3 ms·

I'm amazed that the founders didn't have some sort of non-compete agreement here. Excited that it's a more extensible digital assistant though. I think the rea

by jjcm 10y ago

I'm amazed that the founders didn't have some sort of non-compete agreement here. Excited that it's a more extensible digital assistant though. I think the reason why I like Alexa the most out of the services right now is that it feels like the easiest to add new functionality too. Hopefully this will pave the way for more open ai assistants.

cstejerean 10y ago
California doesn't believe in non-competes. The state believes that competition is in the public interest and enforcing non-competes would be counter to that.
- Ph0X 10y ago
  But what about patents?
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    Federal law.
- pesenti 10y ago
  That's not true. California enforces non-compete related to the sale of a company (section 16601 - http://law.onecle.com/california/business/16601.html http://law.onecle.com/california/business/16601.html).
falaki 10y ago
A lot of the Siri IP belonged to Stanford SRI and Siri was basically licensing it. So when Adam left Siri and started Viv, Apple couldn't do anything. Also note that, Viv rarely talked about any details of their technology. Probably they were slightly afraid. At the same time Apple didn't want to pick a fight with a small startup and damage it's reputation. It might change now that Samsung is the owner.