3 ms·
From the linked recode article: "But sources said it will end up paying investors, who put a reported $17 million into the company, for the right to hire some o
by e28eta 11y ago
From the linked recode article: "But sources said it will end up paying investors, who put a reported $17 million into the company, for the right to hire some of its staff."
That sure sounds similar to the anti-poaching agreements that Google, Apple, etc already got in trouble for.
What makes this different? Why shouldn't it just be a free market for these employees (and founders), and Google is free to offer that money directly to them, instead of needing to pay off the investors?
- detaro 11y agoMaybe avoid issues with non-competes or claims of "stolen" IP later. Or maybe, if the founders negotiated a deal for the team to stay together an investor might argue that that they are acting against the best interest of the company and might try to hold them liable for that.
- jevgeni 11y agoWell, in a free market the possibility of a big player to poach the core of a company would be priced in by the investor. I'd expect to see a lot less equity and a lot more debt-like VC deals at vastly lower valuations.