ryandamm

46 ms·

451.
by ryandamm 11y ago
This is a good point. The converse is also true, though: high valuation means you have lots of dollar-valued equity to use to entice possible employees. And that scales with your valuation. Fun fact, a friend was complaining to me about h
452.
by ryandamm 11y ago
I was under the impression that anything other than a 1x liquidation preference is extremely founder-unfavorable and very rare. Am I mistaken? Are these unicorns wandering around with significant (2x, 3x) preferences attached to them? Bec
453.
by ryandamm 11y ago
Turns out I didn't realize there isn't a messaging feature in HN; my profile has my email address if you want the lawyer reference.
454.
by ryandamm 11y ago
I think the operative phrase there is 'related to the employer's business' -- the other issue is noncompete / IP assignment clauses will be written to be broad, then they force you to win on merits: you have to prove it
455.
by ryandamm 11y ago
Just a quick correction on point 3, lest someone get too confident they're in the clear: the law about employees owning their own inventions is the default in California, but you can sign an employment contract that signs away thos
456.
by ryandamm 11y ago
Call me crazy, but I always thought Quirky was solving the wrong thing. The limit on a hardware company usually isn't the idea, it's the execution. And crowd sourcing significant portions of the design process to an amorphous co
457.
by ryandamm 11y ago
IANAL, but: for all the comments stating "there are two sides to every lawsuit," let me say that oftentimes there aren't. And just because someone threatens to sue someone else does not mean the party being sued did anythi