[tptacek]

No, I don't think there is. In a serious dispute between founders, for the company to survive, there must be some mechanism to conclusively resolve the controversy. A blood pact not to remove cofounders disrupts those mechanisms.

One way or another, a grave and unresolvable dispute between founders will leave you with some performing partners and some nonperforming partners. It's hard to imagine operating a company with a nonperforming partner on the books; not only do they have dramatically less of a stake in the company than everyone else, but they also have a gun to the heads of the rest of the company.

It's worth adding that wanting to be on the books as a full partner/director/founder of a company that wants you ousted is, for a cofounder operating in good faith, irrational.

When you start a company with other people, you have to decide first whether you're starting a company or a club. A club can disintegrate as a result of conflict and that's not a big deal. But if you're building a company, then the welfare of the company needs to be among the most important factors in resolving disputes.

[joshu]

If you are the partner who is bringing some substantial asset to the partnership (perhaps code or whatever) the ownership from this asset should be un-vesting.

If it is a pre-existing product or business this can be substantial.

[jarrett]

You've convinced me. This seems true for all companies.

[ottocoder]

I have never heard the "club" vs "company" comparison before, but that seems like a great way to describe the mindset of founders.

Is it possible to establish a company that is run like a club and are there any examples? Or am I extending the analogy too far? Perhaps some research organizations are set up along those lines?

[tptacek]

A lot of private law practices are run that way.