5 ms·

> Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but a judge in the case noted last year that the firm has argued that Attia gave Google rights to

by alehul 9y ago

> Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but a judge in the case noted last year that the firm has argued that Attia gave Google rights to his technology “without a condition of later payment.” So Google's defense isn't even that the substance of the accusations are false, but that they had the legal ability to do so? Is this common behavior for Google, if the story is true? This may be naive, but it seems downright illogical to act like that with a reputation as huge and important as Google's. I'd be concerned if I were a collaborator.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
> Is this kind of behavior common for Google? That is, in fact, exactly what the case is trying to demonstrate by referring to several other lawsuits against Google for similar acts. Remains to be seen if it works.
rdtsc 9y ago
> Is this common behavior for Google, if the story is true? It depends on details of his contract. It's quite plausible his employment contract in "Project X" did say that he would transfer knowledge and ideas in exchange for money. It's pretty standard stuff. In other words, it might not be exactly a slam dunk case. A racketeering charge seems pretty outrageous as well. However if Google did these things (which looks like they did), it would make them look shady. Maybe legally in the clear but ethically like you said, it would seem they threw their reputation under the bus. Maybe once companies are a certain size they think they are untouchable and say stuff like "Yeah this is shady, but we've got lawyers and PR people to handle this, no biggie" And this is why maybe a charge like racketeering is nice move - it might not be winnable in court, but it is outrageous enough to damage Google's reputation. Had it been some mundane case over a minor legal term, we wouldn't have found out.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"It's quite plausible his employment contract in "Project X" did say that he would transfer knowledge and ideas in exchange for money." I'm curious about your comment that this is "pretty standard stuff." Do you mean in the context of Google X agreements? Do you transfer intellectual property to them as part of the employment contract? Are you paid a flat fee? Do they pay a "kill" fee if Google X ultimately decides not pursue your idea and terminates your employment agreement?
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    In general in employment contracts in technology it seems. Any software written or ideas related to the field of employment get transferred to the employer. In some cases (have read it on HN here) people have successfully modified their employment contract to exclude some of the clauses like that. > Are you paid a flat fee? Do they pay a "kill" fee if Google X ultimately decides not pursue your idea and terminates your employment agreement? No idea, maybe someone could share. I would imagine it is a customized contract tailed for each contributor / collaborator. The important bit is it is a contract, so unless it is illegal any "kill" clauses could have been put in there.
    - Normal_gaussian 9y ago
      I recently turned down a job offer citing an overly broad IP clause. I had a call within minutes offering me a choice of how else it could be worded. I still turned it down and decided to go freelance instead because the contracts I had read had raised all kinds of personal questions.
      - amcooper 9y ago
        I received a one-month contract—teaching, not developing—from a subsidiary of a large education company. I had to consult a lawyer and fight with them for a week over the contract's overly broad IP claims. They basically wanted ownership of teaching ideas I—or my partner (!)—came up with in perpetuity! I eventually got them to change it to my satisfaction, and had a great teaching experience with a cool group of students, but it really soured my relationship with the company and now i can't imagine working with them again.
        amcooper 9y ago
        "This is the first time anyone's had a problem with this," the subsidiary's h.r. rep told me. This approach impacts people who have had experience with contracts and lawyers, and thus aligns with age discrimination.
        9y ago
- paul7986 9y ago
  Based on my similar experience with Google ATAP I bet they do this a lot! I've detailed my experience below... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15422475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15422475
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    Oh wow. That was pretty brazen of them. They sized you up and decided "What's the chance they'll have resources to sue us? No much probably. So just take their idea and go with it".
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - alphonsegaston 9y ago
    I hope you reached out to the legal team pursuing this case.
phkahler 9y ago
>> So Google's defense isn't even that the substance of the accusations are false, but that they had the legal ability to do so? But they were under NDA not to disclose the ideas, and yet they started a company marketing a product based on those ideas. If this is a correct interpretation, they don't have the legal ability to do so. Of course the wording of the NDA is everything in a case like this. I'm assuming Google wrote the NDA when this guy should have provided one for Google to sign.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  How many of your NDAs have you gotten huge silicon valley companies to sign? If you're a little guy, that never happens.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - corford 9y ago
