3 ms·

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 l

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.
        scarface_74 1y ago
        The FTC caused this issue with over regulation and by creating an environment of fear that every acquisition is going to be scrutinized. Google had no fiduciary duty to do what’s in the best interest of WindSurf’s investors. Google had every right to give the WindSurf employees offers to leave. The employees had every right to accept the offers. There is no world where the government should have been involved in that part. At that point, the Windsurf equity owners had two choices - either not license or license. Which part should have been illegal? The FTC could have said “Google you can’t both get the employees and license the IP”. Google would have said “fine, we will just hire the talent and have them create something similar”. Windsurf would have been worse off. Alternatively, Google could license the technology. Then the employees could say I would rather just work for Google. Would you then be okay with enforcing non competes even though they are currently illegal in California? There is no law that you can come up with that doesn’t make it worse for both the employees and Windsurf. We actually saw something like that happen between Microsoft and OpenAI during the Altman fiasco. Microsoft had already licensed the technology and Altman was going to go to Microsoft and take OpenAI’s best people with him. Should the government have stepped in then and told Microsoft they can’t hire OpenAI employees?
        1y ago

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.
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        The FTC caused this issue with over regulation and by creating an environment of fear that every acquisition is going to be scrutinized. Google had no fiduciary duty to do what’s in the best interest of WindSurf’s investors. Google had every right to give the WindSurf employees offers to leave. The employees had every right to accept the offers. There is no world where the government should have been involved in that part. At that point, the Windsurf equity owners had two choices - either not license or license. Which part should have been illegal? The FTC could have said “Google you can’t both get the employees and license the IP”. Google would have said “fine, we will just hire the talent and have them create something similar”. Windsurf would have been worse off. Alternatively, Google could license the technology. Then the employees could say I would rather just work for Google. Would you then be okay with enforcing non competes even though they are currently illegal in California? There is no law that you can come up with that doesn’t make it worse for both the employees and Windsurf. We actually saw something like that happen between Microsoft and OpenAI during the Altman fiasco. Microsoft had already licensed the technology and Altman was going to go to Microsoft and take OpenAI’s best people with him. Should the government have stepped in then and told Microsoft they can’t hire OpenAI employees?
        1y ago