|
blah_blah posted:It's very infrequently enforced. There's a ton of very successful startups out there, spawned from some of the bigger names in tech, that literally rebuilt some internal tool they developed at their prior company as their new startup's product. Anti-poaching clauses are the same -- they sound draconian in practice, but end up getting routinely ignored with no consequences. Which is why this case is different. Levandowski (allegedly!) got a $250MM payout, in return for ~10GB of Waymo data. Intellectual capital and experience is one thing, hard data is another. More to the point, he started a new company and almost immediately sold it to a direct competitor - he didn't spend a couple years building a new product and then put it on the open market, it appears the sale was mostly arranged when he left Waymo. You're right, it's very difficult to enforce those contracts. This one was a little bit too blatant, even for SV.
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
just a reminder that this is still relevant in 2017 and will be for the foreseeable future https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJklHwoYgBQ
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
poisonpill posted:Again: yes you can. This is a civil case. You can infer against someone pleading the fifth in a private lawsuit. Oh yeah good call I always forget that in the rush not to be lovely about it with respect to criminal matters.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Which is why this case is different. Levandowski (allegedly!) got a $250MM payout, in return for ~10GB of Waymo data. Intellectual capital and experience is one thing, hard data is another. More to the point, he started a new company and almost immediately sold it to a direct competitor - he didn't spend a couple years building a new product and then put it on the open market, it appears the sale was mostly arranged when he left Waymo. I agree. But the issue here isn't those assignment of invention clauses that virtually everyone at every tech company signs. The issue is large-scale theft of intellectual property. There's no point in conflating the two.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:I agree. But the issue here isn't those assignment of invention clauses that virtually everyone at every tech company signs. The issue is large-scale theft of intellectual property. There's no point in conflating the two. That's just it, so far there has been no smoking gun. From the article on the previous page: quote:What’s not quite proven yet: That the complex lidar system Levandowski built for Uber was heavily inspired by Waymo-owned patents and trade secrets. Waymo also can’t quite pin down whether Uber employees saw the stolen documents or if those documents moved anywhere beyond the computer Levandowski allegedly used to steal them. (Uber lawyers say extensive searches of their company’s system for anything connected to the secrets comes up nil.) Did a laptop containing the documents ever enter an Uber office? Did Levandowski access the documents for reference while working from home? So far, the evidence is only circumstantial. The payout, the timing, the lack of notice all scream guilt. And this is a civil case, not a criminal case. But right now, the theft hasn't been proven. I think we're agreeing, and I pointed out the distinction, it's just that he has certainly violated the contract, it has yet to be shown that he actually stole anything.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Speaking of criminality and Uber:quote:The U.S. Department of Justice has begun a criminal investigation into Uber Technologies Inc's use of a software tool that helped its drivers evade local transportation regulators, two sources familiar with the situation said. Early stages of the investigation from what it seems, but formally started and perfectly timed on top of other things Uber's having to deal with at the moment.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Uber seems to subscribe to the "it's only illegal if you get caught" way of doing things. So the corporate way, they just suck at it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
How many civil and criminal cases is Uber involved in right now?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Uber seems to subscribe to the "it's only illegal if you get caught" way of doing things.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Worse. They subscribe to "All regulations are bad, so gently caress 'em" -- even when they do get caught, they claim it's a bad law anyway. Right, they're libertarians.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:I agree. But the issue here isn't those assignment of invention clauses that virtually everyone at every tech company signs. The issue is large-scale theft of intellectual property. There's no point in conflating the two. Yeah this isn't "I made a cool little app on my own time that turns out to have some serious implications so I'm quitting and making a new company", this is "I literally stole the stuff I built for you and sold it to another company." The first the primary company either isn't going to care or you can negotiate some kind of settlement. The second involves people going to jail and businesses being fined into the ground. edit: Even the first case can be bad if the "cool little app" is important enough, because it's basically what happened to Facebook and Zuck had to pay out millions. It's just that the second is so much worse. axeil fucked around with this message at 16:43 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
