Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 138 posts

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#51

Post by x0x0 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #38
code4tee wrote: post #17

Why does WeWork increasingly look like one of those deals on Shark Tank that starts off looking great then goes way south when the sharks start probing? I can see it now: “Wait, so we’d be investing in your business which is leasing buildings from another business that you own... but we’re not getting a piece of that action?” “Hold on, so we’d have to license the name of this company back from you and then you contin…

Pretty much as far as I can tell. My rule is that after finding more than one path where a company is generating metrics through a scheme where it is on both ends, I figure they are all in on the misrepresentation/fraud aspect.

The thing is, the $6m is so... pissant. Like WeWork made Adam a (multi!) billionaire. What is he doing scamming WeWork over $6m?

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#52

Post by ineedasername »

GhettoMaestro wrote: post #20

I will be very happy when WeWork collapses. Every time a jackass like this "graces" our industry, we are set back in the aftermath of the wake - it reinforces a false narrative that tech companies are bullshit.

I don't see how they ever even got the label of a tech company. It seems really just because they had lease terms that were very appealing to actual tech companies/startups etc., and then said "Hey, we should be a tech company too!" And people believed them.

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#53

Post by ryandrake »

ineedasername wrote: post #41

I guess I can't blame him for trying (okay, I can and do), but it is a very brazen example of self-dealing. I'd really like to collect my normal compensation at the same time that I use company resources to outsource my work to... myself... and pocket that as well.

If I wrote a program that solves a problem for my employer, then turned around and tried to sell it to them or get royalties from them, it would be a huge conflict of interest, I’d likely get fired, and they’d take it from me anyway due to standard tech company IP reassignment clauses. But if I’m the CEO i guess it’s totally fine.

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#54

Post by ineedasername »

frogpelt wrote: post #16

Honestly, who cares? A lot of people care now because they just filed for an IPO, which is why he returned the money. But if this was a private company and a co-founder thought he deserved $6 million for his efforts and wanted to label it as a trademark transfer, I see no problem with it.

Is this a "who cares" as in it's none of our business, or as in he isn't doing anything wrong? Because generally when you work for a place, as an employee or CEO of anything in between, they own all of your work-related output. Better compensation in terms of salary, options, etc., is the way you're rewarded for strong performance. Self-dealing is generally regarded as a breach of fiduciary duty, and is punishable by repaying the loss along with punitive damages.

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#55

Post by javajosh »

ineedasername wrote: post #44
vkou wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear that it's possible to build a successful, long-term business by shouldering all the long-term risks of owning office space, and leasing it out at short-term rates to startups. In that situation, the smartest move is to plunder your investors and shareholders for everything they are worth.

I think that line of reasoning might take us to a realm where plundering is always the smart option, offering certainty where the alternative is risky. It is not completely legal though. Someone like a CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the company. "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" is a real thing, and opens you up to liability for actual loses as well as punitive damages. So while I underst…

"Breach of Fiduciary Duty" sounds like one of those things that you're supposed to do, but which is almost impossible to prove (after all you just have to claim "I thought it was a good idea" and you're covered), and so is basically never enforced. It's the kind of rule that ethical, good CEOs worry about, and the kind of rule successful CEOs don't waste energy on.

BTW, I notice that commenters often have wildly different views of what rules mean. To some, they mean something intrinsically, and it's the players duty to understand and abide by them. To others, rules mean nothing unless they are enforced, and even then you have tons of wiggle room (roughly proportional to the money you spend on your defense). (And these days there's a vocal third crowd that says the government shouldn't enforce rules against businesses of a certain size "because it makes us vulnerable".)

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#56

Post by braythwayt »

x0x0 wrote: post #51
ChuckMcM wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much as far as I can tell. My rule is that after finding more than one path where a company is generating metrics through a scheme where it is on both ends, I figure they are all in on the misrepresentation/fraud aspect.

The thing is, the $6m is so... pissant. Like WeWork made Adam a (multi!) billionaire. What is he doing scamming WeWork over $6m?

There's a certain type of personality that sharpens their pencil over everything and anything. They are often zero-sum thinkers, who reason that if they aren't taking the maximum on everything, somebody else is taking advantage of their "generosity."

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#57

Post by chocolatebunny »

dvtrn wrote: post #43
stingraycharles wrote: post #39

What are the types of investors that will invest in WeWork after IPO? I can see that even on regular investment forums they think it’s a joke... Will it be daytraders? Index funds? Or just “suckers” that have a fear of missing out? I’m not trolling, I really try to understand what reasoning those people have.

Seems to me if someone is shorting We because they really expect a drop following this and just want in on the action to scalp what they can, are they really a sucker? Scalpers gonna scalp.

I didn't think you could short immediately after IPO.

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#58

Post by ineedasername »

umeshunni wrote: post #9
munk-a wrote: post #5

Ergh, the lead picture in the article is terrible and paints him in a significantly negative light. I'm not a huge fan of WeWork's business model especially with the tax law exploitation in the UK but I find it quite irresponsible for newspapers to cherry pick such terrible photos - just like - don't have an extreme face closeup, get a picture of him standing on a stage[1] and don't pick one that makes me wary this a…

The article is from Business Insider, a well known clickbait content farm, not a newspaper.

Either way, it's still true that he used his position as CEO to outsource trademark creation to himself, and has now reversed that move. Also, other self-dealing.

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#59

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

rmason wrote: post #33

Jason Calacanis predicted that he'd give the trademark back in this past Friday's episode of TWIST right at the 16:40 mark. But he didn't double his post IPO lockup which is the other thing Jason suggested that he do. https://thisweekinstartups.com/e969 I've got a friend who runs a very successful co-working center. She competes against WeWork and said the first half of this episode is the single best discussion of t…

Thanks very much for posting that, was very informative. My favorite tidbit was when Molly Wood was saying that she heard from a financial analysis firm that specializes in obfuscation that this was the most unclear S1 they had ever seen in terms of hiding basic financial metrics, and the other guest said he couldn't even figure out what the GAAP margin was after reading the S1. That to me is more damning than any other shenanigans.

Why wouldn't they clearly state the most basic financial metrics if this was anything else besides a steaming, raging dumpster fire?

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#60

Post by kirubakaran »

x0x0 wrote: post #51
ChuckMcM wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much as far as I can tell. My rule is that after finding more than one path where a company is generating metrics through a scheme where it is on both ends, I figure they are all in on the misrepresentation/fraud aspect.

The thing is, the $6m is so... pissant. Like WeWork made Adam a (multi!) billionaire. What is he doing scamming WeWork over $6m?

"noun is gonna verb" comes to mind (where noun ≈ verb)
Post reply on HN