Google is also fetching ideas for code and patents from publicly streamed hackathons around the world.
at least they arent murdering people for the code, yet, afaik
Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview
281–290 of 510 posts
Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does increasingly feel this way, but I think (hope?) it's selection bias. In other words we hear about the psychopaths because they are newsworthy. We don't generally hear about the average CEO, because they are average and generally follow expected social norms. At least, that's what I hope.
Sorry but I don't share that hope, it doesn't make logical sense. The higher you go in organizational pyramid, and the bigger the pyramid is (in width and amount of levels), the harder it gets to progress. Sure, you can impress here and there with your raw technical/managerial skills, but sooner or later that won't get you much further. That's where backstabbing, alliances, quid pro quo, slanders happen. It comes abo…
Minor nitpick with your nitpick - the DSM used to make a distinction between Sociopathy and Psychopathy, but as of DSM 5, they are both described under the umbrella of Antisocial Personality Disorders (ASPD). The distinctions now are only cultural, and made outside the DSM - usually by researchers trying to explain ASPD traits in nature vs. nurture constructs. In that regard, one could say there's actually no distinction between the traits describing the two as defined in DSM 5.
Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview
#283I met/had a similar experience with Google ATAP in 2013 (was Motorala ATAP then; Google recently bought them) though not for a job interview but to discuss working together to build our tech SpeakerBlast into the Moto X. They asked if we ever thought about selling our technology to them before the meeting and at the meeting they baited us for how our tech worked saying we'd like to work with you tell us how it works.…
Didn’t they spoof this in the Silicon Valley series?
Yes. Season 2, part of the Homicide Energy Drink plot-line. EndFrame lures PP into a meeting, ostensibly to discuss funding, but instead brain rapes[1] PP.
1 - Erlich's term, not mine.
Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview
#284I met/had a similar experience with Google ATAP in 2013 (was Motorala ATAP then; Google recently bought them) though not for a job interview but to discuss working together to build our tech SpeakerBlast into the Moto X. They asked if we ever thought about selling our technology to them before the meeting and at the meeting they baited us for how our tech worked saying we'd like to work with you tell us how it works.…
Wow that's crazy. I didn't know they did stuff like that. Also I didn't know Google had patents for syncing audio across phones. I wonder if any of the mobile apps (like AmpMe [1]) have to pay some license fees. I once spent an evening researching the different apps that could sync audio across multiple devices [2]. I also wanted to build my own app, so tried to see if it would be possible (only if you have a jailbro…
I mean I don't have any context, but surely this is a similar technology they have implemented with their Google Home speaker system?
Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview
#285Just because you are giant, isn't it!
Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, being aware that you're infringing a patent, and continuing to do it anyway, is of course bad legally speaking. But inventors not using parent literature is catastrophically bad. So many applications are repeated, in some fields the same thing is "invented" over and over because people don't even makea cursory attempt to understand the technology in the field vs the products available. Being unaware of infringem…
> If people can't use the disclosures then the system serves virtually no purpose. That's not quite true - although disclosure is an often argued benefit of the patent system, there are very few inventions that cannot be copied once a working item is in someone's hands, so a formal disclosure is not necessarily required to be able to build upon and extend existing work. But even without disclosure, when appropriate p…
Yes, I was a little terse there: what I meant was the system serves little purpose for the demos who maintain it. The deal is that the inventors get their monopoly in return for the disclosure. So, without any benefit on the side of the public then their would be no purpose in maintaining the system.
Of course it also serves the public to encourage inventors by giving them a limited exclusive use. But primarily when instigated the purpose is a mutual benefit that is best embodied by education of the public arena as to the mechanisms and working of an invention.
Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview
#287If your country has "democratic" in the name it's probably not democratic. If your major has "science" in the name it's probably not science. If your company has "don't be evil" in its motto...
So Computer Science is Engineering?
It's a thing of its own. Used to be called informatics in some countries. Much better name, IMO. There are large parts of computer science that have nothing to do with computers. They're about information and can be applied outside of computers.
I'm with Alan Kay when he says "computer science" used to be an aspiration and eventually became a misnomer. Same with software engineering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyIQKBzIuBY
(Doesn't mean CS and SE are always "worse" than science and engineering. But they are currently very different.)
Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview
#288On a certain level, it makes sense. Google wants to patent it to cover their bases and make sure no one else does the same thing and blocks them . It's a rational move in a shitty game.
If i can make money grinding babies into a fine powder, that is clearly the "rational move", nobody can fault me for it.
Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview
#289https://www.quora.com/Do-any-companies-give-a-bonus-for-pate...
> Google paid generously for filing patents to help create a defensive portfolio.
> ...you would receive $1000 post-tax per person, up to $3k total
> I left Google in 2009 and the program may have changed since then.
(The events took place in 2014)
Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
Culture is created by individuals. But the fact that Google gives large bonuses to employees for giving their patent lawyers topics to pursue is a huge incentive for unethical behavior like described in these anecdotes. As for the rest of your argument, there’s a big gap between the people who love to share ideas and tech and the people who want to monetize every drop of IP. I think it would take a pretty twisted or…
The bonuses are actually not that large. The real motivation is to have patents to put into your promo packet to help you the next time you apply for promotion. I had 2 patents issued when I was at Google. As best as I can recall, the bonus for first one was nice ($5K?), and then the second was much smaller ($1K). I'm not sure how far the reward decays (I do not recall if it reaches zero). I remember thinking at the…
$5K is large for a US company IMHO, but I don't work in CA. It's still a tiny incentive and peanuts compared to how much the lawyer and the PTO get paid for your patent. You know why they pay you? Two reasons. One is as an incentive - people get all excited about little 1K bonuses. The other is that they are effectively "buying" your idea. That whole bit about the assignee? Yeah, no. In the US, the inventor is legally the "owner" of the patent (IANAL so wording...). They have to give you something in return for it. The monetary award and the associated documentation is to prove you made a fair exchange.
My understanding (again IANAL) is that even if you sign documents with your company agreeing that they own all your innovation while employed, you are still legally the assignee for your patents. If you run off and patent something while employed and don't sign over a patent they want, you will be in breach of whatever contract/document you signed, but until any conflict is resolved it's not their patent until you assign it to them.
Accepting the "patent bonus" is a way of having you confirm the transfer of your IP to them. It legally finalizes the deal you made when you hired in and signed that bullshit IP document. From their side it's a tiny price to pay for that.
I'm sure a real lawyer can iron out the details I didn't get right in the above.