Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jjulius 1589 days ago
First, there's a difference between bringing someone onboard the day after incorporation and the timeline I mentioned. Second, what are you bringing your friend onboard for? Were you collaborating on this idea with them before you incorporated? Or did you bring them on because you realized you needed more money (eg, Musk)?

Early investor is what he was, along with chairman, then CEO, but it's disingenuous to call him a founder. The settlement you referenced is really just dick swinging.
1 comments
virgilp 1589 days ago
The legal result of the settlement is that Musk can call himself a (co)founder, and so can Straubel & Wright. Even Eberhard agreed to that.

You may personally feel he's not entitled to the title, but that's just it, a personal feeling. He's literally legally entitled to have this title. Why contradict people on the internet, and say "actually, Musk is not a founder of Tesla"? If anything, it is (right now) disingenuous to claim he is not a founder, given that maybe not all people know the full history and some may believe that he didn't (legally) earn the title.

link
sillysaurusx 1589 days ago
Legal isn’t some gotcha. He is entitled. But he wasn’t a founder of Tesla.

I think pg would agree. He’s made the distinction in the past, and he knows more about startups than pretty much anybody. You can’t onboard a founder; it’s not a personal feeling, and some legal ruling doesn’t change that.

link
virgilp 1588 days ago
"he says/ she says". I think pg would disagree. Let's see if he intervenes directly? Otherwise, we can just discard his speculated opinions.

And if we appeal to authority, there's actual evidence that Musk (who knows a lot about startups!) feels he was a founder. So should we believe Musk, until pg says otherwise?

link