7 ms·

I'm absolving Palmer of making a promise he couldn't keep because of Facebook. Palmer is correct here and shouldn't be getting the blowback that he is. Obvious

I'm absolving Palmer of making a promise he couldn't keep because of Facebook. Palmer is correct here and shouldn't be getting the blowback that he is. Obviously Facebook can do what they want within the terms.

jacquesm 6y ago
He knew it was a promise he could not keep because he was giving up control. You simply can not make promises like that it is beyond stupid to make promises about how a company will be run in the future when you are no longer at the helm. He should have known he couldn't promise that. He could not have known Facebook would do what they did but he should have been at least smart enough to know the limits of his own influence.
- asddubs 6y ago
  it really seems a little willfully naive. if it's not in a contract, obviously any promise facebook makes is going to be on an "isn't inconvenient to do" basis
  - beezischillin 6y ago
    He was 22 years old when Facebook bought Oculus. I assume he expected to stay a part of it and maybe things were different if he did. It's his fault, of course, but I think he was just naive.
    - Mindwipe 6y ago
      > I assume he expected to stay a part of it and maybe things were different if he did. It's his fault, of course, but I think he was just naive. You can be naive, but naive doesn't mean you go online and argue that people who know better are wrong, which is what he did.
      - CarbyAu 6y ago
        The definition of naivety means he didn't know any better. He simply backed up what he believed, which I would expect. Now he knows better. He has changed his mind. Which is what any rational person should do when presented with new information. On the one hand I won't vilify him. On the other hand he merely met the base requirements for "rational thinking" - so I am not about to give him any accolades.
      - imheretolearn 6y ago
        > You can be naive, but naive doesn't mean you go online and argue that people who know better are wrong, which is what he did. Isn't this exactly what being naive means?
        croon 6y ago
        No, naive is closer to absentmindedness or just not having been exposed to something. Palmer was suffering from confident ignorance.
throwaway_98554 6y ago
Unless he put the promise in the sell contract, in which case he can sue Facebook and stop them from doing this nasty move, he should be getting all the blowback he's getting and more.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Even if it is in the contract the court would not necessarily side with you unless you can show that you were somehow wronged because of this. "They made me look bad" may not be sufficient.
  - vijayr02 6y ago
    IANAL but I don't think that's the test. If a person commits to not doing something as part of a valid contract that's all that matters. The point you make may be relevant for deciding damages, but even here there is a concept of Liquidated Damages [0] which is essentially the damages amount set at day 1 so the question of ascertaining the extent of wrong does not arise. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidated_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidated_damages
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      If he got it just verbally then I can't see him having a case, they can claim they didn't say it and that will be hard to prove, it might still work but that's very thin ice. If he got it written into the contract then it is clear that he does not intend to pursue it. If it was written into the contract and he pursues it then he will need to show that he has suffered because the contract was not executed and I fail to see how he could make that case and do so with enough teeth that it would matter to FB enough to reverse course.
      - Gene_Parmesan 6y ago
        As someone who used to practice law, any discussion about contractual obligations is nothing more than speculation until you have read the specific contract in question.
NikolaNovak 6y ago
I don't know Palmer and until 5 minutes didn't know his name. I don't dislike him, I'm sure he's a nice guy and great person, and I think the product and achievement is impressive. But: I respect him for eating humble pie now. I absolutely do not respect yet alone absolve him of not doing so originally. Why would one? There's nothing NEW that came to the table: Facebook can do what they want now, and crucially that was the case at the time of those promises. Founders literally sign away their right to make these promises. Whether they're made out of ego, faith, hope, naivette, inocence, or just riding that payday high and feeling king of the world - acquired founders need to stop making them and we need to stop believing them; and holding accountable / not absolving is a step in that direction. They're not evil people, they don't need to be doxxed or torched... but it's a certain level of wrong to make promises you absolutely positively cannot deliver upon, and good will does not make such ignorance OK :-/ Sorry if that came harsh; I feel bad for Palmer... but hey, should we not feel worse for those who believed him and acted upon that belief??
- lisper 6y ago
  > Founders literally sign away their right to make these promises. Well, they don't have to. He could have insisted on writing this condition into the acquisition contract. But he obviously didn't. The most charitable reading of this is that he was just naive and didn't know that this was an option or that it would be necessary in order to enforce such a promise, but that seems unlikely. Acquiring this knowledge is no harder than posing the question to his M&A attorney. Hence... > I absolutely do not t respect yet alone absolve him of not doing so originally. Why would one? I think you made the right call here.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    I wonder if it's possible to make such a contract that works? If it curtails Facebook, and they breach the contract, then what? They pay the seller some more money? If you reverted ownership there's no way that FB are going to sign that contract (a small risk you could inadvertently lose the asset and the cost price, eg through an unforeseen loophole that favours the seller - lawyers should veto such things, surely). Also, are you going to make it a perpetual term applied to all future owners? If not then FB can probably make an entity to sell it to. Or use a third-party login that itself requires Facebook login and workaround your selling constraints. I like the idea of it: just practically I can't see how it would be workable to technically constrain a company in a contract of sale of that company. Are there examples of where this has been done successfully?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
flavmartins 6y ago
Is he the one to blame? No. Does he deserve the blowback? Probably not. Was it an extremely naive promise to make given historical experience and the company that acquired you? Absolutely.
NeutronStar 6y ago
Palmer made the promise knowing full well he would pull a "See, not in my hands, I can't do anything". It's all just a PR move.
geofft 6y ago
> Palmer is correct here and shouldn't be getting the blowback that he is. This sentence seems self-contradictory. Once again, here's what Palmer said: > I really believed it would continue to be the case for a variety of reasons. In hindsight, the downvotes from people with more real-world experience than me were definitely justified. It sounds like he's agreeing that he should be getting the blowback, right? He made a promise he couldn't keep, people told him he wouldn't be able to keep it, he ignored them. He should have known better.
randomsearch 6y ago
If I make a lot of money in a way that has negative consequences for other people, then it’s human nature to find ways to discount the negative impact. You delude yourself to feel better so you can take the money and run. Not sure I’d be any different, although I like to think I would be.

