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

Nvidia sued for stealing trade secrets: blunder showed rival company's code

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 242 posts

Re: Nvidia sued for stealing trade secrets: blunder showed rival company's code

#71

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

andy99 wrote: post #62
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company I worked for, was paranoid as hell about IP in the code. They hired some source scanning firm, for a lot of money, to continually scan our codebase. They were mostly looking for GPL ( nasty, naasssssty GPL! ) code, but they also scanned for code that couldn't be accounted for in our "clean" repos. Not exactly sure how that worked (or even, if it worked at all. I think they brought smoke[0]). [0] https://w…

> nasty, naasssssty GPL! What does that mean? Why would scanning for gpl code be looked at badly? It presumably means a company is proactively abiding by gpl licensing. The only thing better would be to use gpl and share their source as well. But of course it's a legit choice to just not use any gpl'd code. It's probably more common to just turn a blind eye to gpl code, so it's good to see companies making sure they'…

It was a joke.

I'm not a fan of "viral" licenses, and agree that, if a company doesn't want to abide by the license, they should not include them, but I am also not a fan of trying to force others to force others, to force others, etc., ad nauseam.

I tend to use MIT, which isn't always everyone's cup of tea, but means that you can use my code, and it would be nice to be credited, but I won't cry myself to sleep, if you don't.

Re: Nvidia sued for stealing trade secrets: blunder showed rival company's code

#72

Post by kahnclusions »

ip26 wrote: post #47
Symmetry wrote: post #21

One of the generally accepted reasons why its hard to get graphics companies to open source their drives has always been that everybody is violating everybody else's patents. And while everybody knows this making it too obvious is a legal disadvantage. But I hadn't expected it was also true of copyright.

Given independent invention is apparently not a defense against infringement, that makes a lot of sense. I can’t even imagine trying to screen the codebase for that.

No, but a patent can be invalidated if you can show that the idea is obvious to practitioners of the trade, i.e. given the same problem most software engineers would arrive at the same solution.

Re: Nvidia sued for stealing trade secrets: blunder showed rival company's code

#73

Post by throwaway54_56 »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #68
throwaway54_56 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Violating patents is one thing, as you're only violating the concept/idea, but the implementation is still up to you The concept/idea is not what is patented. The patent is (or should be) for the specific execution of the idea. Competitors are free to implement their feature using methods other that what is covered by the patent, even if the end result gives the exact same functionality.

>The concept/idea is not what is patented. The patent is (or should be) for the specific execution of the idea. Have you ever seen patents? They rarely cover the implementation details, or at most they're intentionally super vague about that, most of the time it's just the general idea on how the widget would work and what it does, but not how to implement it technically.

I have seen patents. The whole point is to share a method of doing something, in return for exclusive use of that method for a period of time. That's the theory, anyway.

Re: Nvidia sued for stealing trade secrets: blunder showed rival company's code

#74

Post by wombatpm »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #40
winocm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A thought that came to me recently in the shower: Isn't all knowledge effectively based on previous knowledge, and by extension, experience? i.e: A programmer knows how to do X, leaves a company to do Y, where Y is in the same field of work as X. Doesn't X still affect the programmer on a subconscious level and henceforth, their thoughts indirectly?

Bringing knowledge is one thing, which is legal, but stealing source code and design files from your employer to copy it to the systems of their competitor where you now work is a completely different thing which is illegal. Companies want your knowledge, not you bringing proprietary IP from their competitor to work, as they know that's a very expensive lawsuit waiting to happen.

But what if I have an idemic memory?

Re: Nvidia sued for stealing trade secrets: blunder showed rival company's code

#75

Post by FirmwareBurner »

wombatpm wrote: post #74
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bringing knowledge is one thing, which is legal, but stealing source code and design files from your employer to copy it to the systems of their competitor where you now work is a completely different thing which is illegal. Companies want your knowledge, not you bringing proprietary IP from their competitor to work, as they know that's a very expensive lawsuit waiting to happen.

