Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by BrendanEich 929 days ago
As far as I know, you weren't privy to confidential legal docs to which only I among the two of us could possibly have been a party, so you can stop making stuff up and cease the mindless parroting of incomplete and one-sided statements from 2014 Mozilla foundation crisis PR staff who never worked for me.

The record of Mozilla mis-management and CEO over-compensation after I left, about which I'm free to comment, is plain for all to see.
1 comments
pseudalopex 929 days ago
You know perfectly well the circumstances of your departure were reported in the press. I added only the opinion the opposition was predictable.

Your vague complaints about Mozilla's statements stopped short of claiming they were false. And a legal agreement allowing 1 party to publish substantial falsehoods without recourse would be extraordinary. The most reasonable inference is Mozilla's statements were substantially true. Even if statements by both parties are assumed incomplete and 1 sided.

link
justinclift 927 days ago
> a legal agreement allowing 1 party to publish substantial falsehoods without recourse

Wouldn't that include most employee termination agreements, where the (newly ex-) employee has to keep their mouth shut regardless of what their employer does or did?

link
KingOfCoders 922 days ago
"And a legal agreement allowing 1 party to publish substantial falsehoods"

Gag contracts I have seen, gag the person leaving and getting the money, not the company. Companies have the challenge that thousands of employees can't say something, it's hard to enforce and easy to trip over and get burned.

link