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

Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

patentpandas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 510 posts

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#481

Post by prolikewh0a »

dang wrote: post #471
prolikewh0a wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point me to the requests to stop? I've seen exactly one, a long time ago. I'm not personally attacking people, and I do contribute here with a positive upvote score. I don't see the issue.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18504457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17807056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17767666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17486112 But the main issue is using HN primarily for ideological or political battle. That's directly against the spirit of this site, and destroys it more insidiously than incivility does. Positive vote scores, alas, aren't an indicator of whe…

This honestly seems to be an issue with what my personal opinions are about certain topics. I do not "flame bait", I am serious in my positions and don't seek any type of nefarious response. I don't see how pointing out that nobody bats an eye when Google does what China does is "flamebait", it's just an observation. Other links were benign in nature or then sourced as factual right below 'mod' comments.

Thanks.

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#482

Post by usrusr »

hedvig wrote: post #271
usrusr wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I talked about this in the interview and suggested they could make around 2 million per month if they hired me and used my script. Obviously I don't know how the rest of the interview went, but the way you put it in the retelling makes it sound a lot like it was distracting from all the other reasons to hire you. "How about that two million guy?" - "We hire developers, not libraries" It might have been that they no…

Oh god forbid an potential employee feels he has some power in this transaction.

The power a candidate has and should be aware of is walking away, not withholding a trivial js library. Feeling powerful for demonstrably wrong reasons will put you in a terrible light.

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#483

Post by Splognosticus »

paul7986 wrote: post #91

I 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.…

In retrospect why on Earth did we ever think a company whose motto was "Don't Be Evil" wouldn't be? It's like meeting someone who introduces themselves with, "Hi I'm John and I am definitely not planning to rape you to death and wear your skin as a mask."

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#484

Post by scarface74 »

pmarreck wrote: post #361
paul7986 wrote: post #91

I 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.…

This is a level of douchiness I cannot fathom. What possesses these people to act in this fashion and how do they sleep at night? How is this not seen as clearly unethical behavior? A clear violation of Wheaton's Law, here. I mean... I could easily take that lollipop from that naïve baby in that baby carriage... but I don't, simply because I'm Not A Dick™. Did all of Silicon Valley get the wrong takeaway from the App…

Seeing that Apple didn’t steal anything from Xerox. It was very much a negotiation so what lesson would that be?

https://zurb.com/blog/steve-jobs-and-xerox-the-truth-about-i...

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#485

Post by ubernostrum »

dctoedt wrote: post #477
ubernostrum wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is incredibly misleading. This wasn't the "you came by our office for lunch" NDA. This was the "you worked here for a while, and we trained you and taught you our techniques, which you later used in an invention" NDA.

> This wasn't the "you came by our office for lunch" NDA. This was the "you worked here for a while, and we trained you and taught you our techniques, which you later used in an invention" NDA. Citation for the first assertion? Here's an excerpt from the Supreme Court's summary of the facts: One Dr. Mark Holodniy [0], who had recently joined a Stanford lab as a fellow, "signed a Visitor's Confidentiality Agreement (V…

Citation for the first assertion?

You're making it sound like he just popped in one day and had a sandwich and a chat with the people working there. Your own citation, though, is to "the time he began working at Cetus". The "visitor" NDA there is more like "visit" in the sense of "visiting professor" -- someone who will be there for an extended time, working alongside the other people there.

And your original link to Wikipedia's summary says:

The Stanford lab in which Holodniy worked had been working on developing better HIV tests, and wanted to try the new PCR method, so Holodniy's supervisor had arranged for him to work at Cetus to learn the technique ... [a]fter completing his training at Cetus, Holodniy then returned to Stanford where he and other Stanford employees tested the HIV measurement technique.

If you work somewhere for a while and they give you training in the stuff they do, they're going to want you to keep that confidential and probably want to make claims on anything you develop as a result of what they taught you. You are heavily misrepresenting the word "visitor" to make it sound like he was only there for an office tour or something.

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#486

Post by dctoedt »

ubernostrum wrote: post #485
dctoedt wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This wasn't the "you came by our office for lunch" NDA. This was the "you worked here for a while, and we trained you and taught you our techniques, which you later used in an invention" NDA. Citation for the first assertion? Here's an excerpt from the Supreme Court's summary of the facts: One Dr. Mark Holodniy [0], who had recently joined a Stanford lab as a fellow, "signed a Visitor's Confidentiality Agreement (V…

Citation for the first assertion? You're making it sound like he just popped in one day and had a sandwich and a chat with the people working there. Your own citation, though, is to "the time he began working at Cetus". The "visitor" NDA there is more like "visit" in the sense of "visiting professor" -- someone who will be there for an extended time, working alongside the other people there. And your original link to…

We're talking past each other here:

- You're arguing that it was meet and right for Cetus to claim ownership of anything that the Stanford fellow did, presumably ad infinitum, as long as it was a "consequence" of the training that Cetus provided to the Stanford fellow. While I think that's a pretty aggressive position, I really don't care, because it's a business decision for each party to make.

