6 ms·

Wow I hope no one ever founds a company with you.

hoodoof 10y ago
Why? Im merely pointing out how the law works, and that if you want to win a legal dispute, do it when the opposing party has incentive (or better, a requirement) to quickly resolve the issue. Not sure why pointing this out makes me not a good person to found a company with. I have separated from a co-founder and I made damn sure we had an agreement in writing defining the terms of the separation. Didn't take much, no lawyers, just a one page agreement, three people each with a copy, all with signatures. All still good friends.
- proksoup 10y ago
  It indicates your attitude towards how one should act. Obviously, one should act in their own self interest and use the law to it's fullest extent, not consider the social consequences of being a dick. Good luck sir.
  - okabat 10y ago
    Being aware of risk angles and protecting yourself is not the same thing as condoning exploitative behavior. I'd want my cofounder to think through how somebody with legal leverage over our company would act. You should want that too.
    - proksoup 10y ago
      > I don't think so, it's the right way to play it. Wait until you have maximium leverage and then play your legal cards. That sounds like condoning exploitative behaviour to me. Is that the sentence we are both talking about?
  - jimbokun 10y ago
    Which side is being more dickish in this case is still very much in dispute, which is why it's going to court. You seem to be certain one side is looking out for their self interest much more than the other, which you have no way of really knowing because you are just another person commenting on a discussion on the Internet. Unless you are personally involved in this matter, and know more than what has been publicly reported so far? And even then, how would we know you are not being biased in your judgments by your involvement?
    - proksoup 10y ago
      The amounts of money involved make everyone involved pretty greedy, I don't understand why that's so controversial. Ya'alls notion of "rights" is pretty disturbing to me.
      - jimbokun 10y ago
        So you are against anyone being compensated at the amounts under discussion? Which is a coherent, defensible position. Sounded like you were selectively accusing one actor in this dispute as the "greedy" one, which I think is why you got so much push back on your comments.
        proksoup 10y ago
        Not against anything, just think it's fair to label those seeking large amounts of money as dick'ish and greedy. If money is your goal great, more power to ya, but I'm gonna call you a dick and not want to work with you.
        danso 10y ago
        So you're implying that you'd never work with YC or Vogt or any of their investors? GM is spending $1B to acquire Cruise, which is a vast sum for a small company that has been around for 3 years. Even 20% of that would be a great payout for all involved, and think of how much money GM could have left over to continue to revive the dormant U.S. industry, and U.S. fortunes at large. By your standards, if YC and Vogt were ethical actors, they'd ask GM to reduce the offer, because building things and innovating is itself an honest reward.
        proksoup 10y ago
        > By your standards, if YC and Vogt were ethical actors, they'd ask GM to reduce the offer, because building things and innovating is itself an honest reward. What do you need a reward for at all? Why are you trying to build something? By my standards, your motivation matters a lot, it sounds like you think people deserve rewards for doing things, I don't think that makes very much sense. Gold star you did the right thing, bullshit.
- theoracle101 10y ago
  That's not how I want the law to work. We should strive for better
- hashkb 10y ago
  Because you're waiting to maximize your leverage and make a play for yourself. That's a bad quality in a teammate.
  - joslin01 10y ago
    To you and everyone else attacking him, you're conflating his explanation with his personal character. That's not fair.
  - hoodoof 10y ago
    Tell that to Eduardo Saverin and the Winklevoss twins.
  - redshirtrob 10y ago
    So is cutting someone out of a company. My point is that this probably became an emotional issue. If that's the case, it's not hard to see how someone would wait for an opportune moment to assert ownership. But, since we don't really know all the facts, if this was a mutual parting of ways, then I agree that it's a terrible thing to do. The bottom line is we really don't know what happened. I can at least see how a reasonable person could walk this path if they feel they've been maligned.
    - hashkb 10y ago
      I think you can fire people without it making you a bad founder. At least, I hope so.
      - danso 10y ago
        And I think you can demand the compensation you believe is legally due without being considered a greedy selfish asshole.
        proksoup 10y ago
        How is that not greedy and selfish?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
sergers 10y ago
if anything, i would say this make it a +1 to start a company with hodoof, atleast he has some sense of contractual/legal requirements imo... its not about being a dick, you and all parties should know what you getting into/not getting into make sure you have written contracts/agreements in place incase something changes
WaylonKenning 10y ago
The company left a liability floating around, which was a disgruntled co founder. Like a liability on your balance sheet. And if you're the disgruntled co founder, this is your most opportune moment to extract maximum equity value for yourself. What I don't understand is, if a company did this to another company, people are all like 'yeah, that's how the market works', but when a person does it to a person, they're all like 'you're heartless and not playing nice'. Why the hypocrisy?

