> This seems a pretty thin argument. Hiring some people who already successfully did it has a higher chance of success than hiring randos You're basically agre

> This seems a pretty thin argument. Hiring some people who already successfully did it has a higher chance of success than hiring randos You're basically agreeing to the GP's "thin" argument by saying you need people who already successfully did it to have a higher chance of succeeding. > even if they have to do a clean-room re-implementation You can't do a clean-room re-implementation if you're hiring people who already worked of the original implementation. Plus clean-room design only circumvents copyright claims. They don't defend against patents.