3 ms·

> There are a lot of laws, related to all of that. Which are you referring to? Explicitly. As in, cite the USCC or similar statutes. You have failed to do thi

> There are a lot of laws, related to all of that. Which are you referring to? Explicitly. As in, cite the USCC or similar statutes. You have failed to do this when explicitly asked twice now. If you don't know, then don't pretend there's some IP boogeyman and then handwave it away when people ask for sources. You're the one claiming they're running afoul of "IP laws" so I'm sure you should also be able to say exactly which laws he's running afoul of, right? It is in fact not clear which IP laws you're referring to, especially when the ones meant to protect this very thing are not being used by replit.

stale2002 5y ago
> As in, cite the USCC or similar statutes. There are thousands and thousands of pages and case law covering all sorts of these types of laws. I am referencing this stuff in general. When talking about IP or employment law, or any of this stuff, in general, basically nobody is going to be able to quote an exact line number, because of just how many pages in all sorts of laws, that this stuff covers. Once again, I am talking about all of this stuff in general. Surely you should be able to see how there is some risk involved in this kind of stuff.
- mynameisvlad 5y ago
  So you don't know which exact laws they're breaking. Thanks for confirming that at least.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    My statement was that there was a risk of them running afoul of a bunch of these laws. Not sure why you are trying so hard to straw man me on these statements. Quite clearly there is a significant risk in running afoul of something, if you work at a company, leave, and build a project that does the same thing, and also looks very similar to it. That was my original statement. And it seems pretty clear that there would be some risk in this. Not sure why you have to be an asshole about a pretty obvious statement here. But since you aren't actually addressing this statement directly, and have to go off on some tangent, that I never brought up, I can only assume you agree with my original statement.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      The statment is only obvious to you. When you were asked why you think it is obvious, you just sort of wave your hands without any specifics and say "it's obvious" without providing any basis for what laws this person is "obviously" at risk of running afoul of. This doesn't add anything to the discussion. You don't have to quote specific lines regulations, but you do need to do something to back your assertions besides just repeating "it's obvious" over and over.
      - stale2002 5y ago
        > When you were asked why you think it is obvious Do you really not see how there would be at least some risk, in cloning a former employer's company, with a similar product, that looks the same as it? You don't see at all, how that could potentially, could at least have some risk, of running afoul of IP laws, or copyright, or any number of things? Do you admit that there is any risk at all of this?

stale2002 5y ago

> As in, cite the USCC or similar statutes. There are thousands and thousands of pages and case law covering all sorts of these types of laws. I am referencing this stuff in general. When talking about IP or employment law, or any of this stuff, in general, basically nobody is going to be able to quote an exact line number, because of just how many pages in all sorts of laws, that this stuff covers. Once again, I am talking about all of this stuff in general. Surely you should be able to see how there is some risk involved in this kind of stuff.

mynameisvlad 5y ago
So you don't know which exact laws they're breaking. Thanks for confirming that at least.
- stale2002 5y ago
  My statement was that there was a risk of them running afoul of a bunch of these laws. Not sure why you are trying so hard to straw man me on these statements. Quite clearly there is a significant risk in running afoul of something, if you work at a company, leave, and build a project that does the same thing, and also looks very similar to it. That was my original statement. And it seems pretty clear that there would be some risk in this. Not sure why you have to be an asshole about a pretty obvious statement here. But since you aren't actually addressing this statement directly, and have to go off on some tangent, that I never brought up, I can only assume you agree with my original statement.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    The statment is only obvious to you. When you were asked why you think it is obvious, you just sort of wave your hands without any specifics and say "it's obvious" without providing any basis for what laws this person is "obviously" at risk of running afoul of. This doesn't add anything to the discussion. You don't have to quote specific lines regulations, but you do need to do something to back your assertions besides just repeating "it's obvious" over and over.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > When you were asked why you think it is obvious Do you really not see how there would be at least some risk, in cloning a former employer's company, with a similar product, that looks the same as it? You don't see at all, how that could potentially, could at least have some risk, of running afoul of IP laws, or copyright, or any number of things? Do you admit that there is any risk at all of this?