5 ms·

Isn't it possible that there's another side to this?

• chc 11y ago
  Given Smule's apparent lack of interest in investigating whether their allegations have merit, it seems a little hard to imagine that their side of things actually does have merit.
  • gearoidoc 11y ago
    How can you declare their lack of interest in investigating - the Medium post is 2 hours old. If you think that its simply a case of not using your old employers code then you're naive (See: The Social Network). FTR: I'm not on either side here but I'm unsure if this blog post was the wisest move.
    • chc 11y ago
      > How can you declare their lack of interest in investigating Both by Shred's account and Y Combinator's, Shred has repeatedly offered to submit their code for third-party review to see if it is copied from whatever Smule thinks it's copied from, but Smule has declined every time ("claiming, although they most certainly know better, that Shred could have successfully obfuscated their code making such a review useless," per Geoff Ralston's post).
      • gearoidoc 11y ago
        You missed my point: "If you think that its simply a case of not using your old employers code then you're naive". A third-party code review would do little or nothing to prove whether Shred have "stolen" anything. Suppose you and I both wrote our own authentication systems (the horror!) - I'm sure we'd create much the same functionality wise but our code would probably look vastly different. The code base is not important here.
        • chc 11y ago
          Then what is important? What do you figure was stolen here that is concrete enough to be a cause for legal action but so nebulous that the presence of the stolen "thing" in Shred's code base would be completely invisible to third-party investigators who were looking for it specifically?
          • gearoidoc 11y ago
            In this scenario, I imagine it's the idea itself. The app shred has developed is reasonably within the market with which Smule operates. Smule is likely arguing that the IP was created whilst the founders were under their employment and thus belongs to them as a company. Its a shitty practise but its very much the norm and one of the advantages of consulting over employment.
• thoman23 11y ago
  First, I believe them when they say they didn't steal anything. But second, and more importantly, I find it highly unlikely that even if they technically violated some agreement somewhere that it would play any significant role in the success or failure of Shred Video. I think it's just anti-competitive, greedy, ill-will to not allow former employees to succeed or fail based on how well they execute their new venture. It's a dangerous bullying approach that stifles innovation.
  • fr0styMatt2 11y ago
    Exactly this in the opposite way too - I don't see how Shred Video could hurt Smule. The way I see it there's no problem with them both coexisting, it's not like it's a tiny market or anything. Just seems so unnecessary on the part of Smule and just seems vindictive and pointless. Smule could just, you know, compete with their products if they felt threatened. Isn't that what a market is? I was also a huge Smule fan and would recommend their apps to people looking for interesting music making tools. Not anymore. Will be doing quite the opposite actually.