5 ms·

Is it just me or does this sound like the typical big company coming out of the woodwork to sue to sabotage someone else's IPO. Isn't it just jump the shark mom

Is it just me or does this sound like the typical big company coming out of the woodwork to sue to sabotage someone else's IPO. Isn't it just jump the shark moment for Google? I find HN sentiment too favorable to Google these days, compared to Yahoo's lawsuit against FB at their IPO time. I think this theory should at least be considered.

killjoywashere 9y ago
Wait, Uber aided and abetted theft. IP theft, but not software, this is hardware, classic, very little disagreement, IP theft. Why shouldn't Google ask society to impose a high cost on such behavior. Seems to me, if anyone believes anything about the patent system in it's classic form makes sense, then they should support a high cost to IP theft.
- scroogl3d 9y ago
  IP... Imaginary Property. "Theft" is not a technical jargon. It's an emotionally charged phrase to trigger public opinion in favor of patent monopolists. Also, didn't the judge throw out the patent case and the dispute is merely trade secrets now?
  - xapata 9y ago
    If what I create with my mind isn't my property, then what you create with your hand isn't yours either. But you knew that already. You're just trolling, I'm sure.
    - RasputinsBro 9y ago
      An alternative point of view is that no deep a priori justification for the concept of ownership exists, other than that you own what you can actually defend as such, be it by force or by law. Under this point of view, it would be totally conceivable that you couldn't own the products of your mind but could those of your hands, if the law just said so.
      - xapata 9y ago
        And the reverse as well. Perhaps intellectual property is the only kind that matters.
    - scroogl3d 9y ago
      > If what I create with my mind isn't my property, then what you create with your hand isn't yours either. That implication is not a logical necessity. There is a big distinction: if I take away the thing you made with your hands from you, you have one fewer thing, and I have one more thing. If I learn or copy what you have in your mind, both of us have something. I cannot take it away from you. Also, the whole phrase "Intellectual Property" is a misleading thing that should not be used in any reasonable discussion, because it derails the arguments by unifying a bunch of pretty different things[1]. We should be calling copyright, patents, and trademarks what they are: they are not properties, they are monopolies authorized by the government (trade secrets may be a bit distinct here). Perhaps authorized monopoly is a more accurate term than "intellectual property". cf. [2] [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html [2] http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2016/11/cory-doctorow-sole-and-despotic-dominion/ http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2016/11/cory-doctorow-s...
      - killjoywashere 9y ago
        Ok, but to the original point, which was Uber aiding and abetting Levandowski's taking away specific documents (do you admit that a document is a thing?) which were trade secrets: surely that qualifies as theft of valid intellectual property. Also, you, like almost everyone in this economy, makes their money on the work product of their mind. Some is more pilferable than others, but if you disagree, how about you just share your screen with me at all times, and I can share that screen with whomever I want?
        scroogl3d 9y ago
        "svn checkout" of something you were a core developer of and could fetch 14k files. Not negating your point but putting it in perspective. Downloading and archiving your own work email inbox is also far from uncommon I'm sure. Doesn't imply you definitely have a specific use for it.
        xapata 9y ago
        Far from uncommon among folks preparing to steal company property when they quit. I don't know anyone who downloads their email archive when the situation is normal.
thisisit 9y ago
This assuming Uber's IPO is around the corner? While a case could be made against Yahoo during Facebook's IPO (Yahoo sued FB on March 12, 2012 and the IPO was filed on February 1, 2012), situation here is not similar. From what I read Uber has discussed about IPO prospects but 1.5-3 years later: https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/30/new-uber-ceo-says-ipo-is-18-36-months-out/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/30/new-uber-ceo-says-ipo-is-1... So what effect does it have really on Uber's IPO?

killjoywashere 9y ago

Wait, Uber aided and abetted theft. IP theft, but not software, this is hardware, classic, very little disagreement, IP theft. Why shouldn't Google ask society to impose a high cost on such behavior. Seems to me, if anyone believes anything about the patent system in it's classic form makes sense, then they should support a high cost to IP theft.

scroogl3d 9y ago
IP... Imaginary Property. "Theft" is not a technical jargon. It's an emotionally charged phrase to trigger public opinion in favor of patent monopolists. Also, didn't the judge throw out the patent case and the dispute is merely trade secrets now?
- xapata 9y ago
  If what I create with my mind isn't my property, then what you create with your hand isn't yours either. But you knew that already. You're just trolling, I'm sure.
  - RasputinsBro 9y ago
    An alternative point of view is that no deep a priori justification for the concept of ownership exists, other than that you own what you can actually defend as such, be it by force or by law. Under this point of view, it would be totally conceivable that you couldn't own the products of your mind but could those of your hands, if the law just said so.
    - xapata 9y ago
      And the reverse as well. Perhaps intellectual property is the only kind that matters.
  - scroogl3d 9y ago
    > If what I create with my mind isn't my property, then what you create with your hand isn't yours either. That implication is not a logical necessity. There is a big distinction: if I take away the thing you made with your hands from you, you have one fewer thing, and I have one more thing. If I learn or copy what you have in your mind, both of us have something. I cannot take it away from you. Also, the whole phrase "Intellectual Property" is a misleading thing that should not be used in any reasonable discussion, because it derails the arguments by unifying a bunch of pretty different things[1]. We should be calling copyright, patents, and trademarks what they are: they are not properties, they are monopolies authorized by the government (trade secrets may be a bit distinct here). Perhaps authorized monopoly is a more accurate term than "intellectual property". cf. [2] [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html [2] http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2016/11/cory-doctorow-sole-and-despotic-dominion/ http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2016/11/cory-doctorow-s...
    - killjoywashere 9y ago
      Ok, but to the original point, which was Uber aiding and abetting Levandowski's taking away specific documents (do you admit that a document is a thing?) which were trade secrets: surely that qualifies as theft of valid intellectual property. Also, you, like almost everyone in this economy, makes their money on the work product of their mind. Some is more pilferable than others, but if you disagree, how about you just share your screen with me at all times, and I can share that screen with whomever I want?
      - scroogl3d 9y ago
        "svn checkout" of something you were a core developer of and could fetch 14k files. Not negating your point but putting it in perspective. Downloading and archiving your own work email inbox is also far from uncommon I'm sure. Doesn't imply you definitely have a specific use for it.
        xapata 9y ago
        Far from uncommon among folks preparing to steal company property when they quit. I don't know anyone who downloads their email archive when the situation is normal.

thisisit 9y ago

This assuming Uber's IPO is around the corner? While a case could be made against Yahoo during Facebook's IPO (Yahoo sued FB on March 12, 2012 and the IPO was filed on February 1, 2012), situation here is not similar. From what I read Uber has discussed about IPO prospects but 1.5-3 years later: https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/30/new-uber-ceo-says-ipo-is-18-36-months-out/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/30/new-uber-ceo-says-ipo-is-1... So what effect does it have really on Uber's IPO?