The problem with this article is that the author is basing ownership of the company on things arguably irrelevant to the actual company- qualifications rather t

The problem with this article is that the author is basing ownership of the company on things arguably irrelevant to the actual company- qualifications rather than contributions. For example, his partner may have equal qualifications. But who is to say that his partner will contribute an equal amount to the company? A better way would be to come up with an agreement on how to evaluate equity X years in the future, based on their performance. This also accounts for future hires who deserve equity. Of course, part of the equity would have to be split up at the beginning- but, no more than 20%. Why should someone get equity merely because they "worked in film before web development"? Instead, they should get equity because of the awesome demo video they made. This is certainly harder, but it makes more sense. There's no rush to split up equity- after all, with the odds of flipping a company is relatively low and IPOs being nonexistent, it's something that can potentially be dealt with after a year or two.