Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

born_in_cyberspace OP t1_iwupv77 wrote

Reply to comment by MarkVarga in [OC] The business track record of Elon Musk by born_in_cyberspace

As I understand, according to the court decision, he is indeed allowed to call himself a founder. He also has the moral right to do so, as this early in the startup founding, everyone who made major contributions is a de facto co-founder, not only the first few guys who started it.

To be on the safe side, and avoid this controversy altogether, I listed Tesla in the "bought a startup" flow.

−7

MarkVarga t1_iwuqexp wrote

Fun fact, these are Elon's thoughts about who should call themselves a co-founder:

> I believe that the title of founder is critically important and morally requires that you are physically engaged in doing the really hard founding work involved in the very important early founding months/years of the company. I wasn’t there and I didn’t do that hard work at/for Solar City, so it’s not ethical that I refer to myself as a Solar City Founder or co-Founder”.

Assuming the same applies to Tesla, Musk shouldn't call himself any kind of founder. Especially not without a physics degree.

10

born_in_cyberspace OP t1_iwusodz wrote

As I understand, the consensus is that Musk indeed played a major role in the early founding years of Tesla. Otherwise, the court decision would be against him.

−3

MarkVarga t1_iwutk7z wrote

I suppose Eberhard didn't have that much leverage after getting kicked out of the company that he founded.

9

bladow5990 t1_iwuxb71 wrote

Someone has alot of faith in the US's judicial system.

9

Lucky-Carrot t1_iwur9s5 wrote

yeah but words have actual meanings and he’s in no way actually a founder

9

born_in_cyberspace OP t1_iwurteg wrote

It seems that he is indeed a founder, at least as per the aforementioned court decision.

But it doesn't matter much. In the diagram, I haven't listed him as a co-founder of Tesla to be on the safe side

−6

Lucky-Carrot t1_iwus1xb wrote

again founder = someone who founded a company. he’s a founder like he’s a person with a physics degree (only in his own head)

4

born_in_cyberspace OP t1_iwutmqp wrote

I have the experience of founding a company, and see no problem with calling someone a founder if he is contributing so much in the yearly years of the company.

But again, who cares? It doesn't change much either way.

0

Lucky-Carrot t1_iwuue2g wrote

It matters because it shows what a petty nozzle he is and how his entire “resume” is mostly spin, lies and half truth (and that he’s mostly just a proped up fantasy by uncritical supporters, Peter thiel and other shadowy figures )

3

Your_Trash_Daddy t1_iwv1niz wrote

Wow, someone did a thing so they're an expert on it throughout the entire business world, the legal system, language. All you do is keep repeating the same thing, which suggest you actually don't understand this, but are repeating talking points. Which would be pretty typical for an Elon stan.

3

Your_Trash_Daddy t1_iwv1hfc wrote

So you're being intentionally obtuse? Repeating what you said above is in no way an answer to the fact that words have meaning, and per those meaning, he's not a founder.

Court documents don't change the definition of words, and courts don't change what actually happened. Courts have opinions, and you have yours, but words have meaning all on their own, quite independent of your opinion.

4