Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I'm leaving Harvard (for Google)

matt-welsh.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: Why I'm leaving Harvard (for Google)

#31

Post by kevinpet »

price wrote: post #28
moultano wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google realizes this too, and there are a lot of people here that would like to help. There are a few huge issues that always come up. 1. Paranoia about giving competitors the edge they need. 2. Paranoia about giving spammers the edge they need. 3. Privacy. It's nigh impossible to anonymize user data enough to release and still have it in a useful form. The AOL logs debacle hurt everyone. One of my friends had a real…

His belief essentially was that the industry advances when people switch companies and (legal or not) take their institutional knowledge with them. This is why it's so important that in California the law protects employees leaving companies to work for other companies -- this is legal there. You can't take code, data, hardware designs, or other concrete intellectual property -- that's forbidden by the agreements eve…

If I could point to one thing other states could do to improve their economy, it would be adopt the exact language of California's anti-non-compete and the "you own your own ideas, unless developed as part of your work" law.

Not that this is going to single handedly grow a silicon valley in Montana overnight, but it has so little downside. The reason for the exact language is because if they use the exact language consciously, they effectively import the case law surrounding those laws.

Re: Why I'm leaving Harvard (for Google)

#32

Post by fizx »

moultano wrote: post #25
Lewisham wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, most academics realize that they're data-starved, but industry isn't able to/doesn't want to work with academia to help gain access to that data. Even if you do get access, you're NDA'd so hard that publishing useful papers is a challenge. It's a shame, because universities are essentially free labor, just on much longer timeframes and lower probability of immediate success. I understand why things are the way…

Google realizes this too, and there are a lot of people here that would like to help. There are a few huge issues that always come up. 1. Paranoia about giving competitors the edge they need. 2. Paranoia about giving spammers the edge they need. 3. Privacy. It's nigh impossible to anonymize user data enough to release and still have it in a useful form. The AOL logs debacle hurt everyone. One of my friends had a real…

> His belief essentially was that the industry advances when people switch companies and (legal or not) take their institutional knowledge with them.

Ah, so pay $3.5MM to retain those people ;)

Re: Why I'm leaving Harvard (for Google)

#33

Post by Goladus »

anrope wrote: post #13

"...overhead and red tape (grant proposals, teaching, committee work, etc.)..." I feel like a professor shouldn't consider teaching "overhead". If you're teaching classes, you should be putting at least as much effort into research as teaching. Prof != post-doc. If your passion is in research, then a move to industry (or post-doc) sounds like a good choice.

It's clear from the article he doesn't consider teaching to be "overhead" in any sense except specifically in relation to research, and designing and building systems. In fact he writes that teaching was his favorite part of the job. Nevertheless, based on the established context, teaching is overhead, no matter what feelings may be.

Re: Why I'm leaving Harvard (for Google)

#34

Post by hga »

price wrote: post #28
moultano wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google realizes this too, and there are a lot of people here that would like to help. There are a few huge issues that always come up. 1. Paranoia about giving competitors the edge they need. 2. Paranoia about giving spammers the edge they need. 3. Privacy. It's nigh impossible to anonymize user data enough to release and still have it in a useful form. The AOL logs debacle hurt everyone. One of my friends had a real…

His belief essentially was that the industry advances when people switch companies and (legal or not) take their institutional knowledge with them. This is why it's so important that in California the law protects employees leaving companies to work for other companies -- this is legal there. You can't take code, data, hardware designs, or other concrete intellectual property -- that's forbidden by the agreements eve…

Actually, I know of no other state that has such a law (although the Michigan legislature accidentally zapped their's for a fairly long period and research has been done on this).

I've never lived/worked in California/SV, but based on what I've read about it (e.g. Shockley -> Fairchild -> many companies is the golden example) etc. and how I've experienced on the East Coast (Boston and D.C. areas) a number of failures to even get started-up due to non-completes, I'm convinced that this one and only unique to California feature is the #1 secret behind Silicon Valley's long term success, its crushing of Route 128, etc.

Re: Why I'm leaving Harvard (for Google)

#35

Post by hga »

robryan wrote: post #26
Smerity wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He may be complaining about all the overhead that goes with teaching rather than the teaching itself. I'm tutoring this semester for a Data Structures course and a painfully large portion of the time is spent dealing with things that really aren't teaching. Trying to deal with plagiarism (which even goes as far as assignments posted on RentACoder), using ancient marking systems (WebCT is well and truly evil), handlin…

You would be stupid to post an assignment on something as well known as rentacoder. I've ad professors who have mentioned finding their assignments on there so they are well aware.

But there are people that stupid and the need to check such sites is just one more bit of overhead.

Hmmm, I suppose it's unfortunate that a final exam does not lend itself to requiring the use of a computer to demonstrate that you truly can program your way out of a paper bag.

