[masterjack]

It’s possible that in the Google deal you had to agree to sell back the shares (at a low value like par or original strike price) and the 1% refers to either those proceeds or the size of the Google employment package. If you didn’t agree then you would be left holding your shares of a company that is now gutted.

[crazygringo]

> It’s possible that in the Google deal you had to agree to sell back the shares

But how could Google require that?

> If you didn’t agree then you would be left holding your shares of a company that is now gutted.

Which is what is sounds like he wound up doing anyways? Which I don't even understand why.

[adgjlsfhk1]

Google can just refuse to hire you if you don't

[crazygringo]

I've literally never heard of a company demanding you give up shares in another company as a precondition of being hired, for an engineering role.

At the executive level they may not want you holding shares in a direct competitor because it presents a conflict of interest. But even then you generally have a period to divest.

Can nobody explain what the actual demand was here? What did Google offer vs. what did they demand, and why? And why would Google be buying your shares...? None of this makes any sense the way it's been presented.

[hamburglar]

How would they even know if you were still holding those shares in another company? This scenario is pure fantasy.