    I know we're all speculating here but what is there to lose? Option 1: Sign my NDA or fuck off. Option 2: Show them everything and then they tell you to fuck off and steal your idea. At least with Option 1 you have some protection. Different equation if you need money/investment. But if you're already up, running and growing it's easier to play hard ball and demand an NDA.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      I'm not speculating about my experiences working for a couple of startups in Silicon Valley... I signed a bunch of NDAs. I have no idea what happened to the author of this article.
IBM 9y ago
Before Uber became Public Enemy #1 and prior to the Otto/Levandowski dispute, Google was planning on competing with Uber despite being an investor, which led Kalanick to e-mail David Drummond about it [1]. Drummond eventually left Uber's board (which harkens back to Schmidt leaving Apple's board) but this was well after the relationship had been deteriorating. [1] http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/595ea97dd9fccd31008b4667-769/screen%20shot%202017-07-06%20at%2021908%20pm.png http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/595ea97dd9fccd31008...
- stingrae 9y ago
  Was that really surprising? The company that builds the first self driving cars will have an easy entrance into the ride service industry.
  - IBM 9y ago
    I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kyledrake 9y ago
> Is this common behavior for Google, if the story is true? Google/GV was shit listed by a bunch of startup founders in Portland many years ago because they "stole a company" they were partnering with there. The founder was somebody everybody liked and PDX tech didn't take it well (and yes, we all talk to each other). This does happen and you need to be very careful with these sorts of arrangements. They know they put stars in people's eyes and I've seen them take advantage of it.
Sylos 9y ago
No worries, they'll release a Parsey McParseface and then the world knows again that they're just a geeky tech startup having some fun. Google is an advertising company. They can easily sacrifice reputation where it brings them the most profit and fix it again with a bit of PR.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
paul7986 9y ago
<deleted>
- Bucephalus355 9y ago
  It’s a weird company. Consider this, their CEO Eric Schmidt, technically Alphabet’s), has a voracious prostitute-appetite. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2371719/Googles-Eric-Schmidts-open-marriage-string-exotic-lovers.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2371719/Googles-Eric...
  - rightos 9y ago
    Is that confirmed anywhere more reputable? Daily Mail doesn't exactly have a stellar track record if I recall correctly.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> So Google's defense isn't even that the substance of the accusations are false, but that they had the legal ability to do so? Without additional context of the judges statement (or, better, either the actual filings in the case), that's far from clear. It's not impossible or even uncommon for a defendant in a case to make an argument in the style of “I didn't take it, and, even if I had, I had permission to take it.” You can't infer the nonexistence of the first part of the claim from the existence of the second.
ZoFreX 9y ago
> with a reputation as huge and important as Google's Not trolling: What reputation? Among non-techies, their reputation is one of creepy and spying. Among techies, it's that company that keeps killing loved products. Among developers, it's one of terrible support and awful job interviews. Common to everyone is they are impossible to get hold of, a faceless and heartless machine that makes decisions you can't argue with. None of this matters because they have the best products on the market in a few key areas and everyone keeps using those regardless of their reputation. So what reputation do they have to lose? Their reputation is already bad, and it doesn't matter anyway, and they presumably know this as well as everyone else does.
- drfuchs 9y ago
  You're living in a bubble if you think Google has a bad reputation; in fact, they're the sixth-most admired company in the world: http://fortune.com/worlds-most-admired-companies/list http://fortune.com/worlds-most-admired-companies/list
  - philipov 9y ago
    Admired by whom? Fortune magazine editors? Those aren't one of the relevant categories.
    - drfuchs 9y ago
      Well, it wasn't the opinion of the editors, but of business leaders; as for the general public, Google still ranks very high: https://www.thebalance.com/retail-brands-with-the-best-reputation-2892335 https://www.thebalance.com/retail-brands-with-the-best-reput... and https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2017/02/28/the-worlds-most-reputable-companies-in-2017/#76f5a6a32fe3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2017/02/28/the-w...
      - philipov 9y ago
        2015 - #10 2014 - #14 2013 - #4 2012 - #2 2011 - #1 This looks like a collapsing reputation to me. Perhaps it hasn't fully collapsed yet, but you can see how big a hit it took recently.
lobotryas 9y ago
The plaintiff's lawyers say that Google has won five out of six similar lawsuits on procedural grounds so looks like pretty common. As for reputation, why would a behemoth like Google care if they squash a little guy (or two, or a dozen)? Even if they go on a PR offensive they still won't be able to outmatch or shout over Google. At most people like the HN audience will find out and then... proceed to do nothing because Google's products are either ubiquitous (like search) or first-in-class (because they are free, like email).
Animats 9y ago
Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but a judge in the case noted last year that the firm has argued that Attia gave Google rights to his technology “without a condition of later payment.” This is why, when you visit Google, you should never sign the overreaching NDA for a visitor's badge. You still get a visitor's badge; it just has a warning on it so Googlers know not to tell you too much.

