6 ms·

Could you explain roughly what was the biggest tell that he copied Replit's architecture patterns? No need to go into details, but perhaps this would make your

Could you explain roughly what was the biggest tell that he copied Replit's architecture patterns? No need to go into details, but perhaps this would make your side of the story more clear. So far we only have seen Radon's post and emails screenshots. He seems to be very adamant about not copying any of Replit's IP. But clearly every story has two sides and I think it's very important to hear yours. Hopefully it will come in the form of a blog post or similar. Genuinely curious and not taking sides with anyone here. I just believe that the OSS community can learn from this.

truetraveller 5y ago
Copied or not, if he signed a non-compete, he is violating the agreement. His project absolutely competes with Replit. Do you agree with this?
- thebradbain 5y ago
  Noncompetes are illegal and unenforceable in California, where Repl.it is incorporated. So if he signed a noncompete, it would actually be Repl.it that is in the wrong here, not him.
  - gip 5y ago
    I am not sure they are 'illegal' - do you have a source for this? That being said, most non-competes are not enfoceable in Californina that's true. And that is a very good thing imo and a net positive for innovation.
    - jcrites 5y ago
      According to the California Business and Professions Code Section 16600, “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=16600 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... This does not make contracts containing such clauses "illegal", but rather unenforceable in court. The student could sign a contract saying "I will not work on a company that competes with Repl.it", and he did, and the company tried to sue him over it with that as the only claim, then the court would quickly grant a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
  - sithlord 5y ago
    for reference: https://www.rhdtlaw.com/non-compete-california https://www.rhdtlaw.com/non-compete-california
- phonon 5y ago
  See my response; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27429135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27429135
- Aeolun 5y ago
  After years have passed, on a noncommercial project?
- stevenhuang 5y ago
  You should know by now that non-competes mean diddly squat.
- xenihn 5y ago
  Why do you keep posting about non-competes when they are not a factor in California, which is where this occurred?
  - truetraveller 5y ago
    I didn't actually know that. I stand corrected about that. But it's still arguably "morally wrong". Especially if Replit's unique design decisions and/or secrets are incorporated into this, as is claimed.
    - xenihn 5y ago
      > But it's still arguably "morally wrong". According to who? You? Hundreds of people in this thread disagree with you. As does the law.
      - moosebear847 5y ago
        As a thought experiment, if you ran a business, and all your ex-employees released a free version of the same product, would you be cool with this? Could you hang out with them, smile and say everything is totally cool? Or would you want to ask them to not release free versions of your paid product?
        xenihn 5y ago
        >As a thought experiment, if you ran a business, and all your ex-employees released a free version of the same product, would you be cool with this? Could you hang out with them, smile and say everything is totally cool? I've actually seen this exact situation play out twice (except the new products were not free), though I wasn't directly involved. Both times, it only happened because the business owner was, to put it bluntly, a bad person who had no business (heh) running a company, and the result was a mass exodus that birthed a direct competitor. To answer your thought experiment: I am looking at this as an employee, as a controlled person. You are looking at it as a founder, owner, or some other type of position that holds power. A controller. Those with power would view it as immoral. An action like this threatens their power. Those who have enough power to exert a controlling influence, want, above all else, to maintain that power, while also increasing it. Anything that impedes that is unfair, and thus immoral. Those without power, or with less power, do not see it as immoral, because it is a redistribution of power to those who deserve it just as much, if not more. It is fair. It is just. It is moral. You see this as immoral because your sympathies lie with those who have power. Might makes right. The states that enforce non-competes have the same view as you, but California does not, and that is one of the many reasons that it remains the global center of technological innovation.
- gip 5y ago
  Strong competition has been a net positive for the tech ecosystem in my opinion and what has made SV what it is today. Replit leadership and team should focus on winning by building faster and better, not by artificially blocking innovation.

truetraveller 5y ago

Copied or not, if he signed a non-compete, he is violating the agreement. His project absolutely competes with Replit. Do you agree with this?

thebradbain 5y ago
Noncompetes are illegal and unenforceable in California, where Repl.it is incorporated. So if he signed a noncompete, it would actually be Repl.it that is in the wrong here, not him.
- gip 5y ago
  I am not sure they are 'illegal' - do you have a source for this? That being said, most non-competes are not enfoceable in Californina that's true. And that is a very good thing imo and a net positive for innovation.
  - jcrites 5y ago
    According to the California Business and Professions Code Section 16600, “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=16600 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... This does not make contracts containing such clauses "illegal", but rather unenforceable in court. The student could sign a contract saying "I will not work on a company that competes with Repl.it", and he did, and the company tried to sue him over it with that as the only claim, then the court would quickly grant a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
- sithlord 5y ago
  for reference: https://www.rhdtlaw.com/non-compete-california https://www.rhdtlaw.com/non-compete-california
phonon 5y ago
See my response; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27429135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27429135
Aeolun 5y ago
After years have passed, on a noncommercial project?
stevenhuang 5y ago
You should know by now that non-competes mean diddly squat.
xenihn 5y ago
Why do you keep posting about non-competes when they are not a factor in California, which is where this occurred?
- truetraveller 5y ago
  I didn't actually know that. I stand corrected about that. But it's still arguably "morally wrong". Especially if Replit's unique design decisions and/or secrets are incorporated into this, as is claimed.
  - xenihn 5y ago
    > But it's still arguably "morally wrong". According to who? You? Hundreds of people in this thread disagree with you. As does the law.
    - moosebear847 5y ago
      As a thought experiment, if you ran a business, and all your ex-employees released a free version of the same product, would you be cool with this? Could you hang out with them, smile and say everything is totally cool? Or would you want to ask them to not release free versions of your paid product?
      - xenihn 5y ago
        >As a thought experiment, if you ran a business, and all your ex-employees released a free version of the same product, would you be cool with this? Could you hang out with them, smile and say everything is totally cool? I've actually seen this exact situation play out twice (except the new products were not free), though I wasn't directly involved. Both times, it only happened because the business owner was, to put it bluntly, a bad person who had no business (heh) running a company, and the result was a mass exodus that birthed a direct competitor. To answer your thought experiment: I am looking at this as an employee, as a controlled person. You are looking at it as a founder, owner, or some other type of position that holds power. A controller. Those with power would view it as immoral. An action like this threatens their power. Those who have enough power to exert a controlling influence, want, above all else, to maintain that power, while also increasing it. Anything that impedes that is unfair, and thus immoral. Those without power, or with less power, do not see it as immoral, because it is a redistribution of power to those who deserve it just as much, if not more. It is fair. It is just. It is moral. You see this as immoral because your sympathies lie with those who have power. Might makes right. The states that enforce non-competes have the same view as you, but California does not, and that is one of the many reasons that it remains the global center of technological innovation.
gip 5y ago
Strong competition has been a net positive for the tech ecosystem in my opinion and what has made SV what it is today. Replit leadership and team should focus on winning by building faster and better, not by artificially blocking innovation.