4 ms·

> In my opinion “founder” is not a word someone should be unilaterally conferring upon themselves, but is more meaningfully applied only by others. Simply not

by disown 6y ago

> In my opinion “founder” is not a word someone should be unilaterally conferring upon themselves, but is more meaningfully applied only by others. Simply not true. It is a legal definition with someone leeway at the edge cases. > Leave the identification of “founders” to people like the Wall Street Journal if you wish for the word to retain any meaning at all. What? Since when did Wall Street Journal decide who are the founders? The founders tell the WSJ who the founders are, not the other way around. Pretty much founders are those who weren't hired. Early employees are those hired by the "founders".

toomuchtodo 6y ago
> Simply not true. It is a legal definition with someone leeway at the edge cases. Can you provide a citation? I've spent five minutes on Google and all results indicate the opposite, that the title "founder" holds no legal meaning or standing. It does look like you need an agreement with the board and through shareholders to hold the title (and the title would be helpful in some situations), but that the title itself is meaningless from a legal definition.
- disown 6y ago
  > Can you provide a citation? I've spent five minutes on Google and all results indicate the opposite, that the title "founder" holds no legal meaning or standing. It's called registering your company? It varies from state to state and country to country. > It does look like you need an agreement with the board and through shareholders to hold the title (and the title would be helpful in some situations), but that the title itself is meaningless from a legal definition. Yes. I guess the founder is not a "legal definition". But when you ( and your cofounders ) legally register the company, you are the founder. Certainly it's not simply what others say it is. If you say I'm the founder of microsoft, it doesn't make it so. We can see who legally founded ( aka registered ) the company.

by disown 6y ago

toomuchtodo 6y ago

> Simply not true. It is a legal definition with someone leeway at the edge cases. Can you provide a citation? I've spent five minutes on Google and all results indicate the opposite, that the title "founder" holds no legal meaning or standing. It does look like you need an agreement with the board and through shareholders to hold the title (and the title would be helpful in some situations), but that the title itself is meaningless from a legal definition.

disown 6y ago
> Can you provide a citation? I've spent five minutes on Google and all results indicate the opposite, that the title "founder" holds no legal meaning or standing. It's called registering your company? It varies from state to state and country to country. > It does look like you need an agreement with the board and through shareholders to hold the title (and the title would be helpful in some situations), but that the title itself is meaningless from a legal definition. Yes. I guess the founder is not a "legal definition". But when you ( and your cofounders ) legally register the company, you are the founder. Certainly it's not simply what others say it is. If you say I'm the founder of microsoft, it doesn't make it so. We can see who legally founded ( aka registered ) the company.