undefined

points

[-]

The problem is each step individually is important to allow companies to do, and follows as a nigh-irrefusable consequence of the previous. You can't ban companies from "poaching" employees, or you end up as an economic hellhole of indentured servants, like Florida, or New York. You can't ban the licensing of a companies technology, since we want innovators who don't necessarily have the opportunity to directly execute on their new technology to still innovate. And you can't ban paying the company for doing so, since that's the whole point.

Meanwhile, the way that plays out is that Google hires all the talent by fairly paying more than the startup can, then can turn around and say "your company is a dead man walking, you can either sell us your tech, or crash and burn with nothing", and the only fiscally responsible decision is to sell.

by singron7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The rules aren't that simple. The combination should be considered holistically against antitrust law. It's a judgement call that ultimately comes down to a judge or jury.

Antitrust is also federal and is probably generally supreme over state law. E.g. even if Google fairly acquires talent according to state law, it can still be determined to violate antitrust.

This poaching scenario (where Big Co pays above market to a large number of employees to drive a competitor out of business) is very similar to dumping (selling goods below market etc.), which has been illegal for a long time even though "selling goods" is generally legal.

However, since the government (DoJ, FTC, etc.) is the ideal litigant, you actually need someone who works there to not get fired for long enough to complete investigation and enforcement. In a lot of anti-trust cases, all the direct participants benefit: the employees get paid more, Big Co consolidates power, and Small Co gets paid off. The "losers" are most distant like their customers or uninvolved competitors who aren't in a good position to sue.

by xboxnolifes7 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

You can ban a compound action. We have antitrust laws.

by sandworm1017 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Which is why at the top end we are supposed to have complementary laws. Bans on non-compete increase competition at the low end. Antitrust and government regulation/licensing at the high end prevent monopiles and thereby increase competition. The problem today is that we are dropping the ball on the high end, letting the Googles stamp down competition when, in decades past, they would have been broken up.

by islewis6 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> and paid off the shareholders

does anyone know if the employees who didnt get poached got their equity paid out?

by lumost6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

There are rumors that the employees did not get paid out. Such a deal could be done by, for instance buying the equity from the investors at a current fair market value.

That the new "investor" choses to let their investment die may not matter, it would also be cheaper to selectively buy out investors than buy out all equity in the company.