3 ms·
It seems normal to me that if someone implements the same thing twice in a row they're gonna do it faster the second time. Though I don't know the specifics of
by GabrielTFS 3y ago
It seems normal to me that if someone implements the same thing twice in a row they're gonna do it faster the second time. Though I don't know the specifics of your case (maybe they did copy-paste the original, who knows), it seems perfectly plausible that they did so without copying any code.
To say that this always involves illegal copying of code in some way would imply that an employee is effectively forbidden from ever writing similar code in two different companies - are you supposed to be forbidden from re-using the experience you gained working for a company ?
- srvmshr 3y ago> are you supposed to be forbidden from re-using the experience you gained working for a company ? No but adding implementations to competiting company's product based on the innovations seen in the first falls squarely under IP misuse (At the least, bypassing patent licensing etc.) Software domain would see acrimonious litigations cases based on mundane things like the rubber band scrolling (Apple vs. Samsung). Adding readout specific databus improves acquisition speeds by order of 2 or 3x - and that is not a trivial change which can be disregarded. Most times they've been misused since they were minor trade secrets not patents. There was no way to attempt litigation in this one without opening up certain parts of software ecosystem to legal scrutiny/comparison (which probably exposes more IP).