5 ms·

Sorry Jason, but you have no idea what you're talking about here. Having been in the real-life version of that movie for the past six years I have a pretty good

Sorry Jason, but you have no idea what you're talking about here. Having been in the real-life version of that movie for the past six years I have a pretty good notion of what can and cannot be taken away by another, and it's a lot more than what your post would lead people to believe.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
sophacles 16y ago
Unfortunately you are quite wrong. Fortunately by the rules you apparently play by, I need not provide any evidence or explanation to such a declaration, just the smug empty statement itself. Edit: the original parent said (from memory, maybe not 100% accurate): "Sorry Jason, you don't know what you are talking about here." I wouldn't be so snarky about the edited parent.
- thinkcomp 16y ago
  I made the edit before you posted, though I guess the statement is still smug and empty in your view. All the evidence you need is in my profile or pretty easy to find on Google...whereas I don't even know who you are because your profile is blank.
  - sophacles 16y ago
    You made the edit while I was posting. The edited post is different, like I have mentioned. My reply was to the original. It's a classic concurrency problem. A = thinkcomp, B = me: A posts A starts editing (1) B starts replying (2) A finishes editing (and sees no reply) B finishes replying (and sees edit) B edits his post * (1) and (2) can be reversed for this point to be the same Based on this sequence, there it is reasonable for you to think I was replying to your edited post. It is not the case tho, please take my word for it. HN provides no way for me to know that you are editing as I write. As for profile etc, you are the one making the claim, it is your responsibility to present qualifying references if you want me to think your statements are valid, not my job to chase down the source of every 2 sentence comment on HN.
jasonlbaptiste 16y ago
I understand where you're coming from since it's strikes a very personal chord with you+facebook (it might only do that for a few other people in the world.) The facebook examples in the post are meant to be small examples within the context there. There's certainly more than meets the eye and I certainly don't have any idea about the details/final arrangements between you and Mark. You could replace the facebook example with other similar examples in business. If you want to refute the arguments with your own personal first hand experiences in the Facebook situation that would be useful.
- thinkcomp 16y ago
  Jason, Here's why I have an issue with your post. Intellectual property theft has a number of effects that directly follow, all of which are serious. You lose: - Credibility and trust. There's always that hint of distrust when people meet you because they have heard that you have made a claim on person X who "stole" Y from you. They may not know anything about the details, but (they worry) maybe you'll make that same claim again...on them! Worse, if they don't know anything about it but only find out later through rumors, you will probably never hear anything from that person again. Whether or not you are right and whether or not you have evidence, you will always be referred to in the media as the person "who claims that he" _____, not the person "who" _____. - Credit. If something really was taken from you that you created, chances are you aren't going to be recognized for it. - Money. If you decide to stand up for yourself it costs a lot of money, typically in the six figures, but certainly no less than five. For the Winklevosses in the movie of course it cost low eight figures (though I'm not making a statement about their claims). - Health. Anyone who has fought any major legal proceeding knows that it's pretty much guaranteed to have an effect on your health. - Legal rights. If the person who took the intellectual property later uses a catalyst (like venture capital) to get ahead, you can be left not only minus your work, but also minus legal protections associated with it that are now attributed to the person who took it. - Social relationships. There are three separate ways social relationships are impaired. If a large number of people become associated with the person who took the intellectual property (likely once again with venture capital), then you will automatically be isolated from those people no matter how decent they themselves may be. Dating is harder (see credibility and trust). Hiring, getting hired, or finding co-founders is harder, too (also see credibility and trust). - Rebound potential. The only way to negate all of the above, which apply whether you are right or wrong, and whether the facts are available or not, is to become richer than the other person. Otherwise you are basically stuck. As for the points in your article: - Long term vision. Irrelevant, it can be supplanted with a different one, for better or for worse. - Analytical insights. Irrelevant. - Domain expertise. No, they can't steal it, but it can usually be replicated to some degree. - Talent. No, they can't steal it, but it can definitely be replicated through other hires. - Passion for great service? Sorry, but give me a break. What American consumer expects great service these days and will immediately turn away from a company due to a lack of it? Irrelevant. - Luck. As I've described above, luck is a lot harder to come by in this position. Anyway, that's my two cents. Sorry, but I just couldn't let this one go. Aaron
minalecs 16y ago
if you're going to call him out.. would be nice for more explanation of your situation.
- webwright 16y ago
  I put it in a different comment, but here's the guy's story: http://nyti.ms/cC0HwJ http://nyti.ms/cC0HwJ He was competing with Facebook in the early days (and had a service that predated it at Harvard by 4 months).
webwright 16y ago
I think your experience ILLUSTRATES Jason's points. (note to others: thinkcomp lays claim to the idea of Facebook: http://nyti.ms/cC0HwJ http://nyti.ms/cC0HwJ ) Jason's point boils down to "effort, passion, ambition, execution". While he didn't overtly say it, the point is that ideas are fairly cheap and certainly easy to steal. IANAL, but I don't think there's much/any INVENTION in Facebook-- And clearly the ideas there are stolen pretty liberally by dozens of companies every day. Hell, Twitter swiped the status update, right? In a world where many ideas can't (and shouldn't) really be protected (social web software), what determines who wins? Execution, market sense, effort, guts, timing, and vision. Near as I can tell, you lost on all of those fronts. Nothin' bad about that (other than your ongoing focus on it).
jonpaul 16y ago
I think Jason knows exactly what he's talking about. After reading this: http://www.aarongreenspan.com/letter/index.html http://www.aarongreenspan.com/letter/index.html and this: http://venturebeat.com/2007/09/02/who-founded-facebook-aaron-greenspan/ http://venturebeat.com/2007/09/02/who-founded-facebook-aaron... The quote seems very fitting towards you. I understand that this may come off harshly, but I believe it: it's a good thing Mark didn't take the advice you gave in your open letter.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

sophacles 16y ago

Unfortunately you are quite wrong. Fortunately by the rules you apparently play by, I need not provide any evidence or explanation to such a declaration, just the smug empty statement itself. Edit: the original parent said (from memory, maybe not 100% accurate): "Sorry Jason, you don't know what you are talking about here." I wouldn't be so snarky about the edited parent.