by alehul 9y ago

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

> Is this kind of behavior common for Google? That is, in fact, exactly what the case is trying to demonstrate by referring to several other lawsuits against Google for similar acts. Remains to be seen if it works.

rdtsc 9y ago

> Is this common behavior for Google, if the story is true? It depends on details of his contract. It's quite plausible his employment contract in "Project X" did say that he would transfer knowledge and ideas in exchange for money. It's pretty standard stuff. In other words, it might not be exactly a slam dunk case. A racketeering charge seems pretty outrageous as well. However if Google did these things (which looks like they did), it would make them look shady. Maybe legally in the clear but ethically like you said, it would seem they threw their reputation under the bus. Maybe once companies are a certain size they think they are untouchable and say stuff like "Yeah this is shady, but we've got lawyers and PR people to handle this, no biggie" And this is why maybe a charge like racketeering is nice move - it might not be winnable in court, but it is outrageous enough to damage Google's reputation. Had it been some mundane case over a minor legal term, we wouldn't have found out.

bogomipz 9y ago
>"It's quite plausible his employment contract in "Project X" did say that he would transfer knowledge and ideas in exchange for money." I'm curious about your comment that this is "pretty standard stuff." Do you mean in the context of Google X agreements? Do you transfer intellectual property to them as part of the employment contract? Are you paid a flat fee? Do they pay a "kill" fee if Google X ultimately decides not pursue your idea and terminates your employment agreement?
- rdtsc 9y ago
  In general in employment contracts in technology it seems. Any software written or ideas related to the field of employment get transferred to the employer. In some cases (have read it on HN here) people have successfully modified their employment contract to exclude some of the clauses like that. > Are you paid a flat fee? Do they pay a "kill" fee if Google X ultimately decides not pursue your idea and terminates your employment agreement? No idea, maybe someone could share. I would imagine it is a customized contract tailed for each contributor / collaborator. The important bit is it is a contract, so unless it is illegal any "kill" clauses could have been put in there.
  - Normal_gaussian 9y ago
    I recently turned down a job offer citing an overly broad IP clause. I had a call within minutes offering me a choice of how else it could be worded. I still turned it down and decided to go freelance instead because the contracts I had read had raised all kinds of personal questions.
    - amcooper 9y ago
      I received a one-month contract—teaching, not developing—from a subsidiary of a large education company. I had to consult a lawyer and fight with them for a week over the contract's overly broad IP claims. They basically wanted ownership of teaching ideas I—or my partner (!)—came up with in perpetuity! I eventually got them to change it to my satisfaction, and had a great teaching experience with a cool group of students, but it really soured my relationship with the company and now i can't imagine working with them again.
      - amcooper 9y ago
        "This is the first time anyone's had a problem with this," the subsidiary's h.r. rep told me. This approach impacts people who have had experience with contracts and lawyers, and thus aligns with age discrimination.
      - 9y ago
paul7986 9y ago
Based on my similar experience with Google ATAP I bet they do this a lot! I've detailed my experience below... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15422475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15422475
- rdtsc 9y ago
  Oh wow. That was pretty brazen of them. They sized you up and decided "What's the chance they'll have resources to sue us? No much probably. So just take their idea and go with it".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- alphonsegaston 9y ago
  I hope you reached out to the legal team pursuing this case.

phkahler 9y ago

>> So Google's defense isn't even that the substance of the accusations are false, but that they had the legal ability to do so? But they were under NDA not to disclose the ideas, and yet they started a company marketing a product based on those ideas. If this is a correct interpretation, they don't have the legal ability to do so. Of course the wording of the NDA is everything in a case like this. I'm assuming Google wrote the NDA when this guy should have provided one for Google to sign.

greglindahl 9y ago
How many of your NDAs have you gotten huge silicon valley companies to sign? If you're a little guy, that never happens.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- corford 9y ago
  I know we're all speculating here but what is there to lose? Option 1: Sign my NDA or fuck off. Option 2: Show them everything and then they tell you to fuck off and steal your idea. At least with Option 1 you have some protection. Different equation if you need money/investment. But if you're already up, running and growing it's easier to play hard ball and demand an NDA.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    I'm not speculating about my experiences working for a couple of startups in Silicon Valley... I signed a bunch of NDAs. I have no idea what happened to the author of this article.

