Seriously ? How taking company from another person , firing him is interesting ? Did you even read the article ?
Typical millionaire/billionaire behavior. Steal the idea or acquire the company -> separate out founder -> fire them ->profit.
If this is interesting I dont know what to say.
>How taking company from another person, firing him is interesting
I'm not an apologist for the top .001%, but Vinton brought this mostly on himself. He tried expanding beyond his business capabilities and failed. It's not like this was a hostile takeover by Knight. The company would have gone bankrupt and had its assets sold off if Knight didn't take over.
Maybe it would have been benevolent to keep Vinton around. But Knight didn't act particularly unethical. It was selfish, but people act in their own interest all the time. And I suppose it was Nepotism, but at least he made his kid start out at the bottom. And clearly his kid has some talent because he's somewhat turned the company around even if it came at the cost of an open and artistic culture.
If you want to paint this story as the sterotypical billionaire being evil then go for it. But I think that shows the shallowness of your thoughts than ours.
