Am I wrong in thinking that just because you're employee #1 (after the founder) that that doesn't make you a co-founder. I don't think it matters if the company had been legally formed yet or not.

I think a co-founder is about what you do, not when you join. If Mr. Kaplan was key in strategy and envisioning the business, that would go a long way, but if he was responsible for implementing Bezos plan, I don't think he should be considered a co-founder.

"I didn’t get founder’s stock. It didn’t seem worth the argument at the time"

Apparently he's a nice, amiable guy. Regardless of whether you want to technically call him co-founder or not, it's sad to think how much he possibly missed out on by not negotiating more with Jeff at the beginning.

What I walk away with is, consider all scenarios when making a deal, and don't be afraid to negotiate for something better.

Shel's seems like an amiable enough guy. But it seems clear to me that with out the business strategy and vision of Bezos Amazon wouldn't exist. I think this quote summs up Shel's and Bezos's styles succinctly "I am a product of the 60s just like Jeff is a product of the 80s".

I don't think Shel should be considered a co-founder. None of his DNA is imprinted into Amazon. In the end, he was pretty replaceable.

There's a reason nobody remembers this guy.