←back to thread

OpenAI’s Windsurf deal is off, and Windsurf’s CEO is going to Google

(www.theverge.com)
745 points rcchen | 1 comments | 11 Jul 25 21:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
Ancalagon ◴[11 Jul 25 21:46 UTC] No.44537076[source]▶
So Google, Meta, and Microsoft will just hollow out the best AI startups of their talent instead of buying them - out of fear of monopoly lawsuits I'm assuming?

Nice plan I guess. Kind of obvious to spot though.

replies(8): >>44537170 #>>44537198 #>>44537214 #>>44537300 #>>44537317 #>>44537644 #>>44540590 #>>44540907 #
bix6 ◴[11 Jul 25 22:03 UTC] No.44537214[source]▶
Can shareholders sue? I presume the only avenue is IP since that belongs to the company? Or the non-exclusive license somehow negates that? Brutal.
replies(2): >>44537243 #>>44539578 #
Ancalagon ◴[11 Jul 25 22:07 UTC] No.44537243[source]▶
I actually don't know if there's much that can be done unless there's some non-competes in those employees' contracts which are usually not very enforceable outside of finance iirc.
replies(1): >>44537335 #
bix6 ◴[11 Jul 25 22:18 UTC] No.44537335[source]▶
Non competes aren’t enforceable in California but the company owns the IP so I’m curious about this license loophole they are using.
replies(2): >>44539006 #>>44540729 #
nrmitchi ◴[12 Jul 25 03:18 UTC] No.44539006[source]▶
Non competes can definitely be enforceable in California for executives and those with fiduciary responsibilities to a company.

They’re just not enforceable against “rank and file” employees.

replies(1): >>44539128 #
1. bix6 ◴[12 Jul 25 03:48 UTC] No.44539128[source]▶
The only situation I know of is during a sale of business if the seller agrees. Which is clearly not the case here.