[gumby]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2013/0919/5-things...

I was quite surprised by the parent comment because I had never heard of Musk being described as a founder. But then again I've lived in palo alto since before tesla was founded so the power struggle was minor gossip at the time (and was in the mercury news).

What has surprised me is that he is in fact listed as a founder on the wikipedia web site and in fact Tesla litigated over the matter.

Now the word "founder" is weird -- IME A round paperwork typically refers to any common shareholder at the time of venture investment as a "founder". And then there was that bizarre Facebook suit over who could refer to themselves as a company founder. Weird.

[ChuckMcM]

"Founder" title drama is mostly around successful companies in my experience. Basically some additional mojo can be had a funding discussions if you can legitimately claim to be a 'founder' of some previous success (the bigger the better). Especially in social settings it is strange (and to my twisted humor funny) when people will say they 'worked' at one company and 'founded' another company when they had the exact same role in each company at the same level of development and differ only in the perception of 'success' or 'not success'.

After reading the article on how primates use 'fame' in dominance games that made the rounds here I found that it identified that sort of behavior pretty precisely.

[colmvp]

> I was quite surprised by the parent comment because I had never heard of Musk being described as a founder.

I bet if you were to poll people around the world, most people would assume Musk was a founder.