4 ms·

Co-founder? I wasn't aware of that

by woah 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mushufasa 6y ago
I didn't realize this either, so I looked up her wikipedia page: "In 1993, Scott and Bezos were married, and in 1994, they both left D. E. Shaw, moved to Seattle, and started Amazon. Scott was one of Amazon's first employees, and was heavily involved in Amazon's early days, working on the company's name, business plan, accounts and shipping early orders.[4][8] She also negotiated the company's first freight contract.[8] When Amazon began to succeed, Scott took a less involved role in the business, preferring to focus on her family and literary career.[4]"
- andreilys 6y ago
  Scott was one of Amazon's first employees Employee != co-founder. I don’t think anyone thinks of Mackenzie as an Amazon co-founder (nor have I read anywhere other than this editorialized title). That’s not to play down her involvement and contribution to Amazon in its early days, but it’s disingenuous to call her a co-founder.
  - dominotw 6y ago
    > but it’s disingenuous to call her a co-founder. looks like the submitter called here that, possibly to create a flamewar like this.
    - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
      Her Wiki was recently changed to call her that too.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Seems like an irrelevant thing to argue about. The submitter clearly set it up to create engagement on the submission. I hate to have to participate and therefore perpetuate it but we're all suckers for having reacted to the bait like this. Maybe knowing we're suckers will stop us from being suckers the next time a submitter pulls this.
    - casefields 6y ago
      This happens on Reddit too. If you post something slightly incorrect or even a misspelling, it'll give it that first flurry of engagement which gives it a better chance of striking gold.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Darmody 6y ago
Yes. She didn't get the money only for being "the wife" as many people think. She worked at Amazon and she is one of the people that made the company succeed.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- andreilys 6y ago
  Sure, and there were many early employees at Google that made it succeed. Those early employees however are not called co-founders.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  But everything she got in the divorce settlement would be for being "the spouse". Presumably her compensation from the early days at amazon were just considered her personal assets.
  - cowsandmilk 6y ago
    A married couple in a common property state doesn’t have personal assets.
    - oh_sigh 6y ago
      That doesn't explain how Jeff retained 75% of his shares and 100% of his voting control in the divorce then.
  - didibus 6y ago
    I think it's more complicated then that. For example, me and my wife bought a car together, but it's only in my name. Since we're married, it doesn't matter that it be only in my name, we both own it 100/100 based on our marriage contract. So we don't even bother putting everything in each other's name. I suspect Amazon was a similar afair. They both quit their job and moved city to start and work on Amazon. When the company began, she was working on it with Bezos, both together. It's possible that they then decided similarly not to bother with adding her name to the company officially, since as they were married that doesn't really matter. In fact, IANAL, but I'd suspect it might be complicated to do so, since by your marriage you already have a contract with one another, and as a contractual business partner you'd have another contract, and I wouldn't be surprised if that gets messy as both contract can easily conflict and the marriage contract has special status. So I think it's fair to consider her a co-founder, in that she acted as one, took all the same risks, quit her job, moved city, worked on starting the company, put her financials at risk and invested her own money into it, etc. Even though she's not really a co-founder as registered in the company itself.
mgraczyk 6y ago
She doesn't call herself "cofounder", nor has any news outlet, PR piece, or anything like that. I assume the submitter here just editorialized the title a bit for attention.
supertrope 6y ago
https://twitter.com/humantransit/status/1344334794008629249 https://twitter.com/humantransit/status/1344334794008629249
frongpik 6y ago
She technically is. The marriage contract is a 50/50 split and such a share gives one the "founder" title. The actual contributions, circumstances and everything else doesn't matter. Bezos was a VP (at another firm) at the time they married and read the contract before he signed it.
- skissane 6y ago
  By your logic, the President’s spouse is co-President.
  - al_chemist 6y ago
    Only after divorce.
  - frongpik 6y ago
    If presidency was an asset that could be split, then yes, she could get half by divorce.
    - skissane 6y ago
      The founder's shares are an asset that can be split, but the founder's status as founder is not. The founder's ex-spouse can claim a share of their ownership in the company they founded, but not a share of the status of founder, nor corporate offices. (The CEO's ex-spouse will likely end up with a decent percentage of the stock the CEO owns, but 0% of the actual corporate office and job title of CEO.)

