4 ms·

Hard to feel bad for Apple here, since they do the same thing https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/apple-lawsuit-says-stealth-startup-rivos-poached-enginee

• renewiltord 3y ago
  > Apple's Friday lawsuit said Mountain View, California-based Rivos has hired over 40 of its former employees in the past year to work on competing "system-on-chip" (SoC) technology, and that at least two former Apple engineers took gigabytes of confidential information with them to Rivos. Well you can't go around taking your employer's data with you.
  • bdcravens 3y ago
    That also includes the employer's data you keep in your head.
    • jrockway 3y ago
      I was recently reading the New York Court of Appeals ruling on People v Aleynikov, which involves someone copying Goldman Sachs's software and taking it to a new startup. New York has a criminal offense called "Unlawful use of secret scientific material" that covered this case. Aleynikov argued that it only covers tangible representations of scientific material (which the court ruled covers computer source code), and that computer files are not tangible. The court disagreed, but did say: Defendant contends that if "tangible" means "having physical form," then the statutory term "tangible reproduction" would involve a redundancy because all computer data is stored in some physical medium. We disagree. Someone with a photographic memory who memorized a piece of source code would not be making a tangible reproduction of the code (see generally Bottone, 365 F2d at 393 [referring to a hypothetical "case where a carefully guarded secret formula was memorized, carried away in the recesses of a thievish mind and placed in writing only after a boundary had been crossed"]). It is true that copying secret scientific material solely by memorizing it would not fall under the statute for a separate reason, i.e., that{*31 NY3d at 400} it would not be "writing, photographing, drawing, mechanically or electronically reproducing or recording such secret scientific material" (Penal Law § 165.07). Nevertheless, the word "tangible," as we interpret it, does not introduce redundancy; it adds a modest element to "reproduction," serving to emphasize that the crime consists in making a physical, not a mental, copy of secret scientific material. (From: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03174.htm https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03174.h...) So anyway, you're not violating New York State law if you remember how your system works and you take it to your next employer. Contracts you sign and patent law still exist, however.
      • deepsun 3y ago
        Please note that competition laws are very different between California and New York. Maybe that's why finance thrives in NY, while tech chooses CA.
      • pests 3y ago
        I agree with the court, but I do wonder where the line is drawn? Aren't all memories tangible (in a brain sense) in a sense and sharing ideas is tangible reproduction? Becuase the other person re-recreated them in their own brain. The brain being the "mechanical, electrical" device doing the recording. I know its outlandish, just food for thought.
    • throwaway5959 3y ago
      That’s somewhat scary to me. What do you mean by data? If I figure out how to build say a really efficient vector database at company A and then company B hires me and I figure a really efficient vector database would be useful there, can I not implement a new one for company B?
      • anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        IANAL. If all they hired you to do is make a random database, and you do so in a really efficient manner, then you still own the right to use your skills to make a really efficient database for others. If they hire you to make a specific database, and you make it really efficient, then they probably own the rights to such a specific database, but you still retain the rights to make other kinds of databases in a really efficient manner. If they hire you to develop database to a certain degree of efficiency, then they might own the techniques you used to make it efficient, but this should be blatantly spelled out in your employment contract, and you should have been appropriately compensated for the inability to use this particular skillset in the future.
      • bdcravens 3y ago
        These conversations always boil down to someone coming up with a very generalized solution as a talking point, but that's not what anyone is referring to. We're talking about specific solutions, often tailored to a particular domain. It's not a perfect analogy, but I like to think of it in terms of patterns vs algorithms.
      • fsociety 3y ago
        Very much a speak to a lawyer moment. Designing an efficient vector database from scratch should be fine, but you likely will need to document this process for defense in court. And you may not use any resources from your previous job. But note infringing on a patent is different than being an expert.
    • threeseed 3y ago
      Be serious here. World of difference between bringing your experience to a new job versus pages of CPU schematics.
  • smoldesu 3y ago
    2/40 poached employees stealing data is almost margin-of-error levels. I wouldn't be surprised if Rivos genuinely had no idea they were using Apple IP.
    • robertlagrant 3y ago
      > 2/40 poached employees stealing data is almost margin-of-error levels This doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that can be measured with a margin of error.
    • tedunangst 3y ago
      Would you notice if somebody cut off one of your fingers or toes? 1/20 is probably just measurement error.
      • bdowling 3y ago
        The employees here have their own free will and are free agents, unlike fingers and toes. If an acquisition fell through, it shouldn't be surprising that employees who were dissatisfied with that outcome wouldn't jump ship.