3 ms·

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 employer

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.

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.