Co-founder? I wasn't aware of that

by woah 6y ago

Co-founder? I wasn't aware of that

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mushufasa 6y ago

I didn't realize this either, so I looked up her wikipedia page: "In 1993, Scott and Bezos were married, and in 1994, they both left D. E. Shaw, moved to Seattle, and started Amazon. Scott was one of Amazon's first employees, and was heavily involved in Amazon's early days, working on the company's name, business plan, accounts and shipping early orders.[4][8] She also negotiated the company's first freight contract.[8] When Amazon began to succeed, Scott took a less involved role in the business, preferring to focus on her family and literary career.[4]"

andreilys 6y ago
Scott was one of Amazon's first employees Employee != co-founder. I don’t think anyone thinks of Mackenzie as an Amazon co-founder (nor have I read anywhere other than this editorialized title). That’s not to play down her involvement and contribution to Amazon in its early days, but it’s disingenuous to call her a co-founder.
- dominotw 6y ago
  > but it’s disingenuous to call her a co-founder. looks like the submitter called here that, possibly to create a flamewar like this.
  - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
    Her Wiki was recently changed to call her that too.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Seems like an irrelevant thing to argue about. The submitter clearly set it up to create engagement on the submission. I hate to have to participate and therefore perpetuate it but we're all suckers for having reacted to the bait like this. Maybe knowing we're suckers will stop us from being suckers the next time a submitter pulls this.
  - casefields 6y ago
    This happens on Reddit too. If you post something slightly incorrect or even a misspelling, it'll give it that first flurry of engagement which gives it a better chance of striking gold.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Darmody 6y ago

Yes. She didn't get the money only for being "the wife" as many people think. She worked at Amazon and she is one of the people that made the company succeed.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
andreilys 6y ago
Sure, and there were many early employees at Google that made it succeed. Those early employees however are not called co-founders.
oh_sigh 6y ago
But everything she got in the divorce settlement would be for being "the spouse". Presumably her compensation from the early days at amazon were just considered her personal assets.
- cowsandmilk 6y ago
  A married couple in a common property state doesn’t have personal assets.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    That doesn't explain how Jeff retained 75% of his shares and 100% of his voting control in the divorce then.
- didibus 6y ago
  I think it's more complicated then that. For example, me and my wife bought a car together, but it's only in my name. Since we're married, it doesn't matter that it be only in my name, we both own it 100/100 based on our marriage contract. So we don't even bother putting everything in each other's name. I suspect Amazon was a similar afair. They both quit their job and moved city to start and work on Amazon. When the company began, she was working on it with Bezos, both together. It's possible that they then decided similarly not to bother with adding her name to the company officially, since as they were married that doesn't really matter. In fact, IANAL, but I'd suspect it might be complicated to do so, since by your marriage you already have a contract with one another, and as a contractual business partner you'd have another contract, and I wouldn't be surprised if that gets messy as both contract can easily conflict and the marriage contract has special status. So I think it's fair to consider her a co-founder, in that she acted as one, took all the same risks, quit her job, moved city, worked on starting the company, put her financials at risk and invested her own money into it, etc. Even though she's not really a co-founder as registered in the company itself.

mgraczyk 6y ago

She doesn't call herself "cofounder", nor has any news outlet, PR piece, or anything like that. I assume the submitter here just editorialized the title a bit for attention.

supertrope 6y ago

https://twitter.com/humantransit/status/1344334794008629249 https://twitter.com/humantransit/status/1344334794008629249

frongpik 6y ago

She technically is. The marriage contract is a 50/50 split and such a share gives one the "founder" title. The actual contributions, circumstances and everything else doesn't matter. Bezos was a VP (at another firm) at the time they married and read the contract before he signed it.

skissane 6y ago
By your logic, the President’s spouse is co-President.
- al_chemist 6y ago
  Only after divorce.
- frongpik 6y ago
  If presidency was an asset that could be split, then yes, she could get half by divorce.
  - skissane 6y ago
    The founder's shares are an asset that can be split, but the founder's status as founder is not. The founder's ex-spouse can claim a share of their ownership in the company they founded, but not a share of the status of founder, nor corporate offices. (The CEO's ex-spouse will likely end up with a decent percentage of the stock the CEO owns, but 0% of the actual corporate office and job title of CEO.)