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

Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

entropicengineering.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 187 posts

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#71

Post by oefrha »

firesteelrain wrote: post #70
oefrha wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It might have been kept hush hush without the stunt, but there’s nothing amicable about it. > EE has tried multiple times over the past months to negotiate fair compensation for work completed prior to June 7th, but attempts at resolution have been unsuccessful. > Once the manufacturing was fully completed, we were offered a one-time “take it or leave it” amount worth well under half of what we were owed pre-stop…

It’s a time and materials contract. DEFCON has the right to cancel at any time for any reason.

No one posted any contract (that I’ve seen). And even if true, there’s still nothing amicable about it. Btw you may have been commenting too much on something that’s “none of our business” according to you.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#72

Post by krisoft »

As per usual nobody comes out of these things looking good.

To really understand who is right and who is wrong here we would need to read the letter of the agreements between these entities, and cross reference them with facts. Of course neither the contracts, nor the facts are available to us.

As is, the best I can do here is to put all participants on my personal “do not work with” list. Who needs the drama.

In particular there seems to be at least two points of miscommunication: it sounds like EE were told how much DEFCON can spend per badge. And they took that number to mean only the cost of the board and electrical engineering costs associated with it. Ignoring other costs (lanyard for sure, and maybe the cost of the plastic case too?).

The other missed connection seems to be the legal position of the firmware developer. EE seems to say they thought the guy was not their subcontractor but someone working for DEFCON. While DEFCON seems to imply that they thought he was an EE subcontractor.

I see a lot comments here with strong opinions on who is right and who is wrong in this dispute. It also seems to be that those strong opinions are based on assumptions. In particular assumptions about what the contract might say, but treated as if it is not a speculation but the truth. That logic is not persuasive to me.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#73

Post by DaSHacka »

gklitz wrote: post #54
Aurornis wrote: post #42

DEFCON’s response was posted on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Defcon/s/NVw5T4LXQR Unsurprisingly, it contradicts some of the claims Entropic has been making. Entropic admits to having exceeded agreed upon budgets by a significant amount, which DEFCON corroborates. There is some disagreement about what has been paid, though, as DEFCON believes they have paid for the hardware development. Some of the other claims al…

[flagged]

> undisclosed malware in the FW

Lol, its literally just an easter-egg screen. If you see something that benign as malware, you may actually have some in your brain.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#74

Post by kalleboo »

firesteelrain wrote: post #58
jmward01 wrote: post #49

It sounds like an independent third party needs to review what happened.

No, that’s entirely unnecessary and unrealistic. This happens nearly every day between a Buyer and Seller. Entropic was basically on a Time and Materials (T&M) contract. Buyer (DEFCON) had every right to terminate when it looked like costs were starting to soar. Entropic appears to pulling at some emotional response with their initial introduction in regards to LBGTQ, etc. That’s irrelevant information.

You've seen the contract?

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#76

Post by krisoft »

gklitz wrote: post #54
Aurornis wrote: post #42

DEFCON’s response was posted on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Defcon/s/NVw5T4LXQR Unsurprisingly, it contradicts some of the claims Entropic has been making. Entropic admits to having exceeded agreed upon budgets by a significant amount, which DEFCON corroborates. There is some disagreement about what has been paid, though, as DEFCON believes they have paid for the hardware development. Some of the other claims al…

[flagged]

I don’t understand what is confusing about that part.

If he wasn’t paid for it then what he says is true. If he was paid then it is not true.

Clearly DEFCON thinks they contracted EE to write the fimware. If that is true, and they have a contract saying that EE will deliver the firmware to them, and the firmware developer is also right that they have no contract then the problem is with EE.

The firmware dev can still sue DEFCON for distributing his copyrighted work without a license to do so. In turn DEFCON would sue EE.

Clearly there are unknowns here to us, but i don’t feel it is particularly confusing.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#77

Post by parkaboy »

Aurornis wrote: post #42

DEFCON’s response was posted on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Defcon/s/NVw5T4LXQR Unsurprisingly, it contradicts some of the claims Entropic has been making. Entropic admits to having exceeded agreed upon budgets by a significant amount, which DEFCON corroborates. There is some disagreement about what has been paid, though, as DEFCON believes they have paid for the hardware development. Some of the other claims al…

> I’m also confused about the earlier threats to use the DMCA against DEFCON for using the firmware without a license. As far as I can tell, the firmware was produced as part of the agreement between DEFCON and Entropic, in which case there shouldn’t be much question about the license as it’s a work for hire

In theory that's true if they legally structured things properly. All comes down to what legal structures were put in place between all three parties starting with the contract (if any) between Entropic and the sub.

I kind of agree, but that assumes they all set up their contracts appropriately... which, having been deeply involved in that community for many years... let's just say I could toss a coin about that assumption being true. If the sub didn't sign anything and Entropic/DEFCON just took his firmware and used it (even if that was the contractor's intention), it's still a significant IP liability for whoever was flashing it all.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#78

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

gklitz wrote: post #54
Aurornis wrote: post #42

DEFCON’s response was posted on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Defcon/s/NVw5T4LXQR Unsurprisingly, it contradicts some of the claims Entropic has been making. Entropic admits to having exceeded agreed upon budgets by a significant amount, which DEFCON corroborates. There is some disagreement about what has been paid, though, as DEFCON believes they have paid for the hardware development. Some of the other claims al…

[flagged]

A hidden screen soliciting donations is certainly in poor taste when you're building a product meant to represent another entity, but "malware"? What is the attack surface on a conference badge that runs a Game Boy emulator?

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#79

Post by daghamm »

DaSHacka wrote: post #73
gklitz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> undisclosed malware in the FW Lol, its literally just an easter-egg screen. If you see something that benign as malware, you may actually have some in your brain.

At DEFCON of all places.

I mean, they steal your password and post it on a board as a joke. Didn't someone set up fake charging devices a few years ago to hack people's phone and gave a talk about it?

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#80

Post by [deleted] »

DandyDev wrote: post #65
koonsolo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do a lot of hiring, and the moment I have to take race, gender or sexual preferences into account, is the moment I will give a big fuck you. I will not discredit the competencies of anyone that I hired or will hire in the future.

The thing is, there is a lot of unconscious bias where race and gender are taken into account already, in a way that reduces hiring changes for people who are not white cis hetero males. At least that has been the case in the past sadly. So companies are now sometimes over-correcting by applying positive bias towards minorities

[deleted]
Post reply on HN