4 ms·

Alternately he had an idea simultaneously with others having the same idea [1]. An obvious idea. It's entirely possible that his pitch and purported meetings ha

Alternately he had an idea simultaneously with others having the same idea [1]. An obvious idea. It's entirely possible that his pitch and purported meetings had nothing to do with the eventual app. It's why many firms and creative groups have a strict "don't tell us your `ideas'" policy. In this case his idea was "role-based" communication. He came up with this (2016) as Slack and other role-based solutions were storming across the market. [1] - a common problem coupled with advancements in the field/technology often yield many people "inventing" the same thing simultaneously, because it's an obvious next step. It's why we're so negative of the countless useless "on a computer" patents, "on a network", etc.

fouric 5y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27845534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27845534 responds to this quite eloquently: > It's not about whether more than one person could come up withe idea, it's that he pitched it to his own employer, met multiple times with execs to discuss acquisition, only for them to suddenly cut him off and directly copy what he proposed with no remuneration. > That is not the same as two disparate people who have never communicated coming up with the same idea for something.
- defaultname 5y ago
  That doesn't disprove that "two disparate people who have never communicated coming up with the same idea for something". It's entirely possible, if not probable, that there was independent efforts to build out "role-based" communications. Some employee comes along and says "Look, I've already developed an app do you want to buy it?". They talk with him and decide that what he has built isn't worthwhile and move on. Suddenly he thinks he has intellectual ownership over the entire premise (hence the hilarious $1B claim). It doesn't work like that. Indeed, stories like this are why many firms simply don't want to listen to any pitches, because people often have a pretty outsized notion about their "inventions". Again, maybe they really did rip off his idea. Maybe in 2016 they really had no idea of broadening their communications approaches (or I guess narrowing in this case). His lawyers can demand the pertinent records and that's what a court case is for. But just seeing this reminds me why I'm very clear in a lot of situations that I don't want people's ideas/inventions, because in almost every case they've been considered but now the person thinks they invented it and have ownership over it.
- kayfox 5y ago
  Its also possible that after pitching it to them, Delta explored the competitive solutions for the same issue and bid it out to some other vendor, perhaps their dispatch software vendor or one who could integrate with that software.

fouric 5y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27845534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27845534 responds to this quite eloquently: > It's not about whether more than one person could come up withe idea, it's that he pitched it to his own employer, met multiple times with execs to discuss acquisition, only for them to suddenly cut him off and directly copy what he proposed with no remuneration. > That is not the same as two disparate people who have never communicated coming up with the same idea for something.

defaultname 5y ago
That doesn't disprove that "two disparate people who have never communicated coming up with the same idea for something". It's entirely possible, if not probable, that there was independent efforts to build out "role-based" communications. Some employee comes along and says "Look, I've already developed an app do you want to buy it?". They talk with him and decide that what he has built isn't worthwhile and move on. Suddenly he thinks he has intellectual ownership over the entire premise (hence the hilarious $1B claim). It doesn't work like that. Indeed, stories like this are why many firms simply don't want to listen to any pitches, because people often have a pretty outsized notion about their "inventions". Again, maybe they really did rip off his idea. Maybe in 2016 they really had no idea of broadening their communications approaches (or I guess narrowing in this case). His lawyers can demand the pertinent records and that's what a court case is for. But just seeing this reminds me why I'm very clear in a lot of situations that I don't want people's ideas/inventions, because in almost every case they've been considered but now the person thinks they invented it and have ownership over it.
kayfox 5y ago
Its also possible that after pitching it to them, Delta explored the competitive solutions for the same issue and bid it out to some other vendor, perhaps their dispatch software vendor or one who could integrate with that software.