[erikb]

This is a very important lesson for Michael Arrington and many people reading this can learn from it without losing too much emotions or money themselves:

Someone, who claims this to be a cofounder of your business even once, is not your friend! Don't support their claims, don't pity them. They try to exploit you.

This kind of person is really good at keeping you emotionally hooked, and therefore even let you find excuses for their behaviour. Think for yourself: Would you claim ownership over their pet project like that? Probably not.

So be strict with yourself and let that person go. The earlier the better. They won't change. Your interpretation is not wrong. It's not your fault. And most importantly: You have earned and will find true friends that support you. And with them together you will make lots of money if you have that in you.

[gumby]

Is the same true of Musk who was an A round investor in a company already founded by Eberhard and Tarpenning?

[berberous]

While not one of the original co-founders, Musk has devoted enormous amounts of time, money and energy into Tesla since nearly the beginning, which I think makes him close enough to a co-founder. If you read Arrington’s post, he even says the same about Heather —- not technically a co-founder but one in practice given the amount of work she put in.

The guy he is calling out is alleged to have put zero time or money in — he just grabbed what he could.

[tptacek]

I had no idea until this thread that Elon Musk hadn't been with Tesla from the beginning. I presume reasonable people can disagree, but, no, I don't think leading someone's A round, even if you take an operational role at some point afterwards, makes you a "cofounder".

[EGreg]

Agreed.

This is kind of like Warren Buffett taking over Berkshire Hathaway.

But now Musk is definitely the face and head of the company same as Buffett. That is what counts for most people after everything is said and done.

[doctorwho]

If Tears had NO claim to TC then why would Arrington willingly give up 10%? Pity? I don't think so. Not his style. Did they have a written agreement about the 75/25 split that muddied the waters? Possibly. We're definitely not getting the whole story and both sides most likely remember things quite differently now.

[jccalhoun]

I thought Tesla was Musk's company until now. Apparently they actually reached a settlement with Eberhard to officially call Musk (and another two people) "founders" even though they actually weren't. https://www.cnet.com/news/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-ar...

[greglindahl]

Yes, it's often the case that "founder" is a label which a company might agree to add or subtract from various people.

As an example, there are tons of startups where not everyone who was there on day 0 is called "founder".

[ekanes]

That is correct. Founder has to do with risk. If you are paid from the start, you're probably not a founder.

[greglindahl]

I know a lot of founders who got paid from the start. That's not the only way that there's risk.

[gumby]

Like Bill Joy: John Gilmore (first employee) was already on board when Joy joined the Sun team.

[erikb]

I would argue that without Musk's PR Tesla would be worth not 10% of what it's worth today. So yeah, he probably earned his seat at the time. I wasn't there though, so can't make a final judgement.

Btw putting in work to earn one's place is something completely different from letting someone else work and simply claim the success. At least from my perspective.

[aaron-lebo]

Based on the comment below yours, it seems like a good way of lying to yourself. Not all situations call for what you are saying. Sometimes they are right and you are in the wrong, and you need to correct it. Not necessarily this situation, but many.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16411597

We're really good at justifying our actions. Really, really good. I'd imagine Keith is on the other side of that, and correct or not, has talked himself into believing he's the good guy. But one of them has to be wrong, so the advice that "your interpretation is not wrong" is often wrong.

Similar example: what Jobs did to Kottke in refusing to give him any stock, for valid reasons to Steve, certainly, doesn't mean Steve wasn't wrong. Would rather not say these things because it's not going to win friends, but you are encouraging destructive behavior yourself. There's no easy rule.

[rhizome]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were 10x (at least) the number of employees who have gotten screwed out of the winnings, that is, who should have been considered founders, vs. those who overclaim founder status.