5 ms·

What exactly is the downside of that? Is it really that wrong that bright employees who make the actual product have a little more leverage?

outside1234 10y ago
Nope! I just realized that this might be a pattern and not a one-off. :)
- ryandrake 10y ago
  It's been a pattern for a long time. I remember lot of startups back in the 90s built without any conceivable purpose or goal besides "being bought by Microsoft". I've always thought it would be a great (albeit risky) way for someone who is talented but stuck in a go-nowhere job to get a nice bonus and/or raise: 1. Quit your job doing X 2. Found a company to do some related Y 3. A year layer or so, get purchased by your old company for the technology. It's also an alternative way to get a new job somewhere where you can't seem to get through the interview funnel. I'd imagine that at some Silicon Valley companies it's easier to get acquired than get hired.
ben_jones 10y ago
I see parallels between this and lobbying in the US government where lobbied officials will leave for a private sector position as a lobbyist or executive at say a $BIG_TELCO or $BIG_OIL company. Why shouldn't government professionals use their knowledge and expertise to get more leverage going into the private sector? I think the biggest argument here is that sometimes the end goal becomes not the work that person is currently doing but the payout down the road if their actions line up in a certain way. If your goal at Google is to leave in three years and start a self driving car-company to get acqui-hired, you might for instance spend three years making lists of people to take with you or knowledge that won't violate NDAs or whatever. Though often times that might be acceptable, a.k.a. the 'you don't owe your employer anything' line of logic (which generally I agree with), sometimes it can become morally dubious if for example, it corrupts personal relationships or becomes manipulative. And then finally you get the case of the Waymo guy who may have planned and conspired to steal information on his way out the door, ironically after having already gained multi-generational wealth.
- SimbaOnSteroids 10y ago
  To your first point, because being part of a government is something you should ideally be doing for a non-monetary altruistic reason, whereas employment at a large corp is clearly about personal gain.
- sbov 10y ago
  In a vacuum, this isn't a problem. In practice, what you have is people regulating and creating laws for their future employer, and/or legal bribery (knowing you'll get a cushy job for supporting a bill). At this point, you aren't leveraging your knowledge, you are abusing your power.

outside1234 10y ago

Nope! I just realized that this might be a pattern and not a one-off. :)

ryandrake 10y ago
It's been a pattern for a long time. I remember lot of startups back in the 90s built without any conceivable purpose or goal besides "being bought by Microsoft". I've always thought it would be a great (albeit risky) way for someone who is talented but stuck in a go-nowhere job to get a nice bonus and/or raise: 1. Quit your job doing X 2. Found a company to do some related Y 3. A year layer or so, get purchased by your old company for the technology. It's also an alternative way to get a new job somewhere where you can't seem to get through the interview funnel. I'd imagine that at some Silicon Valley companies it's easier to get acquired than get hired.

ben_jones 10y ago

I see parallels between this and lobbying in the US government where lobbied officials will leave for a private sector position as a lobbyist or executive at say a $BIG_TELCO or $BIG_OIL company. Why shouldn't government professionals use their knowledge and expertise to get more leverage going into the private sector? I think the biggest argument here is that sometimes the end goal becomes not the work that person is currently doing but the payout down the road if their actions line up in a certain way. If your goal at Google is to leave in three years and start a self driving car-company to get acqui-hired, you might for instance spend three years making lists of people to take with you or knowledge that won't violate NDAs or whatever. Though often times that might be acceptable, a.k.a. the 'you don't owe your employer anything' line of logic (which generally I agree with), sometimes it can become morally dubious if for example, it corrupts personal relationships or becomes manipulative. And then finally you get the case of the Waymo guy who may have planned and conspired to steal information on his way out the door, ironically after having already gained multi-generational wealth.

SimbaOnSteroids 10y ago
To your first point, because being part of a government is something you should ideally be doing for a non-monetary altruistic reason, whereas employment at a large corp is clearly about personal gain.
sbov 10y ago
In a vacuum, this isn't a problem. In practice, what you have is people regulating and creating laws for their future employer, and/or legal bribery (knowing you'll get a cushy job for supporting a bill). At this point, you aren't leveraging your knowledge, you are abusing your power.