Just to steelman the GP; some people in the company made a choice while the rest had no say.

I personally think the owners should get to decide, but it's an interesting duality.

(assuming it's not like everyone has a share or something, in which case they would've all had to agree I guess)

> I personally think the owners should get to decide, but it's an interesting duality.

The owners of a business get to decide what to do with their business.

> (assuming it's not like everyone has a share or something, in which case they would've all had to agree I guess)

Unanimous agreement among shareholders is not necessary to sell a company.

The employees might have had some shares in the company, but not all share classes have equal voting rights. It’s also unlikely that employees in aggregate would have had enough shares to override everyone else anyway. Once shares are split among investors, founders, and employees the individual ownership of any one person or group becomes small.

I wouldn’t assume that the employees wanted to avoid acquisition. They likely benefited significantly from their shares being acquired and their new compensation packages. Imagining that the employees resisted this is projecting some other story on to them

That is what being employed means, otherwise own the business.

If you join an company with next to no monetizable business model like this, you already have made your choice that you are fine with acquisition when you joined, or have deferred your choice to make a stay/leave decision until the acquisition.

> I personally think the owners should get to decide

Wow. Bold opinion. The owners of a company get to decide what to do with it?