Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key engineers; NP, says court [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key engineers; NP, says court [pdf]

#151

Post by jashmatthews » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 3:49 AM UTC

garmaine wrote: post #28

bitL wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aversion to risk. I was told by German entrepreneurs that they can get funding only when they give bank/VC/investor a collateral of the same value or if they are already profitable and don't need it anymore.

Also German law doesn't make easy allowances for employee ownership / stock options. There's a hack to get around this where you write a contract for a percentage of the eventual exit, but this limits what sort of exits are possible. European laws, regulations, and investor culture are all setup in ways that hurt startups.

> Also German law doesn't make easy allowances for employee ownership / stock options.

Airbnb gave me plenty of RSUs while I worked in Berlin. No problem.

The Berlin startups with their shit together also know how to use UK (now Irish) Limited companies, which have no issues with offering options to employees.

Re: Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key engineers; NP, says court [pdf]

#152

Post by oh_sigh » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 3:51 AM UTC

donw wrote: post #128

mattmanser wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France != Europe. This sort of thing doesn't exist in the UK, for example. As for firing people, perhaps France, but not UK. Most jobs have a 3-6 month probation period, with a week's notice either way, and in the first 2 years you can fire anyone for no reason (apart from reasons of race, gender, pregnancy, etc.). After that, by which point it's obvious they can do the job, generally you have to give a progression o…

I honestly think something like this makes a lot more sense. First year or so, you're in a probationary period. Unemployment benefits will kick in, but you and the company are still feeling each other out. After that, you get certain protections, whereby firing you becomes a more lengthy (3-6 month) process with specific regulatory milestones. Speaking from a management perspective, if I have had an employee that has…

> Speaking from a management perspective...

Why would labor protections be needed if the rational move would be to work with the employee to improve their performance?

Re: Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key engineers; NP, says court [pdf]

#153

Post by andrewljohnson » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 3:54 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #149

batmaniam wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should rid of the term 'poaching'. There's no such thing. We're not animals, we are free to accept a better offer it comes along. The CEO should have counter offered with something more substantial, but he couldn't so the engineers went to greener pastures.

When you're talking about individuals, sure. But when you're talking about a whole team, it's a little different. Original employer A went to a lot of expensive effort to find a very particular set of qualified engineers that could work together at the same time -- where the sum is much more than the parts. If employer B hires the team already put together perfectly qualified for a similar task roughly all at once...…

Yeah, seems fitting, "Poaching has been defined as the illegal hunting or capturing of wild animals, usually associated with land use rights." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaching

The "land use rights" part. The analogy works because on some level the company is "your land."

Re: Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key engineers; NP, says court [pdf]

#154

Post by Thorrez » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 3:59 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #146

Thorrez wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-poaching agreements are bad, but they aren't nearly as bad as non-competes. Anti-poaching agreements mean one company won't cold contact employees at another. But employees who want to switch of their own initiative are still able to do so. Non-competes blocks even employees who want to switch of their own initiative.

> Anti-poaching agreements are bad, but they aren't nearly as bad as non-competes. Anti-poaching agreements are non-competes, just between firms rather than a firm and their employees. > Anti-poaching agreements mean one company won't cold contact employees at another No, that's not all they mean. The most trivial anti-poaching agreement might restrain itself that way, but anti-poaching agreements can and regularly h…

> Anti-poaching agreements are non-competes, just between firms rather than a firm and their employees.

I don't see anything about non-poaching agreements in a cursory look at Wikipedia's article non Non-competes[1].

> No, that's not all they mean. The most trivial anti-poaching agreement might restrain itself that way, but anti-poaching agreements can and regularly have included agreements not to employ workers from the other firm, not merely to avoid certain active recruitment/solicitation steps.

Yes, you're right. Thanks for the clarification. I guess what I should have said is the specific anti-poaching agreement that bonestamp2 mentioned was only about active recruitment. But still even with this broader definition of anti-poaching, they're not as bad as non-competes. A non-compete would prevent the founding of Intel (by former Fairchild Semiconductor employees), but a broad anti-poaching agreement would not prevent the founding of Intel.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

Re: Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key engineers; NP, says court [pdf]

#155

Post by jariel » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 4:04 AM UTC

unishark wrote: post #114

jariel wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without IP laws, you would be even more screwed. By virtue of your existence, you would be there as little fish literally to be eaten by larger one's. For every time a large company trolls a smaller one, there are 100 times one company decides not to infringe on some other work. For example, I work with a hardware company that has patents. We freely send our products to larger competitors. Why? Because they know we h…

So your company engages in sales practices that would be foolish without IP. That doesn't prove it is the only way to sell, or that it true for all fields. For that matter, why are the big fish able to continually have so much margin in the first place except for patents? Microsoft has made how many billions over control of a narrow programming layer to run other tasks in a loop that's been covered in sophomore year…

"then pivot from hiring engineers to hiring lawyers."

MS keeps it's monopoly via market power, generally not IP protections (though partly).

