This is another example of the fallacy where you give all the credit to the famous leader in the news. While leadership is important, it's not like he did it all himself.
That's probably not a signal you'd like to send.
2.) It's irrelevant that he built a billion dollar business. He was well compensated throughout his time at Google, he knew the terms of his compensation package and presumably was fine with it given that he didn't leave voluntarily. This is a case where he was given an enormous compensation package AFTER a crime was discovered that is directly related to his job function. If you lead a team, your function is to lead it well. Hitting on your subordinates and worse is NOT leading it well, regardless of the success of that team.
He should have been fired, for cause, with zero severance. Google should have accepted the inevitable lawsuit. Stand up for your values even if you lose in court, otherwise they're meaningless.
I'm tired of assholes being rewarded and worshipped in the valley. It is possible to not be a horrible person and still accomplish great things. And if it's not, then it's probably not worth the great things if you lose your ethics in the process.
Was it proven that the crime was actually committed? or simply alleged?
Because most people are reasonable, intelligent, and capable of recognizing the difference between Rubin's disgusting actions, and an imaginary frame-job wherein managers withhold rewards from other managers in order to save shareholders a few basis points of value.
Turns out people are very happy to reward results. No one needs to do everything them self.
Back when I worked at Google, often when something new was announced at TGIF (even seemingly minor features), they'd have slides crediting everyone who helped, and it went on and on like movie credits.