Hacker News Reader

Comment by Timothee | Hacker News Reader

A comment below tickled my interest and I did some quick googling. From the information available on the web, it looks like your comment makes what happened look much worse than the reality.

So I just want to point out to others that this is one side of the story and it lacks a lot of details to draw any conclusion and ask for the names of the "guilty".

edit: since I'm getting some downvotes, let me expand a bit: it looks like said-company wasn't going anywhere, that fourk didn't work there for very long, that the founders ended up being hired by Google, and it's not clear that the company itself was really bought. So, and again I don't have the whole story either, it's not as clear-cut as "execs and investors made millions and completely screwed a key employee out of his due".

View on HN

I did not in any way expect this to be a serious windfall for me. I also didn't mean to imply that this was a windfall for investors (who were merely reimbursed), or anyone but founders (albeit a small one for them).

Also, while IANAL, that paperwork implied that the company was purchased by Google (at least technically), contrary to what Techcrunch said. Part of my reasoning for not wanting to name the company and founders was this exact reason: it's hard to get a full and complete picture of a complex situation from just one person through a couple sentences.

  >> investors (who were merely reimbursed) ...

Unless the investors make money, no one makes money. This is almost a universal constant, even if in this case the founders somehow managed some perks (something I have never seen happen). It sounds like the perks are because they are valued as future employees, not because the business had any value.

There are plenty of cases of employees getting seriously shafted (investors made lots of money, but employees didn't). This is not one of those cases.

Part of my reasoning for not wanting to name the company and founders was this exact reason

And I salute you for that. Don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to confront you or to expose the situation more than you wanted. (what I read is very easy to find anyway) It was more intended to the commenters who wanted names even though we had only your short account to go by.

Clearly, that kind of situations has happened to many startup employees (and will happen again and again…). I worked myself for a startup that folded, most people took their severance package and two months later the company was apparently sold. I don't think any of the employees really know the details of the sale, but I'd very surprised if it turned out that I had missed out on a big payout by not buying my options… :)

>A comment below tickled my interest and I did some quick googling.

You should be downvoted to hell for this stupid comment. You did "some quick googling" and now feel qualified to talk over people who were actually there? This kind of behavior is the plague of the internet. Someone who was actually present takes a back seat to a nerd reading the internet about it.

You might want to calm down on the unnecessary attacks.

As I said in my original comment "I just want to point out to others that this is one side of the story", because some people wanted to have the names of the company and people involved to make sure never to do business with them.

On one hand, you have the (short) account of one person who was there; on the other, you have some information found on the web. Neither is reliable, they just give some hints at what might have happened. My comment was just pointing that out, since some people wanted to go do some public lynching.

So you see, in my opinion, your comment should be "downvoted to hell". I was careful to emphasize that what I found wasn't "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" either. Here's a sample: "it looks like", "this is one side of the story", "it looks like", "it's not clear", "and again I don't have the whole story either".

So no, I'm not the plague of the Internet. The unnecessary outrage and name-calling is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com