291–300 of 565 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, when the author takes code from one company to use for another, or releases company code on Github, nobody bats an eyelid.
My hair stood on end both times he did this. Holy crap that's some massive legal liability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that you are claiming ownership of this code and by making it available on GitHub under an MIT license you are claiming that you have the right to do so. If I take that code and make a billion dollar business out of it, Box or Uber could then claim a share of it. That's the kind of things that companies do with the lawyers on retainer. I then sue you for falsely claiming that you own it. You are partic…
Excel does not relate to Ubers’ core business. I’m nearly 100% certain we can look back at this comment in 20 years and find that absolutely nothing happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, when the author takes code from one company to use for another, or releases company code on Github, nobody bats an eyelid.
If we're being generous, the author may have had permission to do so. It's not inconceivable; the code was abandoned. If one of my reports had asked, I would have approved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ethically, I'm not sure how to slice it. I'm operating on what you wrote here rather than this specific story. Some contracts stipulate that anything you write while employed is owned by your employer. (I'm settled in that this is unethical, but it's reasonable to comply.) But let's suppose there's no such stipulation. You get an idea while at work. Everyone gets ideas. You take your brain home with you (I hope) and…
There would be a difference between you publishing your code to a public repository, under a permissive license and then allowing your company to fork the codebase and do whatever with it. Under this situation, the author retains copyright, and the company has the option to decline use of the licensed code. That is different than solving common business problems at home, then when asked to solve them at work just cop…
It's hard for me to imagine how you could lose rights via copy pasting the code. Making a new release with a new license doesn't invalidate the rights you already had.
Publishing code sounds like a way to prove it already existed, and nothing more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except China has required technology transfer and has been actively committing state sponsored industrial espionage for decades. Surely this isn’t news? I’m down with China as a competitor, but we have a strong division between state and industry and China does not. I don’t think a unipolar world is a good idea, and I’m glad for a resurgent China. But it’s absurd to put on blinders and believe forced technology trans…
Don't bother. These whataboutism accounts pop up all the time on stories like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My hair stood on end both times he did this. Holy crap that's some massive legal liability.
The code is MIT licensed. Anyone is legally allowed to upload MIT licensed code to GitHub, it's free software and may be freely redistributed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> OP specifically wrote the code to help Box with its business. That was the intent , but not what actually happened. Is intent to donate code enough to put it within your employment contract, when it's done outside work hours and would otherwise be outside the scope of employment?
You misunderstand. When he wrote the code, which was related to the company's business, the company owned it. Even in California. He couldn't have "intent to donate the code" because he didn't own it in the first place. The fact that he "intended to donate it" demonstrates that it was related to the company's business. From a practical perspective, even if you think they don't own it, do you have the money to argue t…
Relatedness is relative but I'd argue against it here. They didn't have functionality like that, and they didn't want it.
> The fact that he "intended to donate it" demonstrates that it was related to the company's business.
...yes, that's my point. We're using that intent to make the decision that it's covered. That doesn't seem like a good way to decide whether it's covered.
If he just made a web spreadsheet and did nothing else, people would shrug.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you are not a lawyer. OP specifically wrote the code to help Box with its business. That's cut and dry within the scope of an employment contract, under California law. This doesn't get a safe harbor exception.
> OP specifically wrote the code to help Box with its business. That was the intent , but not what actually happened. Is intent to donate code enough to put it within your employment contract, when it's done outside work hours and would otherwise be outside the scope of employment?
The intent is a fact of what actually happened: which appears to be that it was written by an employee within the scope of employment to solve a business problem. Possibly outside of usual working hours, but if it’s by a salaried employee where doing work at home outside of usual working hours is itself a normal if not consistent part of employment, is probably not particularly significant.
That the employer later chose not to make use of it doesn’t change the circumstances of its creation; businesses often choose to not pursue use of exploratory work done by employees in the course of employment, that doesn’t surrender ownership of the work product.
And the version that was further developed within and in response to Uber business needs and actively used at Uber before the function for which it was used was terminated is an even clearer case (insofar as it is a distinct work from the original) of work-product (that it quite likely is also an unlicensed derivative work by Uber of proprietary Box code doesn’t mitigate that, though it puts Uber in the position of potentially being both a beneficiary and victim of IP violations.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A crucial difference is the US spying is for state use, whereas in China the state is deeply intermixed with industry. State industrial espionage is used for commercial competitive advantage. This is a huge structural and cultural difference. For instance it’s hard to believe China bootstrapped BYD and GWM among others from green fields. They’ve been exfiltrating and transferring automotive technology for decades. Th…
US government have been using all it's tools to destroy US corporation competition since forever. Look at Huawei for just one example.
Didnt Huawei steal from Nortel?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't bother. These whataboutism accounts pop up all the time on stories like this.
Whataboutism is shield of hypocrites. Ignore all atrocities and human rights abuse we are doing, only wrongs of country X are relevant.
Poster: But the US does it too and has done it for far longer and more often.
Average HN reply: Omg, whataboutism.