WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by braythwayt » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #53

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.

Surprise!

It turns out that although we employees are fêted as "Masters of the Tech Universe," Adam is a member of the Owner Class, and we are members of the Worker Class, and the two classes play by different rules.

The first of such rules is that Owners make the rules, and consequently those rules benefit Owners over Workers.

I'm ok with that, obviously, but being ok with something is not the same thing as being blind to it.

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

#62

Post by ineedasername » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

javajosh wrote: post #55

ineedasername wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 diff…

Yeah, I imagine it's hard to prove when the CEO just games the company's performance metrics to improve their compensation package, but self-dealing makes things at least a little bit clearer. I wouldn't be surprised if there's at least one activist investor lined up with plans to take advantage of the situation and start a shareholder lawsuit.

As for a good CEO vs. successful CEO, I guess I don't actually view the later as "successful", because their actions either hurt the company or at least hindered its success. I look at the failure of Sears, abetted by a self-dealing CEO, as a prime example of failure in this area.

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

#63

Post by ghobs91 » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

codewithcheese wrote: post #4

Adam Neumann is a genius at finding ways to increase his net worth as founder of a VC backed company. [0] WeWork’s CEO Makes Millions as Landlord to WeWork - https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/01/16/wework-c...

"Genius" is a very generous way to describe the slimy crap he does.

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

#64

Post by human20190310 » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

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?

It's 6 million real dollars.

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

#65

Post by n-exploit » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 6:41 PM UTC

The supposed valuation of WeWork gives us some incredible insight into the nature of "brand value" - it looks like their trying to capture the brand of the commons. I think the government is slightly complacent, given they let them trademark "We."

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

#66

Post by homologate » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 6:42 PM UTC

chocolatebunny wrote: post #57

dvtrn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Underwriters are not allowed to lend out shares for short sale until 30 days after the IPO. Other investors could lend out shares but there are not going to be that many shares on the market right after the IPO.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/062905.asp

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

#67

Post by matwood » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 6:43 PM UTC

superfrank wrote: post #11

ulfw wrote: post #2

So is this a thing now? That all new high-valuation tech companies of the last generation (Uber, "We") have to have some shady founder/CEO thing going on?

I doubt the amount of shady CEOs is any worse than it was at times in the past (the 80s being known for the "Gordon Gekko" type CEOs immediately come to mind). I think it just feels like there's more corruption because of a combination of us consuming more media, quicker and recency bias.

And investors are looking for anything to generate returns which leads to blinders.

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

#68

Post by paulcole » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

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…

Are there any examples of significant fines/penalties to notable CEOs for "Breach of Fiduciary Duty"?

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

#69

Post by vkou » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 6:51 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

In a business with very risky long-term fundamentals, yes.

If you are trying to run a factory that makes widgets, or a store that sells widgets, or even a social network where people discuss widgets... There are obvious ways to build a successful business around these things. Just do what your competitors do, but better. It's very clear that a viable business can be made of this sort of thing, and that being a corporate pirate is just one of multiple ways of enriching yourself.

When your business consists of giving away a dollar for ninety cents, personal plunder is the only smart maneuver. Your shares aren't going to be worth the paper they are printed on, once the music stops, regardless of the heroic efforts you might, or might not undertake.

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

#70

Post by BinaryIdiot » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 6:54 PM UTC

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.

> it reinforces a false narrative that tech companies are bullshit.

They're not a tech company tho...