MS is large enough vis-a-vis fragmented hardware vendors and distribution networks that it can do play all sorts of hardball. It has deeply entrenched sales channels in to the corporate world. Most significantly, it's a platform which means huge switching costs - and - it can use that platform as leverage into other spaces i.e. desktop software.

Take a moment to contemplate out how Coke and Pepsi (ostensibly commodities) can dominate their channels in a supposedly free market - it's a little bit similar.

Google's monopoly in search can be leveraged into all sorts of other areas.

IP laws are beneficial for 'either side' and of course they are abused willy nilly, but by and large, they are beneficial to a lot of small companies.

Weirdly, even Open Source is helped by IP laws - by 'turning them upside down' using 'copyleft', they wrestle the IP laws into their favour, as the means to 'protect' Open Source, if you will.

We are so wrapped up in software - consider physical things. Often, they have very long development cycles, very expensive. Also - huge operating capital requirements and capex as well. (Why do you think there are so few YC hardware companies?). Also - distribution networks are locked up and very different from software where it's almost direct.

It would be almost impossible to make a hardware company without IP protections, because those with market power would instantly commoditize the competition.

Many other businesses are a little bit similar: as soon as it's not 'pure software' then you realize how fragile new companies are.

For 'very new domains' (i.e. 'blue oceans') it's one thing, but most markets are not that.

Once you put your 'anything but software' hat on for a bit, and see how those companies sit in the value chain, IP looks a little different. That understanding can map to software.

If anything, we need better, more nuanced IP laws, not to get rid of them.

Re: Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key engineers; NP, says court [pdf]

#156

Post by webmaven » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 4:08 AM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #152

donw wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly think something like this makes a lot more sense. First year or so, you're in a probationary period. Unemployment benefits will kick in, but you and the company are still feeling each other out. After that, you get certain protections, whereby firing you becomes a more lengthy (3-6 month) process with specific regulatory milestones. Speaking from a management perspective, if I have had an employee that has…

> Speaking from a management perspective... Why would labor protections be needed if the rational move would be to work with the employee to improve their performance?

> > Speaking from a management perspective...

> Why would labor protections be needed if the rational move would be to work with the employee to improve their performance?

Because management isn't necessarily rational?

Re: Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key engineers; NP, says court [pdf]

#157

Post by garbagetime » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 4:09 AM UTC

reader_mode wrote: post #70

mattmanser wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France != Europe. This sort of thing doesn't exist in the UK, for example. As for firing people, perhaps France, but not UK. Most jobs have a 3-6 month probation period, with a week's notice either way, and in the first 2 years you can fire anyone for no reason (apart from reasons of race, gender, pregnancy, etc.). After that, by which point it's obvious they can do the job, generally you have to give a progression o…

UK is trying hard not to be a part of Europe it seems :) Anyway I've seen similar laws in several countries in EU, but I talked to a lawyer friend and he said he looked into it (briefly) and couldn't find examples of it being enforced through court in my country (Croatia). As for termination - probation periods exist for sure but passed that it's really hard to get rid of people, the two year thing exists if you give…

>UK is trying hard not to be a part of Europe it seems

In what sense?

Re: Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key engineers; NP, says court [pdf]

#158

Post by donw » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 4:14 AM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #152

donw wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly think something like this makes a lot more sense. First year or so, you're in a probationary period. Unemployment benefits will kick in, but you and the company are still feeling each other out. After that, you get certain protections, whereby firing you becomes a more lengthy (3-6 month) process with specific regulatory milestones. Speaking from a management perspective, if I have had an employee that has…

> Speaking from a management perspective... Why would labor protections be needed if the rational move would be to work with the employee to improve their performance?

Because people are often irrational.

Dilbert's pointy-haired boss resonates with a lot of office workers for a reason.

We've all had, or at least heard about, that boss who was utterly incompetent, who masked that incompetence in self-important blustering, and who were physically unable to listen to the rank-and-file.

Regulation is and should be there to deal with the abusers, and not with the companies that do, in fact, look out for the long-term welfare of both their employees and their customers.

Re: Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key engineers; NP, says court [pdf]

#159

Post by stephenhuey » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 4:19 AM UTC

garbagetime wrote: post #157

reader_mode wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK is trying hard not to be a part of Europe it seems :) Anyway I've seen similar laws in several countries in EU, but I talked to a lawyer friend and he said he looked into it (briefly) and couldn't find examples of it being enforced through court in my country (Croatia). As for termination - probation periods exist for sure but passed that it's really hard to get rid of people, the two year thing exists if you give…

>UK is trying hard not to be a part of Europe it seems In what sense?

Brexit, perhaps?

Re: Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key engineers; NP, says court [pdf]

#160

Post by megablast » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 4:21 AM UTC

bitL wrote: post #24

emteycz wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why there is no Silicon Valley in Europe then

Aversion to risk. I was told by German entrepreneurs that they can get funding only when they give bank/VC/investor a collateral of the same value or if they are already profitable and don't need it anymore.

It’s funny though. Everyone has free health cover, so they should worry less about failing.