jacquesm 6y ago

He knew it was a promise he could not keep because he was giving up control. You simply can not make promises like that it is beyond stupid to make promises about how a company will be run in the future when you are no longer at the helm. He should have known he couldn't promise that. He could not have known Facebook would do what they did but he should have been at least smart enough to know the limits of his own influence.

asddubs 6y ago
it really seems a little willfully naive. if it's not in a contract, obviously any promise facebook makes is going to be on an "isn't inconvenient to do" basis
- beezischillin 6y ago
  He was 22 years old when Facebook bought Oculus. I assume he expected to stay a part of it and maybe things were different if he did. It's his fault, of course, but I think he was just naive.
  - Mindwipe 6y ago
    > I assume he expected to stay a part of it and maybe things were different if he did. It's his fault, of course, but I think he was just naive. You can be naive, but naive doesn't mean you go online and argue that people who know better are wrong, which is what he did.
    - CarbyAu 6y ago
      The definition of naivety means he didn't know any better. He simply backed up what he believed, which I would expect. Now he knows better. He has changed his mind. Which is what any rational person should do when presented with new information. On the one hand I won't vilify him. On the other hand he merely met the base requirements for "rational thinking" - so I am not about to give him any accolades.
    - imheretolearn 6y ago
      > You can be naive, but naive doesn't mean you go online and argue that people who know better are wrong, which is what he did. Isn't this exactly what being naive means?
      - croon 6y ago
        No, naive is closer to absentmindedness or just not having been exposed to something. Palmer was suffering from confident ignorance.

throwaway_98554 6y ago

Unless he put the promise in the sell contract, in which case he can sue Facebook and stop them from doing this nasty move, he should be getting all the blowback he's getting and more.

