3 ms·
This is a lot of drama about irrelevant stuff. The core questions are IP rights and non-compete. What agreement did the employee enter into concerning these, a
by paulddraper 2y ago
This is a lot of drama about irrelevant stuff.
The core questions are IP rights and non-compete. What agreement did the employee enter into concerning these, and to what extent is this project relevant. Excerpts and matters of fact.
The rest is childish noise.
- LeonB 2y agoReplit didn’t make any specific claims about IP rights or non-compete (and if they did, the onus would be on them). When their behaviour was made public they immediately backed down and didn’t proceed with any legal fight.
- littlestymaar 2y agoI'm not sure you can have non-compete close on an internship contract anyway (in my country you cannot for sure).
- paulddraper 2y agoIDK if that is true or not. It could be. If that is true, that author should have just ignored it.
- paulddraper 2y agoI'm not saying the noise is restricted to just one party.
- ossm1db 2y ago[flagged]
- dangysaurusx 2y ago[flagged]
- LeonB 2y agoWho is “psychosaurusx”?
- mkl 2y agoI think they're referring to sillysaurusx. I won't link to the thread, but I don't know what they mean by "only thing of value".
- LeonB 2y agoThanks for the explanation. I kind of get it now. They made a sock puppet account, in order to make an accusation at someone - and deliberately obscured the name of the person they were insulting. That’s a kind of “dog-whistle” technique. Either they are genuinely scared of speaking out against this sillysaurusx person, or they know it’s an unfair accusation and they wouldn’t say it openly. It just struck me as a really out of place comment, a very odd way to act. And embedding dang’s username in their sock puppet account name? I get bad vibes from this one.