Skype Execs Purged On Eve of MS Takeover 300
jfruhlinger writes "You might think that the executive team that engineered a lucrative buyout for their company would be rewarded. But eight execs from Skype instead found themselves fired just before their company was formally taken over by Microsoft. It appears that this move isn't meddling from Redmond; rather, the private equity firm that owns a 70 percent stake in Skype wanted to cut back on the payout to company execs that would normally accompany this kind of transaction."
The invisible hand of captialism (Score:5, Insightful)
when the victims of corporate psychopaths (Score:5, Insightful)
are other corporate psychopaths, it's hard to feel sympathy
Corporate Sleeze (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't feel bad, dear managers (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, every time a takeover happens some people get fired.
I am delighted to see that for a change it happens to you.
Re:Fired? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading into it? (Score:3, Insightful)
This submission, and the article referenced to, read entirely differently.
Where exactly does it say they were fired?
mergers are statistically bad for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah, but I wanted to blame Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah, but I wanted to blame Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
So some other overpaid freeloading bastards (The VCs) fired some other overpaid, freeloading bastards (The Execs)?
Re:The invisible hand of captialism (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, this argument is retarded, as everyone else in the sector enjoys the same protections on their software. Basically, it says, "If I could compete with Microsoft by selling their OS, Microsoft Windows, then they wouldn't be a monopoly." Basically saying that, if you could just clone their software and compete with them by selling the same thing, yet you without all the R&D costs that Microsoft put into it, then there'd be "competition".
This also completely ignores the fact that Microsoft forced a bunch of OEMs to pay them royalties on all computers, even those without Windows, in blatant violation of all anti-trust laws and anti-competition laws. Face it, Microsoft became a monopoly of their own doing, not by being propped up by "government."
Re:when the victims of corporate psychopaths (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? At least VCs actually do something with the cash. Invest it in other places to make more money. C*Os tend to simply sit in a company and get rich. Sometimes they move to other companies that are already established and get rich. Very rarely do they take that money and knowledge and make something new to make money with.
Re:The invisible hand of captialism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:when the victims of corporate psychopaths (Score:4, Insightful)
C*O's of start ups or young companies typically aren't fat cats who siphon cash while contributing zero. A small corp will quickly die off as all jobs, from ground floor peons to the CEO are important.
C*Os of established corps can indeed be fat cats. Established revenue streams, customers, large enough assert hoards to give a company viability via inertia for more than 4 quarters. Inattention and self-serving proclamations that don't result in immediate corporate implosion, can thrive in that environment.
VC's exist to generate return on investment for their major partners. Some act as angels, but most promise x% return on investment to their patrons. If the VC is short on promise #s, they will take the short term personal gain over the long term health of the entity they are selling.
Re:Ah, but I wanted to blame Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)