3 ms·

So they just give me a job as the leader, then other people want to follow. Is it them illegal for Google to offer other former coworkers a job? Isn’t that kin

So they just give me a job as the leader, then other people want to follow. Is it them illegal for Google to offer other former coworkers a job? Isn’t that kind of like the “Prisoner’s Dilemma”? So exactly how does a Google “monopoly” (which definitely doesn’t exist in AI if anywhere), harm customers? And would I as a potential employee better off or worse off? Am I paying more for search today because of the monopoly? Am I paying more for any of the free stuff that Google has because of advertising (that I block anyway)? In other words, you do want the government to force employees to stay at a company when they could get a better offer? Isn’t that what we wanted to prevent with outlawing non competes?

Dylan16807 1y ago
Just offering normal jobs would generally be fine, doing a big group deal that also comes with IP licensing would generally not be fine. I'm not going to try to give you the exact line. > In other words, you do want the government to force employees to stay at a company when they could get a better offer? > Isn’t that what we wanted to prevent with outlawing non competes? That's way too general. You could use that same argument to say acquisitions should never be blocked.
- scarface_74 1y ago
  So the law is now that they can’t license the technology to companies that higher former employees? You don’t see what kind of Kafkaesque mess these proposed laws are creating? Who are we benefiting again?
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    The benefit is the same kind as from blocking a very small fraction of acquisitions. If you don't think the existing rules there are kafkaesque, then the small expansion shouldn't be a huge change. If you do, I'm not the person to argue with. And these rules would very rarely come into effect.
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      It’s the same for who? The employees? The company that is not allowed to make money by licensing it technology?
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        If you don't understand why acquisitions might be blocked and the benefit of it then I'm not going to be the one to explain it. I'm not here to defend the entire edifice of the FTC having control over acquisitions. I'm here to say that when they have that control, it should also include almost-but-not-quite-acquisitions.
        scarface_74 1y ago
        But you aren’t arguing about acquisitions. You are specifically saying that a company shouldn’t be allowed to license IP, shouldn’t be allowed to acquire the company and shouldn’t be allowed to hire the employees or some combination. You specifically said that in some cases if a company hired employees it should then be prevented from licensing the technology And still haven’t given a good reason why it shouldn’t. The “bad” acquisition is usually considered Instagram . But who cares if a toxic social media site acquires another one? Who was harmed?
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        I'm saying that what google did is effectively an acquisition except it broke the equity and it avoided regulation. You keep making examples that are less clear-cut, but whatever I agree there are things a company can do that aren't effectively acquisitions. I'm not saying how to write the rule, I'm just saying google is on the wrong side. > You are specifically saying that a company shouldn’t be allowed to license IP, shouldn’t be allowed to acquire the company and shouldn’t be allowed to hire the employees or some combination. They're totally allowed to acquire the company... as long as the FTC doesn't say no. And they can do lots of those other things too. I don't know how you got the impression that I think acquisitions should be blocked more than a fraction of a percent of the time. Even further, google SHOULD have acquired the company instead of doing what they did.

Dylan16807 1y ago

Just offering normal jobs would generally be fine, doing a big group deal that also comes with IP licensing would generally not be fine. I'm not going to try to give you the exact line. > In other words, you do want the government to force employees to stay at a company when they could get a better offer? > Isn’t that what we wanted to prevent with outlawing non competes? That's way too general. You could use that same argument to say acquisitions should never be blocked.

scarface_74 1y ago
So the law is now that they can’t license the technology to companies that higher former employees? You don’t see what kind of Kafkaesque mess these proposed laws are creating? Who are we benefiting again?
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  The benefit is the same kind as from blocking a very small fraction of acquisitions. If you don't think the existing rules there are kafkaesque, then the small expansion shouldn't be a huge change. If you do, I'm not the person to argue with. And these rules would very rarely come into effect.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    It’s the same for who? The employees? The company that is not allowed to make money by licensing it technology?
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      If you don't understand why acquisitions might be blocked and the benefit of it then I'm not going to be the one to explain it. I'm not here to defend the entire edifice of the FTC having control over acquisitions. I'm here to say that when they have that control, it should also include almost-but-not-quite-acquisitions.
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        But you aren’t arguing about acquisitions. You are specifically saying that a company shouldn’t be allowed to license IP, shouldn’t be allowed to acquire the company and shouldn’t be allowed to hire the employees or some combination. You specifically said that in some cases if a company hired employees it should then be prevented from licensing the technology And still haven’t given a good reason why it shouldn’t. The “bad” acquisition is usually considered Instagram . But who cares if a toxic social media site acquires another one? Who was harmed?
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        I'm saying that what google did is effectively an acquisition except it broke the equity and it avoided regulation. You keep making examples that are less clear-cut, but whatever I agree there are things a company can do that aren't effectively acquisitions. I'm not saying how to write the rule, I'm just saying google is on the wrong side. > You are specifically saying that a company shouldn’t be allowed to license IP, shouldn’t be allowed to acquire the company and shouldn’t be allowed to hire the employees or some combination. They're totally allowed to acquire the company... as long as the FTC doesn't say no. And they can do lots of those other things too. I don't know how you got the impression that I think acquisitions should be blocked more than a fraction of a percent of the time. Even further, google SHOULD have acquired the company instead of doing what they did.