Why? Im merely pointing out how the law works, and that if you want to win a legal dispute, do it when the opposing party has incentive (or better, a requirement) to quickly resolve the issue. Not sure why pointing this out makes me not a good person to found a company with. I have separated from a co-founder and I made damn sure we had an agreement in writing defining the terms of the separation. Didn't take much, no lawyers, just a one page agreement, three people each with a copy, all with signatures. All still good friends.

proksoup 10y ago
It indicates your attitude towards how one should act. Obviously, one should act in their own self interest and use the law to it's fullest extent, not consider the social consequences of being a dick. Good luck sir.
- okabat 10y ago
  Being aware of risk angles and protecting yourself is not the same thing as condoning exploitative behavior. I'd want my cofounder to think through how somebody with legal leverage over our company would act. You should want that too.
  - proksoup 10y ago
    > I don't think so, it's the right way to play it. Wait until you have maximium leverage and then play your legal cards. That sounds like condoning exploitative behaviour to me. Is that the sentence we are both talking about?
- jimbokun 10y ago
  Which side is being more dickish in this case is still very much in dispute, which is why it's going to court. You seem to be certain one side is looking out for their self interest much more than the other, which you have no way of really knowing because you are just another person commenting on a discussion on the Internet. Unless you are personally involved in this matter, and know more than what has been publicly reported so far? And even then, how would we know you are not being biased in your judgments by your involvement?
  - proksoup 10y ago
    The amounts of money involved make everyone involved pretty greedy, I don't understand why that's so controversial. Ya'alls notion of "rights" is pretty disturbing to me.
    - jimbokun 10y ago
      So you are against anyone being compensated at the amounts under discussion? Which is a coherent, defensible position. Sounded like you were selectively accusing one actor in this dispute as the "greedy" one, which I think is why you got so much push back on your comments.
      - proksoup 10y ago
        Not against anything, just think it's fair to label those seeking large amounts of money as dick'ish and greedy. If money is your goal great, more power to ya, but I'm gonna call you a dick and not want to work with you.
        danso 10y ago
        So you're implying that you'd never work with YC or Vogt or any of their investors? GM is spending $1B to acquire Cruise, which is a vast sum for a small company that has been around for 3 years. Even 20% of that would be a great payout for all involved, and think of how much money GM could have left over to continue to revive the dormant U.S. industry, and U.S. fortunes at large. By your standards, if YC and Vogt were ethical actors, they'd ask GM to reduce the offer, because building things and innovating is itself an honest reward.
        proksoup 10y ago
        > By your standards, if YC and Vogt were ethical actors, they'd ask GM to reduce the offer, because building things and innovating is itself an honest reward. What do you need a reward for at all? Why are you trying to build something? By my standards, your motivation matters a lot, it sounds like you think people deserve rewards for doing things, I don't think that makes very much sense. Gold star you did the right thing, bullshit.
theoracle101 10y ago
That's not how I want the law to work. We should strive for better
hashkb 10y ago
Because you're waiting to maximize your leverage and make a play for yourself. That's a bad quality in a teammate.
- joslin01 10y ago
  To you and everyone else attacking him, you're conflating his explanation with his personal character. That's not fair.
- hoodoof 10y ago
  Tell that to Eduardo Saverin and the Winklevoss twins.
- redshirtrob 10y ago
  So is cutting someone out of a company. My point is that this probably became an emotional issue. If that's the case, it's not hard to see how someone would wait for an opportune moment to assert ownership. But, since we don't really know all the facts, if this was a mutual parting of ways, then I agree that it's a terrible thing to do. The bottom line is we really don't know what happened. I can at least see how a reasonable person could walk this path if they feel they've been maligned.
  - hashkb 10y ago
    I think you can fire people without it making you a bad founder. At least, I hope so.
    - danso 10y ago
      And I think you can demand the compensation you believe is legally due without being considered a greedy selfish asshole.
      - proksoup 10y ago
        How is that not greedy and selfish?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

sergers 10y ago

if anything, i would say this make it a +1 to start a company with hodoof, atleast he has some sense of contractual/legal requirements imo... its not about being a dick, you and all parties should know what you getting into/not getting into make sure you have written contracts/agreements in place incase something changes

WaylonKenning 10y ago

The company left a liability floating around, which was a disgruntled co founder. Like a liability on your balance sheet. And if you're the disgruntled co founder, this is your most opportune moment to extract maximum equity value for yourself. What I don't understand is, if a company did this to another company, people are all like 'yeah, that's how the market works', but when a person does it to a person, they're all like 'you're heartless and not playing nice'. Why the hypocrisy?