thinkcomp 16y ago
I made the edit before you posted, though I guess the statement is still smug and empty in your view. All the evidence you need is in my profile or pretty easy to find on Google...whereas I don't even know who you are because your profile is blank.
- sophacles 16y ago
  You made the edit while I was posting. The edited post is different, like I have mentioned. My reply was to the original. It's a classic concurrency problem. A = thinkcomp, B = me: A posts A starts editing (1) B starts replying (2) A finishes editing (and sees no reply) B finishes replying (and sees edit) B edits his post * (1) and (2) can be reversed for this point to be the same Based on this sequence, there it is reasonable for you to think I was replying to your edited post. It is not the case tho, please take my word for it. HN provides no way for me to know that you are editing as I write. As for profile etc, you are the one making the claim, it is your responsibility to present qualifying references if you want me to think your statements are valid, not my job to chase down the source of every 2 sentence comment on HN.

jasonlbaptiste 16y ago

I understand where you're coming from since it's strikes a very personal chord with you+facebook (it might only do that for a few other people in the world.) The facebook examples in the post are meant to be small examples within the context there. There's certainly more than meets the eye and I certainly don't have any idea about the details/final arrangements between you and Mark. You could replace the facebook example with other similar examples in business. If you want to refute the arguments with your own personal first hand experiences in the Facebook situation that would be useful.

thinkcomp 16y ago
Jason, Here's why I have an issue with your post. Intellectual property theft has a number of effects that directly follow, all of which are serious. You lose: - Credibility and trust. There's always that hint of distrust when people meet you because they have heard that you have made a claim on person X who "stole" Y from you. They may not know anything about the details, but (they worry) maybe you'll make that same claim again...on them! Worse, if they don't know anything about it but only find out later through rumors, you will probably never hear anything from that person again. Whether or not you are right and whether or not you have evidence, you will always be referred to in the media as the person "who claims that he" _____, not the person "who" _____. - Credit. If something really was taken from you that you created, chances are you aren't going to be recognized for it. - Money. If you decide to stand up for yourself it costs a lot of money, typically in the six figures, but certainly no less than five. For the Winklevosses in the movie of course it cost low eight figures (though I'm not making a statement about their claims). - Health. Anyone who has fought any major legal proceeding knows that it's pretty much guaranteed to have an effect on your health. - Legal rights. If the person who took the intellectual property later uses a catalyst (like venture capital) to get ahead, you can be left not only minus your work, but also minus legal protections associated with it that are now attributed to the person who took it. - Social relationships. There are three separate ways social relationships are impaired. If a large number of people become associated with the person who took the intellectual property (likely once again with venture capital), then you will automatically be isolated from those people no matter how decent they themselves may be. Dating is harder (see credibility and trust). Hiring, getting hired, or finding co-founders is harder, too (also see credibility and trust). - Rebound potential. The only way to negate all of the above, which apply whether you are right or wrong, and whether the facts are available or not, is to become richer than the other person. Otherwise you are basically stuck. As for the points in your article: - Long term vision. Irrelevant, it can be supplanted with a different one, for better or for worse. - Analytical insights. Irrelevant. - Domain expertise. No, they can't steal it, but it can usually be replicated to some degree. - Talent. No, they can't steal it, but it can definitely be replicated through other hires. - Passion for great service? Sorry, but give me a break. What American consumer expects great service these days and will immediately turn away from a company due to a lack of it? Irrelevant. - Luck. As I've described above, luck is a lot harder to come by in this position. Anyway, that's my two cents. Sorry, but I just couldn't let this one go. Aaron

minalecs 16y ago

if you're going to call him out.. would be nice for more explanation of your situation.

webwright 16y ago
I put it in a different comment, but here's the guy's story: http://nyti.ms/cC0HwJ http://nyti.ms/cC0HwJ He was competing with Facebook in the early days (and had a service that predated it at Harvard by 4 months).

webwright 16y ago

I think your experience ILLUSTRATES Jason's points. (note to others: thinkcomp lays claim to the idea of Facebook: http://nyti.ms/cC0HwJ http://nyti.ms/cC0HwJ ) Jason's point boils down to "effort, passion, ambition, execution". While he didn't overtly say it, the point is that ideas are fairly cheap and certainly easy to steal. IANAL, but I don't think there's much/any INVENTION in Facebook-- And clearly the ideas there are stolen pretty liberally by dozens of companies every day. Hell, Twitter swiped the status update, right? In a world where many ideas can't (and shouldn't) really be protected (social web software), what determines who wins? Execution, market sense, effort, guts, timing, and vision. Near as I can tell, you lost on all of those fronts. Nothin' bad about that (other than your ongoing focus on it).

jonpaul 16y ago

I think Jason knows exactly what he's talking about. After reading this: http://www.aarongreenspan.com/letter/index.html http://www.aarongreenspan.com/letter/index.html and this: http://venturebeat.com/2007/09/02/who-founded-facebook-aaron-greenspan/ http://venturebeat.com/2007/09/02/who-founded-facebook-aaron... The quote seems very fitting towards you. I understand that this may come off harshly, but I believe it: it's a good thing Mark didn't take the advice you gave in your open letter.