Live data from Hacker News

When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

masslawblog.com

21–30 of 89 posts

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#21
post #19
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's technically a type of intellectual property, like a patent. If no agreements are in place, it's still infringement.

Does that mean someone can't independently come up with the formula for Coke (Pepsi or any knock off) because it's their intellectual property? [Or KFC's 13 spices] Or is Pepsi (and other knock offs) sufficiently different? Or something else working here.

I'm pretty sure the fundamental difference between trade secrets and a patent is that if someone else comes up with it independently, or if you tell someone what it is, a patent protects you and a trade secret doesn't.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#22
post #14

Could anyone explain why trade secrets are something you can sue over if no NDAs or similar have been signed?

Could anyone explain why trade secrets are something you can sue over if no NDAs or similar have been signed? A. (the sarcastic answer) The USPTO explains the reasoning here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-... As that page makes clear, it's now a federal offense to misappropriate trade secrets because: "As a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and a party to the Agreement on Trad…

The wording "does not necessarily endorse" is common language for a generic link that could be going to something do endorse or could be going to something they don't endorse. This means that people who want to add a link to an external resource don't have to stop and get their internal lawyers to decide whether that is an endorsed reference or not.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#23
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean someone can't independently come up with the formula for Coke (Pepsi or any knock off) because it's their intellectual property? [Or KFC's 13 spices] Or is Pepsi (and other knock offs) sufficiently different? Or something else working here.

I'm pretty sure the fundamental difference between trade secrets and a patent is that if someone else comes up with it independently, or if you tell someone what it is, a patent protects you and a trade secret doesn't.

OP [lmkg] says it would still be infringement, if there is no agreement [x-licensing]. Not sure if that is true or not though.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#24
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure the fundamental difference between trade secrets and a patent is that if someone else comes up with it independently, or if you tell someone what it is, a patent protects you and a trade secret doesn't.

OP [lmkg] says it would still be infringement, if there is no agreement [x-licensing]. Not sure if that is true or not though.

They are probably assuming that you were given the information with the knowledge it was a trade secret even if you didn't sign anything specific about keeping it secret, not that you invented it separately.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#25
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP [lmkg] says it would still be infringement, if there is no agreement [x-licensing]. Not sure if that is true or not though.

They are probably assuming that you were given the information with the knowledge it was a trade secret even if you didn't sign anything specific about keeping it secret, not that you invented it separately.

That was the missing piece. Thanks.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#26
post #9
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trade secrets are intellectual property which is ... property. So stealing trade secrets is stealing property which is theft. You can develop what is the equivalent of a trade secret. That is the risk and you have to make efforts to keep the secret a secret. But if an employee copies your trade secret that’s theft.

No, copyright infringement isn't theft even if it has been characterized as "stealing intellectual property". Intellectual property is a broad term without any real meaning. Copyrights don't have to be registered to have effect. Patents do. Trademarks can be either. If you don't defend a trademark, you lose it. If you don't defend against copyright or patent infringement, you can just wait. Patents last for 20 years.…

What do copyright, trademark and patents have to do with trade secrets? You accuse the op about not knowing anything about trade secrets then you proceed to talk about things that aren't related to trade secrets. Trade secrets aren't protected by copyright, as something needs to be published, therefore no longer a secret, to be copyrighted. Trademarks, well they just aren't a secret. Patents are the opposite of a trade secret. With a parent you publish your secret for the guarantee of a monopoly on it for a certain period of time. A trade secret can be kept forever if you keep it a secret. Trade secrets do have protections, but you have to actively maintain the secret.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#27
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I hear stories like this I think of the developers who likely thought of and implemented the systems behind these criminal acts and I'm once more reminded that software developers, in aggregate, are on a similar level to '90s finance "tricksters" etc. We'll do whatever if the money is there.

One unfortunate side of progress and technological advancement is that it can be unethical, in the hands of people with less ethics. Think of it this way: 1. Anybody in robotics/ai/ml is helping uav technology used for military purpose. 2. Anybody in financial lending could help fuel financial crisis. 3. Anybody in software could be enabling surveillance technology without even realizing.

[deleted]

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#28

> Uber has a team dedicated to collecting trade secrets from competing companies. Allegedly, the people involved use disappearing-message apps, anonymous servers, and secret computers and phones to communicate without leaving a trail. If true, then this is absolutely unreal. Add it to the growing list of dodgy Uber tactics: Ride-hailing company (Uber) hit by revelations it used custom-built tool to deceive law enforc…

If you implement any of this shit as an engineer and you try to Nuremberg your way out of responsibility, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#29
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I hear stories like this I think of the developers who likely thought of and implemented the systems behind these criminal acts and I'm once more reminded that software developers, in aggregate, are on a similar level to '90s finance "tricksters" etc. We'll do whatever if the money is there.

It all comes to personal ethics.

Let's not ignore the group dynamic though either. People's moral convictions can be somewhat flexible when it comes to fitting in and blending in with a group, including a company.

Yes it's true that if your personal ethics are strong enough, you'll resist or exit a group whose ethics conflict with your own. It's also true that if the company has good ethics, you won't have to.

Meanwhile the weak-minded as Obi Wan might call them, will go with the flow and behave however the group behaves. If the group is impeccably ethical, they'll act accordingly. And if the group is predatory, they'll act accordingly.

In short, both individual and group ethics have to fail to get an Uber situation. And in business the group ethics and the tone are set from the top down - Travis. This is why people go on about the importance of company culture.

Re: When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

#30
I just don’t get why engineers want to work for Uber.

They have treated their drivers poorly (eg. under paying them and fighting benefits other cab companies have to pay), their riders poorly (eg. not telling them their personal data was stolen), their engineers poorly (eg. giving zero fucks about sexual harassment without the press getting involved), local governments poorly (eg. dodging law enforcement and regulators by making them wait for rides that never come), rival companies poorly (eg. ordering and cancelling rides from Lyft) and their investors poorly for not disclosing any of this shit.

Really, why do you work for them? Are you laughing your asses off when you hear another engineer leaving a company that does bad things because you’re going to make more money and that’s what matters? Or is the problems you’re solving really that interesting you couldn’t care less if someone is using what ypu built to mess with people’s lives in likely illegal ways? Our profession is about solving problems that makes people’s lives better, how can you just be ok with what they’re using what you built for? Don’t you feel any responsibility making the tools they need to do these things? And, if they haven’t done anything illegal and unethical with your system yet, how can you be sure they won’t given their track record?

Where’s your professional integrity is what I’m asking. If think our profession needs a license like stock brokers, realtors, accountants, physicians, attorneys or cab drivers have. Implementinh any of the systems that enabled any those shenanigans Uber has pulled off should be grounds for revoking it because I fear that’s what we need to do to make engineers stop and think ”yeah, they’re giving me boat loads of money and I get a good resume if I would want to work for Google or Facebook but what if I get caught?” because apparently otherwise they would gladly give Uber the tools to screw people over and sleep well at night.

Post reply on HN