> does throwawayvictim have an obligation to take part in that due diligence process by reaching out to the investors?
No, in fact he should not. The DD is the investors problem, not the OPs, if they do lousy DD, do not spot the anomaly and invest anyway at least he'll have a fat target assuming there is a case here.
> Regardless of his own attachments to the code, and his emotional response to its false attribution
False attribution by hearsay at this point in time, that's not actionable.
> a response I think most of us would have, by the way - the investors "don't know what they don't know", and I think any good samaritan would consider it his duty to inform someone who is at a possible informational disadvantage, especially when that information could prevent the investors from dealing with a loss or a future liability. It also reflects the character of the startup using the code, an additional and relevant piece of information that the investor is disadvantaged not knowing.
That might get you into a lot of trouble.
Your analogy doesn't hold water on several fronts, for one nothing got stolen.
> Is it your duty to call up VC to warn him about his unexpected caller?
No, in fact that might be construed as interference.
> That the caller has expressed a monetary motivation for his visit, and that he has taken advantage of your good will and stolen a car you were willing to loan freely to anyone who respectfully asked to borrow it?
This could be but the OP is not a disinterested and objective party. So he should contact his own lawyer and discuss his options rather than to take advice from strangers on the net with extremely limited data.
No, in fact he should not. The DD is the investors problem, not the OPs, if they do lousy DD, do not spot the anomaly and invest anyway at least he'll have a fat target assuming there is a case here.
> Regardless of his own attachments to the code, and his emotional response to its false attribution
False attribution by hearsay at this point in time, that's not actionable.
> a response I think most of us would have, by the way - the investors "don't know what they don't know", and I think any good samaritan would consider it his duty to inform someone who is at a possible informational disadvantage, especially when that information could prevent the investors from dealing with a loss or a future liability. It also reflects the character of the startup using the code, an additional and relevant piece of information that the investor is disadvantaged not knowing.
That might get you into a lot of trouble.
Your analogy doesn't hold water on several fronts, for one nothing got stolen.
> Is it your duty to call up VC to warn him about his unexpected caller?
No, in fact that might be construed as interference.
> That the caller has expressed a monetary motivation for his visit, and that he has taken advantage of your good will and stolen a car you were willing to loan freely to anyone who respectfully asked to borrow it?
This could be but the OP is not a disinterested and objective party. So he should contact his own lawyer and discuss his options rather than to take advice from strangers on the net with extremely limited data.