IBM 9y ago

Before Uber became Public Enemy #1 and prior to the Otto/Levandowski dispute, Google was planning on competing with Uber despite being an investor, which led Kalanick to e-mail David Drummond about it [1]. Drummond eventually left Uber's board (which harkens back to Schmidt leaving Apple's board) but this was well after the relationship had been deteriorating. [1] http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/595ea97dd9fccd31008b4667-769/screen%20shot%202017-07-06%20at%2021908%20pm.png http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/595ea97dd9fccd31008...

stingrae 9y ago
Was that really surprising? The company that builds the first self driving cars will have an easy entrance into the ride service industry.
- IBM 9y ago
  I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

kyledrake 9y ago

> Is this common behavior for Google, if the story is true? Google/GV was shit listed by a bunch of startup founders in Portland many years ago because they "stole a company" they were partnering with there. The founder was somebody everybody liked and PDX tech didn't take it well (and yes, we all talk to each other). This does happen and you need to be very careful with these sorts of arrangements. They know they put stars in people's eyes and I've seen them take advantage of it.

Sylos 9y ago

No worries, they'll release a Parsey McParseface and then the world knows again that they're just a geeky tech startup having some fun. Google is an advertising company. They can easily sacrifice reputation where it brings them the most profit and fix it again with a bit of PR.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

paul7986 9y ago

Bucephalus355 9y ago
It’s a weird company. Consider this, their CEO Eric Schmidt, technically Alphabet’s), has a voracious prostitute-appetite. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2371719/Googles-Eric-Schmidts-open-marriage-string-exotic-lovers.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2371719/Googles-Eric...
- rightos 9y ago
  Is that confirmed anywhere more reputable? Daily Mail doesn't exactly have a stellar track record if I recall correctly.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> So Google's defense isn't even that the substance of the accusations are false, but that they had the legal ability to do so? Without additional context of the judges statement (or, better, either the actual filings in the case), that's far from clear. It's not impossible or even uncommon for a defendant in a case to make an argument in the style of “I didn't take it, and, even if I had, I had permission to take it.” You can't infer the nonexistence of the first part of the claim from the existence of the second.

ZoFreX 9y ago

> with a reputation as huge and important as Google's Not trolling: What reputation? Among non-techies, their reputation is one of creepy and spying. Among techies, it's that company that keeps killing loved products. Among developers, it's one of terrible support and awful job interviews. Common to everyone is they are impossible to get hold of, a faceless and heartless machine that makes decisions you can't argue with. None of this matters because they have the best products on the market in a few key areas and everyone keeps using those regardless of their reputation. So what reputation do they have to lose? Their reputation is already bad, and it doesn't matter anyway, and they presumably know this as well as everyone else does.

drfuchs 9y ago
You're living in a bubble if you think Google has a bad reputation; in fact, they're the sixth-most admired company in the world: http://fortune.com/worlds-most-admired-companies/list http://fortune.com/worlds-most-admired-companies/list
- philipov 9y ago
  Admired by whom? Fortune magazine editors? Those aren't one of the relevant categories.
  - drfuchs 9y ago
    Well, it wasn't the opinion of the editors, but of business leaders; as for the general public, Google still ranks very high: https://www.thebalance.com/retail-brands-with-the-best-reputation-2892335 https://www.thebalance.com/retail-brands-with-the-best-reput... and https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2017/02/28/the-worlds-most-reputable-companies-in-2017/#76f5a6a32fe3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2017/02/28/the-w...
    - philipov 9y ago
      2015 - #10 2014 - #14 2013 - #4 2012 - #2 2011 - #1 This looks like a collapsing reputation to me. Perhaps it hasn't fully collapsed yet, but you can see how big a hit it took recently.

lobotryas 9y ago

The plaintiff's lawyers say that Google has won five out of six similar lawsuits on procedural grounds so looks like pretty common. As for reputation, why would a behemoth like Google care if they squash a little guy (or two, or a dozen)? Even if they go on a PR offensive they still won't be able to outmatch or shout over Google. At most people like the HN audience will find out and then... proceed to do nothing because Google's products are either ubiquitous (like search) or first-in-class (because they are free, like email).

Animats 9y ago

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but a judge in the case noted last year that the firm has argued that Attia gave Google rights to his technology “without a condition of later payment.” This is why, when you visit Google, you should never sign the overreaching NDA for a visitor's badge. You still get a visitor's badge; it just has a warning on it so Googlers know not to tell you too much.