Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm absolving Palmer of making a promise he couldn't keep because of Facebook. Palmer is correct here and shouldn't be getting the blowback that he is. Obviously Facebook can do what they want within the terms.
I don't know Palmer and until 5 minutes didn't know his name. I don't dislike him, I'm sure he's a nice guy and great person, and I think the product and achievement is impressive. But: I respect him for eating humble pie now. I absolutely do not respect yet alone absolve him of not doing so originally . Why would one? There's nothing NEW that came to the table: Facebook can do what they want now, and crucially that…
Well, they don't have to. He could have insisted on writing this condition into the acquisition contract. But he obviously didn't. The most charitable reading of this is that he was just naive and didn't know that this was an option or that it would be necessary in order to enforce such a promise, but that seems unlikely. Acquiring this knowledge is no harder than posing the question to his M&A attorney. Hence...
> I absolutely do not t respect yet alone absolve him of not doing so originally. Why would one?
I think you made the right call here.