That's just called "hiring". In order to "acquire-hire" employees of the target company, one must first "acquire" the company and the "hiring" part just comes along with the deal. In this case, Google skipped the "acquire" part.

Surely it needs to be called something else, because acquihire means "hire some employees by means of acquiring the company they currently work for" (it's in the name). Since Google did not acquire the company, it can't be an acquihire event. "bribehire" or something?

> Had the employee taken employement with Google, it's likely their shares in windsurf would have been voided, or otherwise not vested.

That doesn't make any sense. The shares are already vested, they legally own them. How could they have been voided?

The idea of joining Google resulting in a "1% payout" doesn't seem to make any sense? Why would there even be any payout at all? And is it mandatory? How could it be?

And then it also doesn't even seem obviously terrible. If the valuation of Windsurf tanked, then is keeping the shares (now presumably converted to Cognition shares at a rate determined by the purchase?) even a better financial outcome?

I agree that Google acquiring the talent rather than buying the company seems shady. But the "1% payout" still isn't making much sense here and needs a lot more details. Because it's still not even clear if the payout is from Google (huh?) or Cognition (why?), or how it could be a mandatory condition of employment at Google.