But what if I have an idemic memory?

Then you'd be able to draw and type out everything from scratch directly on your employer's PC and not have to download it via USB drives or email, like this guy did.

Re: Nvidia sued for stealing trade secrets: blunder showed rival company's code

#76

Post by FirmwareBurner »

throwaway54_56 wrote: post #73
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The concept/idea is not what is patented. The patent is (or should be) for the specific execution of the idea. Have you ever seen patents? They rarely cover the implementation details, or at most they're intentionally super vague about that, most of the time it's just the general idea on how the widget would work and what it does, but not how to implement it technically.

I have seen patents. The whole point is to share a method of doing something, in return for exclusive use of that method for a period of time. That's the theory, anyway.

Then you misunderstood or saw too few patents.

Re: Nvidia sued for stealing trade secrets: blunder showed rival company's code

#77

Post by cyanydeez »

Symmetry wrote: post #21

One of the generally accepted reasons why its hard to get graphics companies to open source their drives has always been that everybody is violating everybody else's patents. And while everybody knows this making it too obvious is a legal disadvantage. But I hadn't expected it was also true of copyright.

and now we have AI violating everything.

Re: Nvidia sued for stealing trade secrets: blunder showed rival company's code

#78

Post by anon373839 »

throwaway54_56 wrote: post #73
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The concept/idea is not what is patented. The patent is (or should be) for the specific execution of the idea. Have you ever seen patents? They rarely cover the implementation details, or at most they're intentionally super vague about that, most of the time it's just the general idea on how the widget would work and what it does, but not how to implement it technically.

I have seen patents. The whole point is to share a method of doing something, in return for exclusive use of that method for a period of time. That's the theory, anyway.

I’m sure we’ll all be glad one day that Apple shared this research breakthrough:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/6/16614038/apple-samsung-sl...

Re: Nvidia sued for stealing trade secrets: blunder showed rival company's code

#79

Post by dctoedt »

throwaway54_56 wrote: post #67
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> everybody is violating everybody else's patents Violating patents is one thing, as you're only violating the concept/idea, but the implementation is still up to you meaning it will still be clean room design, whereas this guy also blatantly copied the source code and design files which is a slam dunk lawsuit, hence why no company ever wants to have competitors' IP on their systems.

> Violating patents is one thing, as you're only violating the concept/idea, but the implementation is still up to you The concept/idea is not what is patented. The patent is (or should be) for the specific execution of the idea. Competitors are free to implement their feature using methods other that what is covered by the patent, even if the end result gives the exact same functionality.

> The concept/idea is not what is patented. The patent is (or should be) for the specific execution of the idea. Competitors are free to implement their feature using methods other that what is covered by the patent, even if the end result gives the exact same functionality.

IP lawyer here (EDIT: not yours, of course): That's a considerable (and potentially-dangerous) oversimplification. What matters is whether what you do comes within the claims of the patent.

(For a more-detailed explanation, written in pseudocode-like terms, see a 2010 post I did: https://www.oncontracts.com/how-patent-claims-work-a-variety....)

Re: Nvidia sued for stealing trade secrets: blunder showed rival company's code

#80

Post by throwaway914 »

kmeisthax wrote: post #55
winocm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A thought that came to me recently in the shower: Isn't all knowledge effectively based on previous knowledge, and by extension, experience? i.e: A programmer knows how to do X, leaves a company to do Y, where Y is in the same field of work as X. Doesn't X still affect the programmer on a subconscious level and henceforth, their thoughts indirectly?

This is the "inevitable disclosure" argument - AKA the idea that the experience is the secret, and thus nobody should ever be allowed to switch employers ever again. For various reasons (notably, the fact that slavery is illegal), we don't accept this in general. You have to show that secrets were copied in full . Employees cannot memorize millions of lines of source, they can only memorize vague architectural detail…

In theory, one can memorize a great deal.. I do agree with you, though.
Post reply on HN