3 ms·
We should probably call this what it is - a loophole for large tech companies to engage in anti-competitive practices and skirt the law. This article's framing
by IAmGraydon 1y ago
We should probably call this what it is - a loophole for large tech companies to engage in anti-competitive practices and skirt the law. This article's framing of it as a positive, creative new way to do acquisitions is hilarious.
- Avicebron 1y ago> “Halo” comes from “Hire and license out.” > "Besides being a backronym" > "People with halos have left their bodies to live somewhere in the cloud giants." It's so...evangelist?
- samrus 1y agoIn a suck and wierd way, its kinda not anticonpetitive. Onky because alot of entrprenuers arent actually trying to sell their product/service to customers, theyre actually trying to sell their company to investors, and have been the whole time. So in the startup industry, the industry of making and selling startups to rich people, the point is to sell and this is just another intriment for that. Its kinda like two wrongs making a less wrong
- pxeger1 1y agoI don't think a HALO is anti-competitive if the IP licence is non-exclusive as TFA says. The only exclusivity involved is that only (really) one company can hire a given team, but hiring is already exclusive in nature, and not considered anti-competitive. (Am I missing something on how a HALO is exclusive? To be honest I was surprised when I read in TFA that the IP licence is typically non-exclusive.) If companies think the paperwork is too onerous for acquihires (convincing regulators the exclusivity inherent with acquisitions isn't creating an illegal monopoly), and they can get a satsifactory result with a non-exclusive HALO (which regulators therefore don't need to check), why shouldn't they do a HALO instead?