3 ms·

Maybe he wants to stand up to Replit/Amjad, and he realizes that if he doesn't make a scene and garner public support then he has no chance. That wouldn't mean

Maybe he wants to stand up to Replit/Amjad, and he realizes that if he doesn't make a scene and garner public support then he has no chance. That wouldn't mean that he's just in it for the publicity. How else do you protect yourself against an entity with much more power and money than you?

rurabe 5y ago
overbroad patent trolls: yeah i agree this case: build literally anything else except for the thing that he paid you to learn how it works.
- parafactual 5y ago
  Why should he have to do that?
  - rurabe 5y ago
    i mean you're right, he doesn't have to. but i'm pointing out that he's not being personally persecuted for no reason. doing literally anything else than open sourcing his employer's tech stack makes the whole concern about needing protection pretty unnecessary. ianal but absent some nda seems like it's probably legal for him to do it. it just seems like kind of a dick move. i could mentor new engineers, wait until someone told me about a really cool idea, then steal it from them and build it myself. there's no law against it, it's just is kind of a dick move and seems kind of wrong. as noted above, ceo is acting like a dick as well. but i think the way this dude is trying to play the victim through clickbaiting HN is a bit much. just my opinion.
    - parafactual 5y ago
      I guess I see what you mean. I am more concerned with creating an equivalence when I see Replit's response as being much worse.
- valenterry 5y ago
  Why? If the contract didn't specify that he can't do it (or if it did but cannot be enforced in court) then he is free to do what he wants. A company already has advantages: they have money, they have a time to market advantage and they have more manpower / combined experience. If that is not sufficient, then maybe the company simply needs to improve or needs to accept that it cannot succeed.

rurabe 5y ago

overbroad patent trolls: yeah i agree this case: build literally anything else except for the thing that he paid you to learn how it works.

parafactual 5y ago
Why should he have to do that?
- rurabe 5y ago
  i mean you're right, he doesn't have to. but i'm pointing out that he's not being personally persecuted for no reason. doing literally anything else than open sourcing his employer's tech stack makes the whole concern about needing protection pretty unnecessary. ianal but absent some nda seems like it's probably legal for him to do it. it just seems like kind of a dick move. i could mentor new engineers, wait until someone told me about a really cool idea, then steal it from them and build it myself. there's no law against it, it's just is kind of a dick move and seems kind of wrong. as noted above, ceo is acting like a dick as well. but i think the way this dude is trying to play the victim through clickbaiting HN is a bit much. just my opinion.
  - parafactual 5y ago
    I guess I see what you mean. I am more concerned with creating an equivalence when I see Replit's response as being much worse.
valenterry 5y ago
Why? If the contract didn't specify that he can't do it (or if it did but cannot be enforced in court) then he is free to do what he wants. A company already has advantages: they have money, they have a time to market advantage and they have more manpower / combined experience. If that is not sufficient, then maybe the company simply needs to improve or needs to accept that it cannot succeed.