Hacker News Reader

So basically Facebook got the same benefit as if they had acquired the company(the talent) for less money and the investors got screwed.

View on HN

Debatably, they got less than half the talent, thank you very much!

At less than a tenth of the price?

Abby > Ivan? :-)

I sense strife intra-marital strife.

Presumably they don't get the brand, domain name, existing code base, and access to registered users.

There's probably a lot more to this story than we know--there's no need to jump to conclusions.

I don't think Facebook needs the domain, code or registered users. They liked the idea and obviously the people behind it. But to launch it on a Facebook like scale it would need a rewrite, tons of legal power and probably a new name anyway (even TipJoy learned to not like their name).

> brand name

The founders have themselves said that they have little traction, and 3rd party payment services will not add much value.

> domain name

Doesn't matter, when brand name isn't useful

> Existing code base

Its takes significantly less time to build it the next time.

> Registered users

Facebook has 250 million users! <1% cant matter anyway.

Right, and that's why no one was interested in buying the company.

Investors own the company, not the employees--even if they are founders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com