(yi)(yi)公(gong)司(si)(si)服務，且禁止在受雇期間(jian)與網之易(yi)(yi)存在競爭關系的(de)約定(ding)。該律師(shi)函(han)要求，唐(tang)先(xian)生以書(shu)面形式向網之易(yi)(yi)公(gong)司(si)(si)鄭重道(dao)歉。并保留(liu)網之易(yi)(yi)公(gong)司(si)(si)采取進一步行(xing)動的(de)權(quan)利。
唐先生認為，該律(lv)師函的主張(zhang)缺(que)乏依據，他表示強烈反對。
我們(men)無(wu)法(fa)預(yu)計網之易公司在未(wei)來(lai)就這(zhe)些針對唐先生(sheng)的(de)(de)指摘(zhai)所可能(neng)采取的(de)(de)行動。如果(guo)網之易采取法(fa)庭訴訟手段，我們(men)無(wu)法(fa)預(yu)估任(ren)何(he)此類訴訟的(de)(de)時間長度或(huo)后果(guo)。任(ren)何(he)法(fa)律(lv)行動，無(wu)論是否有(you)據可查，都(dou)是耗(hao)時的(de)(de)。并且，會(hui)分散(san)唐先生(sheng)在本公司業務(wu)上(shang)的(de)(de)精力。任(ren)何(he)網之易公司在未(wei)來(lai)針對唐先生(sheng)的(de)(de)法(fa)律(lv)訴訟一旦獲勝，他的(de)(de)名(ming)聲可能(neng)會(hui)受到(dao)損害，被責令(ling)賠(pei)償并/或(huo)中(zhong)止任(ren)何(he)法(fa)庭判定有(you)誤的(de)(de)行為。
不僅如此，盡管(guan)(guan)本(ben)(ben)公(gong)司(si)沒(mei)有在該(gai)律師函中(zhong)被列為(wei)指(zhi)控對象(xiang)，我們無法保證(zheng)網之易公(gong)司(si)未來(lai)不會啟動(dong)針(zhen)對本(ben)(ben)公(gong)司(si)的(de)法律行(xing)(xing)動(dong)。任何此類法律行(xing)(xing)動(dong)均會導(dao)致為(wei)本(ben)(ben)公(gong)司(si)帶來(lai)不良(liang)的(de)聲譽(yu)，分散公(gong)司(si)管(guan)(guan)理層(ceng)的(de)精力，從本(ben)(ben)質上(shang)對本(ben)(ben)公(gong)司(si)的(de)名譽(yu)、業務和營運結果(guo)產生負面的(de)影(ying)響。
In November 2014, Mr. Yan Tang, our co-founder, chairman and chief executive officer, received a letter from a PRC law firm on behalf of Wangzhiyi Information Technology (Beijing) Co, Ltd., or Wangzhiyi, a PRC company affiliated with Netease, Inc., where Mr. Tang was employed from December 2003 to September 2011. The letter claimed that because Mr. Tang established Beijing Momo in July 2011 and Beijing Momo launched our application in August 2011, all while Mr. Tang was still an employee of Wangzhiyi, that he breached the terms of his employment agreement with Wangzhiyi, and violated his covenants to not compete with and devote himself to Wangzhiyi during the term of his employment. The letter requested that Mr. Tang apologize in writing to Wangzhiyi promptly and reserved Wangzhiyi’s right to pursue further action. Mr. Tang believes the claims lack merit and intends to defend himself against these claims vigorously.
We cannot predict what future action Wangzhiyi might take with respect to its claims against Mr. Tang. In the event that Wangzhiyi were to pursue these claims by means of court proceedings, we cannot predict the length or outcome of any such proceedings. Any legal action, regardless of its merits, could be time consuming and could divert the attention of Mr. Tang away from our business. Should Wangzhiyi prevail in any future lawsuit against Mr. Tang, his reputation could be harmed and he may be ordered to pay damages and/or cease any actions deemed to be wrongful by the court. Moreover, although we were not named in the letter, we cannot be sure that Wangzhiyi will not initiate proceedings against us in the future. Any such proceedings may result in negative publicity for us and divert our management’s attention and could materially and adversely affect our reputation, business and results of operations.