axeil posted:Yeah this isn't "I made a cool little app on my own time that turns out to have some serious implications so I'm quitting and making a new company", this is "I literally stole the stuff I built for you and sold it to another company." I mean another aspect of it is that if he just ran off with his tech and ran his own company for a while, it wouldn't be too much of juicy target for Google. They might expect that the guy's company would go under because it couldn't really afford to make meaningful developments, let alone an actual product. But he went and immediately had it taken over by a company known to be a money pinata. That sealed it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I mean another aspect of it is that if he just ran off with his tech and ran his own company for a while, it wouldn't be too much of juicy target for Google. They might expect that the guy's company would go under because it couldn't really afford to make meaningful developments, let alone an actual product. A money piñata!  https://twitter.com/computerfact/status/856983887603433472 WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 22:01 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
gently caress's sake https://twitter.com/mllehrer/status/861603799810555904
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:gently caress's sake No way did that actually get funded. I refuse to believe it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:No way did that actually get funded. I refuse to believe it. I doubt it. This looks like a landing page specifically designed to see if anyone is even interested in this thing.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:No way did that actually get funded. I refuse to believe it. Quite right you are. It's a concept hoping for an Indiegogo.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Like this feels like a randomly generated item from an algorithm. A bluetooth salt shaker that plays music and has various mood lighting options. I wouldn't be surprised if there is someone out spitting out these landing pages until one gets enough interest to actually be funded.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
nachos posted:I wouldn't be surprised if there is someone out spitting out these landing pages until one gets enough interest to actually be funded. https://www.quirky.com
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Note that Quirky went to Hell in 2015.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
I know it's formulaic at this point to bolt Bluetooth or wifi smartphone connectivity onto random household items and cast it out into the VC ocean hoping for a bite, but for the life of me I don't get why they keep doing it with kitchen gadgets. Internet-connected refrigerators, ovens, coffee pots, toasters, etc are so impractical and unnecessary yet they keep trying to ram that square peg into that round hole over and over. Is it that they think they've already connected every other electronic appliance in the average home to the internet in some way already and they're just scraping the bottom of the barrel now?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:I know it's formulaic at this point to bolt Bluetooth or wifi smartphone connectivity onto random household items and cast it out into the VC ocean hoping for a bite, but for the life of me I don't get why they keep doing it with kitchen gadgets. Internet-connected refrigerators, ovens, coffee pots, toasters, etc are so impractical and unnecessary yet they keep trying to ram that square peg into that round hole over and over. it's a lot easier to sell kitchen gadgets since you can appeal to people's anxiety about cooking and the cooking process. in order to sell some dumb gadget you have to create a problem (salt shaking is too boring) and then provide the answer (a cool salt shaker that plays music)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Might also be price elasticity of demand. People who buy some single use kitchen items may have large budgets for luxury goods.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Might also be price elasticity of demand. People who buy some single use kitchen items may have large budgets for luxury goods. Also stealing all of their information though poorly disclosed Internet of Things terms and conditions
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Might also be price elasticity of demand. People who buy some single use kitchen items may have large budgets for luxury goods. well that's true of any gimmick device (IoT stuff is just the new infomercial as seen on tv gadgets) but there's just not as much space for innovation in say the laundry machine, the bedroom is a little tawdry, but you can come up with all kind of pasta cookers and hot dog bun toasters and all kinds of silly things for the kitchen
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:well that's true of any gimmick device (IoT stuff is just the new infomercial as seen on tv gadgets) but there's just not as much space for innovation in say the laundry machine, the bedroom is a little tawdry, but you can come up with all kind of pasta cookers and hot dog bun toasters and all kinds of silly things for the kitchen Yes, absolutely.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