- In contrast, I am suggesting that the Stanford fellow probably didn't realize the consequences of his signing a so-called confidentiality agreement, and that the lesson is to RTFA, not to assume that the agreement is limited by what its title says.

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#487

Post by ubernostrum »

dctoedt wrote: post #486
ubernostrum wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation for the first assertion? You're making it sound like he just popped in one day and had a sandwich and a chat with the people working there. Your own citation, though, is to "the time he began working at Cetus". The "visitor" NDA there is more like "visit" in the sense of "visiting professor" -- someone who will be there for an extended time, working alongside the other people there. And your original link to…

We're talking past each other here: - You're arguing that it was meet and right for Cetus to claim ownership of anything that the Stanford fellow did, presumably ad infinitum , as long as it was a "consequence" of the training that Cetus provided to the Stanford fellow. While I think that's a pretty aggressive position, I really don't care, because it's a business decision for each party to make. - In contrast, I am…

You're arguing that it was meet and right for Cetus to claim ownership

No, I'm claiming that it should not have been surprising that the agreement for someone who worked there included such claims. How I personally feel about it is irrelevant; it's a standard practice, and to be expected.

What I am arguing with is your repeated use of terms like "visitor", to make it sound like the guy just popped in for lunch one day and they claimed all his work. He worked there. They trained and taught him. While there are contexts in which "visitor" can be the appropriate term for that (again, see "visiting professor"), the usual connotation of "visitor" is incredibly misleading here, and I wish you'd be more clear about it.

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#488

Post by dctoedt »

ubernostrum wrote: post #487
dctoedt wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking past each other here: - You're arguing that it was meet and right for Cetus to claim ownership of anything that the Stanford fellow did, presumably ad infinitum , as long as it was a "consequence" of the training that Cetus provided to the Stanford fellow. While I think that's a pretty aggressive position, I really don't care, because it's a business decision for each party to make. - In contrast, I am…

You're arguing that it was meet and right for Cetus to claim ownership No, I'm claiming that it should not have been surprising that the agreement for someone who worked there included such claims. How I personally feel about it is irrelevant; it's a standard practice, and to be expected. What I am arguing with is your repeated use of terms like "visitor", to make it sound like the guy just popped in for lunch one da…

> What I am arguing with is your repeated use of terms like "visitor", to make it sound like the guy just popped in for lunch one day and they claimed all his work. ... the usual connotation of "visitor" is incredibly misleading here, and I wish you'd be more clear about it.

"Visitor's Confidentiality Agreement" was the title of the NDA, for Pete's sake; that's what makes it sound as though the guy popped in for a meeting.

And the trial court's opinion says that the Stanford fellow "commut[ed] daily" to Cetus. This seems to suggest strongly that the fellow divided his time between Stanford and Cetus — in effect, that the guy was a daily visitor to Cetus, as opposed to being seconded to Cetus.

Again, the point: RTFA — because hindsight opinions might differ about what you should or shouldn't have expected.

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#490

Post by dang »

prolikewh0a wrote: post #481
dang wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18504457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17807056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17767666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17486112 But the main issue is using HN primarily for ideological or political battle. That's directly against the spirit of this site, and destroys it more insidiously than incivility does. Positive vote scores, alas, aren't an indicator of whe…

This honestly seems to be an issue with what my personal opinions are about certain topics. I do not "flame bait", I am serious in my positions and don't seek any type of nefarious response. I don't see how pointing out that nobody bats an eye when Google does what China does is "flamebait", it's just an observation. Other links were benign in nature or then sourced as factual right below 'mod' comments. Thanks.

I'm sure you're serious but that's not the standard here. Nor is it based on opinions. We moderate users with opposing opinions just as heavily.

Flamebait is a matter of effect, not intent, just like tossing lit matches in dry forests. It's our job to prevent flamewarring users from burning this site down, thereby ruining it for the majority who want to use it as intended. The site guidelines distill long experience about what kinds of comments do and don't have that effect.

Post reply on HN