Re:Jeremy Guillory's Counter-Complaint against Cruise Automa...
by danso on Friday April 15, 2016 @02:10AM
(#11502528)
Not without begging the question. Because we could rephrase your sentiment as, "Are you seriously asking whether a co-founder of a billion dollar company should list some unknown engineer as his 50/50 co-founder on a YC application?" Most people would say, "Of course not", and yet it is currently undisputed that Guillory's name is listed as such.
And so no, the answer is not obvious.
Re:Jeremy Guillory's Counter-Complaint against Cruise Automa...
by jamiequint on Friday April 15, 2016 @02:38AM
(#11502616)
> we could rephrase your sentiment as, "Are you seriously asking whether a co-founder of a billion dollar company should list some unknown engineer as his 50/50 co-founder on a YC application?"
Please don't, that is a completely different question. I'm honestly not sure how you managed to conflate the two.
Re:Jeremy Guillory's Counter-Complaint against Cruise Automa...
by snowwrestler on Friday April 15, 2016 @01:50AM
(#11502478)
Well, answer the other questions then.
Granting 50% of equity is a lot, and as an experienced entrepreneur, Kyle would know that. But he wrote it down as the plan. Why?
These are the sorts of questions a court will be asked to ponder.
Re:Jeremy Guillory's Counter-Complaint against Cruise Automa...
by karamazov on Saturday April 16, 2016 @11:27AM
(#11510923)
The answer is, Kyle was entirely comfortable granting 50% equity because it was subject to standard vesting, and everyone involved understood that Jeremy would own no part of the company if he left in the first year.
Are you seriously asking if YC would have accepted the former co-founder of a company that sold for over a billion dollars? Isn't the answer to that question obvious?