Each side has its perspective and points. Each side points fingers: "Scum", "incremental", "non-compete", "stole our idea", "couldn't breathe".
I'm not sure which side Amy Wallace falls out on, but both sides are right. And both sides are wrong:
In this day and age, ideas should not be owned. One-click by Amazon: obvious and ridiculous. Reuseable garment bag: more obvious and more ridiculous. Ideas are on a level playing field and competition - the only one that matters - is for customers.
If anything, Mr. Siegel by way of offering to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars offered to combine ideas and resources which may have created a more effective competitor.
The idea of a non-compete after buying two of something at a tradeshow and then a conversation over drinks at a Santa Monica hotel: ridiculous. It's just like an entrepreneur in our industry asking an angel or VC to sign an NDA and non-compete.
And for the record, the Eureka moment does not matter at all, either in purpose, practice or philosophy.
