3 ms·

It might be harsh, but I think it makes business sense to reduce a co-founder's influence in a startup when it becomes uncertain if that person will be able to

It might be harsh, but I think it makes business sense to reduce a co-founder's influence in a startup when it becomes uncertain if that person will be able to continue contributing. When I read that Bill Gates was called a rip-off artist, I was thinking of a couple of other decisions that made the company what it is now.

rbanffy 16y ago
> it makes business sense to reduce a co-founder's influence in a startup when it becomes uncertain if that person will be able to continue contributing Then call him for a meeting, tell him "you know, there is a 50% chance you will die in the next 6 months and we should take steps to reduce the risk to the company". Starting from this point, I am sure some arrangement could be made to protect both the company and his family in the event of his death. You should treat other people with respect. Gates and Ballmer, obviously, don't have such burdens.
zck 16y ago
from the article: [Gates and Ballmer] also wondered how they might reduce Allen's company stake... That's different from reducing his influence; this reads like they were trying to take away vested stock. That's not the same as saying "because of your illness, how about stepping down from Executive VP (which Allen was at the time)? Obviously you can't get as much stock in the future if you're not able to commit to Microsoft."
loumf 16y ago
The best way to do this is to make all founders go through vesting from the beginning. Under that standard, Allen would likely have been fully vested by the time he left and it would have been clear that he earned his stake. According to wikipedia he was the one who found QDOS which has to be one of the most important and valuable acquisitions for early MS.
- lawnchair_larry 16y ago
  I like how his version of the story makes it sound like he rolled QDOS himself in a few hard evenings. He neglects to mention that they found and bought it.

rbanffy 16y ago

> it makes business sense to reduce a co-founder's influence in a startup when it becomes uncertain if that person will be able to continue contributing Then call him for a meeting, tell him "you know, there is a 50% chance you will die in the next 6 months and we should take steps to reduce the risk to the company". Starting from this point, I am sure some arrangement could be made to protect both the company and his family in the event of his death. You should treat other people with respect. Gates and Ballmer, obviously, don't have such burdens.

zck 16y ago

from the article: [Gates and Ballmer] also wondered how they might reduce Allen's company stake... That's different from reducing his influence; this reads like they were trying to take away vested stock. That's not the same as saying "because of your illness, how about stepping down from Executive VP (which Allen was at the time)? Obviously you can't get as much stock in the future if you're not able to commit to Microsoft."

loumf 16y ago

The best way to do this is to make all founders go through vesting from the beginning. Under that standard, Allen would likely have been fully vested by the time he left and it would have been clear that he earned his stake. According to wikipedia he was the one who found QDOS which has to be one of the most important and valuable acquisitions for early MS.

lawnchair_larry 16y ago
I like how his version of the story makes it sound like he rolled QDOS himself in a few hard evenings. He neglects to mention that they found and bought it.