早料你有这一出：来看看陌陌招股书怎么写网易告唐岩的

虎嗅注：网易和陌陌的对战愈演愈烈。乱象之中，虎嗅发现，其实陌陌一早就在招股书中写明了与网易公司之间纠纷的潜在风险。

英文原文见文末，中文翻译如下：

2014 年 11 月，联合创始人、董事会主席兼首席执行官唐岩先生，收到了一封律师函，来自一家位于中华人民共和国的律师事务所，委托方为网之易信息科技 (北京) 有限公司，该公司即网易科技 (Netease) 在中华人民共和国的关联注册公司。唐先生自 2003 年 12 月至 2011 年 9 月就职于该公司。

律师函声称，因为唐先生在 2011 年 7 月创办了北京陌陌 (Beijing Momo) ，而北京陌陌于 2011 年 8 月发布了我公司的应用程序，这段时间唐先生仍就职于网之易公司，因此他违背了与网之易签署的员工协议，违反了协议中所规定的，致力于为网之易公司服务，且禁止在受雇期间与网之易存在竞争关系的约定。该律师函要求，唐先生以书面形式向网之易公司郑重道歉。并保留网之易公司采取进一步行动的权利。

唐先生认为，该律师函的主张缺乏依据，他表示强烈反对。

我们无法预计网之易公司在未来就这些针对唐先生的指摘所可能采取的行动。如果网之易采取法庭诉讼手段，我们无法预估任何此类诉讼的时间长度或后果。任何法律行动，无论是否有据可查，都是耗时的。并且，会分散唐先生在本公司业务上的精力。任何网之易公司在未来针对唐先生的法律诉讼一旦获胜，他的名声可能会受到损害，被责令赔偿并/或中止任何法庭判定有误的行为。

不仅如此，尽管本公司没有在该律师函中被列为指控对象，我们无法保证网之易公司未来不会启动针对本公司的法律行动。任何此类法律行动均会导致为本公司带来不良的声誉，分散公司管理层的精力，从本质上对本公司的名誉、业务和营运结果产生负面的影响。

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.