Re: Why I'm leaving Harvard (for Google)

#36

Post by [deleted] »

kevinpet wrote: post #31
price wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His belief essentially was that the industry advances when people switch companies and (legal or not) take their institutional knowledge with them. This is why it's so important that in California the law protects employees leaving companies to work for other companies -- this is legal there. You can't take code, data, hardware designs, or other concrete intellectual property -- that's forbidden by the agreements eve…

If I could point to one thing other states could do to improve their economy, it would be adopt the exact language of California's anti-non-compete and the "you own your own ideas, unless developed as part of your work" law. Not that this is going to single handedly grow a silicon valley in Montana overnight, but it has so little downside. The reason for the exact language is because if they use the exact language co…

[deleted]

Re: Why I'm leaving Harvard (for Google)

#37

Post by _delirium »

hga wrote: post #34
price wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His belief essentially was that the industry advances when people switch companies and (legal or not) take their institutional knowledge with them. This is why it's so important that in California the law protects employees leaving companies to work for other companies -- this is legal there. You can't take code, data, hardware designs, or other concrete intellectual property -- that's forbidden by the agreements eve…

Actually, I know of no other state that has such a law (although the Michigan legislature accidentally zapped their's for a fairly long period and research has been done on this). I've never lived/worked in California/SV, but based on what I've read about it (e.g. Shockley -> Fairchild -> many companies is the golden example) etc. and how I've experienced on the East Coast (Boston and D.C. areas) a number of failures…

Georgia was one until two weeks ago, at least de facto. The language wasn't quite as clear as California's, but it was essentially impossible to enforce non-competes. A bunch of big companies managed to get an initiative on the Nov. 3 ballot to overturn that, though, and it passed, partly due to misleading language that's currently being litigated. The ballot question read, Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold reasonable competitive agreements?, which is a bit, uh, indirect about the fact that its main impact will be to legalize noncompetes in GA.

It caused a bit of ruckus within libertarian-leaning circles in Georgia, with some people lining up on the pro side, arguing freedom of contract, and other people lining up on the anti side, arguing right-to-work. It was probably the only major issue where progressive groups and tea-party groups actually had the same position (against), but they were both greatly outspent by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and business-Republican groups.

Re: Why I'm leaving Harvard (for Google)

#38

Post by hga »

_delirium wrote: post #37
hga wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I know of no other state that has such a law (although the Michigan legislature accidentally zapped their's for a fairly long period and research has been done on this). I've never lived/worked in California/SV, but based on what I've read about it (e.g. Shockley -> Fairchild -> many companies is the golden example) etc. and how I've experienced on the East Coast (Boston and D.C. areas) a number of failures…

Georgia was one until two weeks ago, at least de facto . The language wasn't quite as clear as California's, but it was essentially impossible to enforce non-competes. A bunch of big companies managed to get an initiative on the Nov. 3 ballot to overturn that, though, and it passed, partly due to misleading language that's currently being litigated. The ballot question read, Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amend…

Are you sure about that? I didn't study the issue at all, just read one or two items, but what I understood was that it closed a severability "loophole" that sounded like a very thin reed to depend on.

The very possibility of a lawsuit, even if you eventually won due to the strictness imposed on enforcement, is quite enough to quash a lot of startups. Sure, you can win, after N months and M thousand dollars spent not paying full attention to your startup (assuming you don't get TROed in the beginning). I'm also told that being the subject of a lawsuit is incredibility draining.

In California as I understand it your opponent won't even get to first base.

So, let me put it this way: in all the discussions of California's no non-compete regime, if Georgia was so good why did no ever say anything about it, as compared to e.g. Michigan? People have been pushing Atlanta as a potentially good startup area, why not advertise this advantage?

Re: Why I'm leaving Harvard (for Google)

#39

Post by _delirium »

hga wrote: post #38
_delirium wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Georgia was one until two weeks ago, at least de facto . The language wasn't quite as clear as California's, but it was essentially impossible to enforce non-competes. A bunch of big companies managed to get an initiative on the Nov. 3 ballot to overturn that, though, and it passed, partly due to misleading language that's currently being litigated. The ballot question read, Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amend…

Are you sure about that? I didn't study the issue at all, just read one or two items, but what I understood was that it closed a severability "loophole" that sounded like a very thin reed to depend on. The very possibility of a lawsuit, even if you eventually won due to the strictness imposed on enforcement, is quite enough to quash a lot of startups. Sure, you can win, after N months and M thousand dollars spent not…

Ah yeah, for startups I can buy that. Since Georgia's isn't/wasn't nearly as clear-cut as California's, it's much harder to get the lawsuit summarily thrown out, so it's a big drain for startups. The "de-facto impossible to enforce" part is more that as case law developed and somewhat expanded the "loophole", it became difficult for an employer to actually win a suit for violating a noncompete clause. But they could certainly drag it on for a while.

Re: Why I'm leaving Harvard (for Google)

#40

Post by hga »

_delirium wrote: post #39
hga wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure about that? I didn't study the issue at all, just read one or two items, but what I understood was that it closed a severability "loophole" that sounded like a very thin reed to depend on. The very possibility of a lawsuit, even if you eventually won due to the strictness imposed on enforcement, is quite enough to quash a lot of startups. Sure, you can win, after N months and M thousand dollars spent not…

Ah yeah, for startups I can buy that. Since Georgia's isn't/wasn't nearly as clear-cut as California's, it's much harder to get the lawsuit summarily thrown out, so it's a big drain for startups. The "de-facto impossible to enforce" part is more that as case law developed and somewhat expanded the "loophole", it became difficult for an employer to actually win a suit for violating a noncompete clause. But they could…

Ah, yes.

And I can't believe that I forgot to mention how crippling this is when you try to raise capital, especially at the angel level. People want to invest in businesses, not lawsuit defenses, and these are high risk and hopefully high gain ventures. They don't want run an even higher risk that if you're indeed successful, your former employer will go after you with a rusty knife.

It's that risk to the high gain that's the real killer, e.g. look at all the people who've come out of the woodwork going after Facebook, some of them clearly weasels (and some not). They would have never bothered if Facebook was a "modest" success instead of a deci-billion dollar blowout, the next Google in terms of being the next big business high tech company.

Post reply on HN