I for one think IoT clothes/clothes hampers/dressers are just one Kickstarter away. Just imagine never losing your socks again by using your phone as a Bluetooth radar. Knowing when the last time your dresser was opened and who opened it... I'm bailing on the joke, it's entered the IoT uncanny valley.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:I for one think IoT clothes/clothes hampers/dressers are just one Kickstarter away. Just imagine never losing your socks again by using your phone as a Bluetooth radar. Knowing when the last time your dresser was opened and who opened it... While I'm almost positive I saw a wifi hamper ages ago, have this instead: https://twitter.com/internetofshit/status/859483961713721352
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
duz posted:While I'm almost positive I saw a wifi hamper ages ago, have this instead: this reminded me of the wet diaper sensor from Gizmo! but i couldn't find it, but then i was like well hell if anyone itt has never seen Gizmo! it's basically this stupid gadgets, the historical documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONwe96StEpA e: ah for some reason this is an edited version that removes the section about baby devices, probably a music copyright boner confessor fucked around with this message at 21:24 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
duz posted:While I'm almost positive I saw a wifi hamper ages ago, have this instead: Eh, as a parent I can safely say there is no avoiding the sniff test, unless you have the mother of all colds.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
The non-kitchen internet of things products tend to be done by more serious companies. Smart lighting, cameras, thermostats, are all produced by major companies. There was also smart door locks but I think that was a startup.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:The non-kitchen internet of things products tend to be done by more serious companies. There's like a dozen smart door lock companies, they're all terrible, even the ones that were normal door lock companies first.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:The non-kitchen internet of things products tend to be done by more serious companies. Kwikset do smart door locks (RFID and networked) but apparently they suck. Pity, since now I have keyless car locks/ignition it would be nice to to never have to dig for my keys. Edit: ^^Yup
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
duz posted:There's like a dozen smart door lock companies, they're all terrible, even the ones that were normal door lock companies first. slock.it pioneered smart door locks right but on the blockchain. This worked so well they pivoted to The DAO, which welp
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
divabot posted:slock.it pioneered smart door locks right but on the blockchain. This worked so well they pivoted to The DAO, which welp I what was the time taken to open your door going to increase at the number of door openings went up? Were there going to be server farms in China mining unlockings? I am so confused.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I welcome to blockchain!! I try to keep this sorta poo poo to the YOSPOS bitcoin thread, but the current pitch at the top of https://slock.it/ is "Blockchain + IoT", which is two terrible ideas in an even worse conflation, so superlatively iThread. quote:A low-cost, private-by-design “democracy of devices” will emerge that will enable new digital economies and create new value, while offering consumers and enterprises fundamentally better products and UX. or, as EorayMel put it: EorayMel posted:I use blockchain technology to let strangers come into my home at any given time to use my washing machine that is prostituting itself for more economical usage in order to pay off the debt my refrigerator accumulated because it dumped all of my money on the honest ponzi scheme being run by the stove. if you want to know aaaallll about "smart locks" on loving Ethereum, Slock.it to Introduce Smart Locks Linked to Smart Ethereum Contracts, Decentralize the Sharing Economy in Bitcoin Magazine will make Uber look like a good idea by comparison. Smart contracts Bitcoin 2.0 Ethereum Internet of Things (IoT) decentralized sharing economy pure P2P mode stop me before I kill again. You uh buy a SLOCK token in their smart contract right and uh you buy access with those and uh DECENTRALISATION! I wrote up the DAO disaster, it's champagne comedy.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
Snapchat eating so much poo poo right now, who would've guessed. Can someone explain that $2.2 bill loss?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/862400198970142720 Snap lost $2.2 billion in the first quarter with $150 million in revenue.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Ill Peripheral posted:Snapchat eating so much poo poo right now, who would've guessed. Can someone explain that $2.2 bill loss?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Ill Peripheral posted:Snapchat eating so much poo poo right now, who would've guessed. Can someone explain that $2.2 bill loss? "The company spent $2.0 billion on stock-based compensation expenses after its initial public offering"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:56
|
|