jacquesm 6y ago
Even if it is in the contract the court would not necessarily side with you unless you can show that you were somehow wronged because of this. "They made me look bad" may not be sufficient.
- vijayr02 6y ago
  IANAL but I don't think that's the test. If a person commits to not doing something as part of a valid contract that's all that matters. The point you make may be relevant for deciding damages, but even here there is a concept of Liquidated Damages [0] which is essentially the damages amount set at day 1 so the question of ascertaining the extent of wrong does not arise. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidated_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidated_damages
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    If he got it just verbally then I can't see him having a case, they can claim they didn't say it and that will be hard to prove, it might still work but that's very thin ice. If he got it written into the contract then it is clear that he does not intend to pursue it. If it was written into the contract and he pursues it then he will need to show that he has suffered because the contract was not executed and I fail to see how he could make that case and do so with enough teeth that it would matter to FB enough to reverse course.
    - Gene_Parmesan 6y ago
      As someone who used to practice law, any discussion about contractual obligations is nothing more than speculation until you have read the specific contract in question.

NikolaNovak 6y ago

I don't know Palmer and until 5 minutes didn't know his name. I don't dislike him, I'm sure he's a nice guy and great person, and I think the product and achievement is impressive. But: I respect him for eating humble pie now. I absolutely do not respect yet alone absolve him of not doing so originally. Why would one? There's nothing NEW that came to the table: Facebook can do what they want now, and crucially that was the case at the time of those promises. Founders literally sign away their right to make these promises. Whether they're made out of ego, faith, hope, naivette, inocence, or just riding that payday high and feeling king of the world - acquired founders need to stop making them and we need to stop believing them; and holding accountable / not absolving is a step in that direction. They're not evil people, they don't need to be doxxed or torched... but it's a certain level of wrong to make promises you absolutely positively cannot deliver upon, and good will does not make such ignorance OK :-/ Sorry if that came harsh; I feel bad for Palmer... but hey, should we not feel worse for those who believed him and acted upon that belief??

lisper 6y ago
> Founders literally sign away their right to make these promises. Well, they don't have to. He could have insisted on writing this condition into the acquisition contract. But he obviously didn't. The most charitable reading of this is that he was just naive and didn't know that this was an option or that it would be necessary in order to enforce such a promise, but that seems unlikely. Acquiring this knowledge is no harder than posing the question to his M&A attorney. Hence... > I absolutely do not t respect yet alone absolve him of not doing so originally. Why would one? I think you made the right call here.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  I wonder if it's possible to make such a contract that works? If it curtails Facebook, and they breach the contract, then what? They pay the seller some more money? If you reverted ownership there's no way that FB are going to sign that contract (a small risk you could inadvertently lose the asset and the cost price, eg through an unforeseen loophole that favours the seller - lawyers should veto such things, surely). Also, are you going to make it a perpetual term applied to all future owners? If not then FB can probably make an entity to sell it to. Or use a third-party login that itself requires Facebook login and workaround your selling constraints. I like the idea of it: just practically I can't see how it would be workable to technically constrain a company in a contract of sale of that company. Are there examples of where this has been done successfully?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

flavmartins 6y ago

Is he the one to blame? No. Does he deserve the blowback? Probably not. Was it an extremely naive promise to make given historical experience and the company that acquired you? Absolutely.

NeutronStar 6y ago

Palmer made the promise knowing full well he would pull a "See, not in my hands, I can't do anything". It's all just a PR move.

geofft 6y ago

> Palmer is correct here and shouldn't be getting the blowback that he is. This sentence seems self-contradictory. Once again, here's what Palmer said: > I really believed it would continue to be the case for a variety of reasons. In hindsight, the downvotes from people with more real-world experience than me were definitely justified. It sounds like he's agreeing that he should be getting the blowback, right? He made a promise he couldn't keep, people told him he wouldn't be able to keep it, he ignored them. He should have known better.

randomsearch 6y ago

If I make a lot of money in a way that has negative consequences for other people, then it’s human nature to find ways to discount the negative impact. You delude yourself to feel better so you can take the money and run. Not sure I’d be any different, although I like to think I would be.