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

191–200 of 242 posts

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

#191

Post by fbdab103 »

crazygringo wrote: post #122

I seriously do not understand why any employee would steal their previous employers' code to use at a new employer. There's little-to-no personal upside, and only horrible downside if you get caught. I mean, this guy: > Moniruzzaman allegedly gave his personal email unauthorized access to Valeo's systems to steal "tens of thousands of files" and 6GB of source code shortly after that development... Valeo said its form…

If nothing else, it seems pretty silly to have the stolen source accessible from the new work computer. That's just asking for the ruse to be detected too easily (automated backups, virus scanning, etc which could fingerprint the data). Keep the illicit goods on an air-gapped, encrypted, personal computer that you can reference as required.

As far as I know, they were never able to find the Waymo files that Anthony Levandowski stole, because he was at least crafty enough to not load everything directly onto Uber hardware.

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

#192

Post by thfuran »

nvy wrote: post #189
thfuran wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If the tool can generate the efficient methods of achieving a result, I think it becomes obvious that one shouldn’t be able to protect it via IP law. Why does that only hold when the result in question is in software? Machines are just tools for achieving results.

Because you can patent a machine. The argument is that software is "just math" (because it literally is just doing binary arithmetic) and mathematics cannot be patented.

But a machine can also be mathematically described. Should that render it unpatentable, or will that have to wait until the grand unified theory of everything is sorted out?

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

#193

Post by bad_user »

nvy wrote: post #189
thfuran wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If the tool can generate the efficient methods of achieving a result, I think it becomes obvious that one shouldn’t be able to protect it via IP law. Why does that only hold when the result in question is in software? Machines are just tools for achieving results.

Because you can patent a machine. The argument is that software is "just math" (because it literally is just doing binary arithmetic) and mathematics cannot be patented.

Math should be patentable, too. I see no reason for why not.

The old argument that it's discovered rather than invented is bullshit. Multiple people can always have the same idea for an invention because we think alike and live in the same environment.

Or just ban patents altogether. Of course, this may discourage companies from investing in R&D and that's the real problem: how expensive is it to invent something, and does it justify a 20-year monopoly? But there are no good answers here, and trying to draw a line between math and non-math is bollocks.

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

#194

Post by Cacti »

justrealist wrote: post #164
Blammar wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like a shooting star once your perfidy is discovered.

You could easily milk it for 4-5 years and then transition into management before you have to pull your own weight as an IC.

haha god it’s so true it hurts

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

#195

Post by zarzavat »

bad_user wrote: post #193
nvy wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you can patent a machine. The argument is that software is "just math" (because it literally is just doing binary arithmetic) and mathematics cannot be patented.

Math should be patentable, too. I see no reason for why not. The old argument that it's discovered rather than invented is bullshit. Multiple people can always have the same idea for an invention because we think alike and live in the same environment. Or just ban patents altogether. Of course, this may discourage companies from investing in R&D and that's the real problem: how expensive is it to invent something, an…

There’s just something obscene about patenting mathematics. The universe gifts us these truths and our first instinct is that it should be the property of a human.

Patents exist to incentivize invention. As long as mathematicians are content to do mathematics for the love of it, and they certainly are, there’s no need for mathematical patents.

Practically speaking, mathematical ideas are building blocks not products. Patents on mathematical ideas discourage invention rather than encouraging it because they prevent use of that idea in new products - an idea that would have been discovered anyway. For example the parents of elliptic curve cryptography and arithmetic coding were hugely damaging to invention overall. Patenting a new kind of cork screw doesn’t have this problem, it’s a destination, not an intermediate.

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

#196

Post by thfuran »

zarzavat wrote: post #195
bad_user wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Math should be patentable, too. I see no reason for why not. The old argument that it's discovered rather than invented is bullshit. Multiple people can always have the same idea for an invention because we think alike and live in the same environment. Or just ban patents altogether. Of course, this may discourage companies from investing in R&D and that's the real problem: how expensive is it to invent something, an…

There’s just something obscene about patenting mathematics. The universe gifts us these truths and our first instinct is that it should be the property of a human. Patents exist to incentivize invention. As long as mathematicians are content to do mathematics for the love of it, and they certainly are, there’s no need for mathematical patents. Practically speaking, mathematical ideas are building blocks not products.…

>Practically speaking, mathematical ideas are building blocks

So are technological ones.

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

#197

Post by choppaface »

crazygringo wrote: post #122

I seriously do not understand why any employee would steal their previous employers' code to use at a new employer. There's little-to-no personal upside, and only horrible downside if you get caught. I mean, this guy: > Moniruzzaman allegedly gave his personal email unauthorized access to Valeo's systems to steal "tens of thousands of files" and 6GB of source code shortly after that development... Valeo said its form…

Here's a good example of an ex-Uber employee who stole / took his excel-in-browser to his next employer: https://basta.substack.com/p/no-sacred-masterpieces

"but I took the code and shoved it into my back pocket for a rainy day."

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37527720

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

#198

Post by bad_user »

zarzavat wrote: post #195
bad_user wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Math should be patentable, too. I see no reason for why not. The old argument that it's discovered rather than invented is bullshit. Multiple people can always have the same idea for an invention because we think alike and live in the same environment. Or just ban patents altogether. Of course, this may discourage companies from investing in R&D and that's the real problem: how expensive is it to invent something, an…

There’s just something obscene about patenting mathematics. The universe gifts us these truths and our first instinct is that it should be the property of a human. Patents exist to incentivize invention. As long as mathematicians are content to do mathematics for the love of it, and they certainly are, there’s no need for mathematical patents. Practically speaking, mathematical ideas are building blocks not products.…

The universe is not based on math, says math.

Math can be viewed as a product of how our minds work. We use abstractions to understand and predict the universe, but it's always imperfect, and the theories always incomplete.

E g., you'd think 1+1=2 is some universal truth, except integers don't exist in nature, being just another abstraction that we came up with. And of course, people can rediscover integers repeatedly, but that just says more about how our mind works.

And yes, math is a building block, but so is software. If math theories aren't patentable, that should happen based on them being trivial or perhaps being too useful to society, and not due to some romantic notions of discovery and the universe. Software, too.

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

#199

Post by slow_numbnut »

lsllc wrote: post #157

Compare Moniruzzaman with Sergey Aleynikov [0] who allegedly "stole" [open source] Erlang code from Goldman Sachs, was arrested by the FBI at Newark airport, found guilty in Federal court and was initially sentenced to 8 years in jail although it was overturned on appeal. He was then tried again on the same charges this time in NY state courts and again the conviction was overturned but then reinstated on appeal by t…

Judges and prosecutors should lose their immunity and be held accountable for their negligent and reckless actions. Legal systems can never be just until bad actors face repercussions, irrespective of what role they serve.

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

#200

Post by ludston »

dylan604 wrote: post #185
sircastor wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this reason, and a few others, my workplace simply put a blanket ban on these kinds of tools. If our code is never exposed to the learning tool, it’s never in danger of being showing up somewhere else. Incidental to that, I feel like these tools expose the reality behind “copyrighting code/math” and how fallacious it is. If the tool can generate the efficient methods of achieving a result, I think it becomes obvi…

Just like with social media, all it takes is one person to not honor that request, and boom! your shit is out there. Sure, you can fire the offending party, but you can't just ask Co-pilot to not use your contributions. That's like asking the internet to give those pictures back. It ain't gonna happen.

It's quite a different from the analogy you suggest, as copilot is controlled by a single organisation and we know the address.
Post reply on HN