please explain
that's why there is equity compensation - something that Garmin didn't provide adequately
And as little equity as possible, for identical reasons.
An employee is responsible for making sure the terms agreed on are ones they're happy with, not an employer. An employer has a legal obligation to shareholders to minimize the costs of her business, one in direct conflict with "being generous in compensation" to her employees.
And you're wrong about "minimize costs" per se. The employer has a obligation to maximize shareholder returns, for which a simplistic application of the "minimize costs" principle is seldom a solution.
I wouldn't say not caring about employee equity participation is a good founder quality.
In fact this whole thread just goes to show that Garmin fails miserably at motivating it's engineers to this day.
Based on what happened to him I'd have to wonder if later employees got much more than beer money.