4 ms·

That's a fair assessment, on the other hand, down this road is corporate dystopias and more powerful multinationals. When corporations have no recourse about t

That's a fair assessment, on the other hand, down this road is corporate dystopias and more powerful multinationals. When corporations have no recourse about their knowledge workers leaving and working for a competitor and giving up their IP/Trade Secrets, well companies are going to start to take more drastic measures. It's like the cold war, with scientists defecting back and forth, at some point these companies are going to start have spy/counterintel services if they can't rely on governments to deal with it.

bsder 12y ago
> When corporations have no recourse about their knowledge workers leaving and working for a competitor and giving up their IP/Trade Secrets Companies do have recourse. It's called treating your employees well enough that they don't leave. If your company isn't smart enough to know who is important and how to keep them happy, then your company is going to have problems. Technical staff, especially, tend not to jump for small amounts of money or minor problems. As for technical workers, you simply can't prevent knowledge from leaving when they walk out the door. Especially for things like semiconductor manufacturing research, the knowledge of what was tried and didn't work is often more valuable than the knowledge as to what did work. How in the world would you stop that? Finally, he left in 2011. You're going to have a pretty difficult time convincing me that Samsung's current 14nm node is solely base upon TSMC manufacturing that was only at 28nm at the time. Overall, it sounds like TSMC had an internal political battle over what direction the semiconductor process research should go. Liang lost the battle and left. It seems that Liang was correct from an engineering standpoint, and the folks who stayed behind at TSMC were wrong. Sucks to be TSMC.
- gress 12y ago
  You say 'treating their employees well enough that they don't leave' but that ignores the fact that a small number of employees will be able to blackmail the company for millions with the IP they have access to, while regular employees pay the price.
  - wombatpm 12y ago
    you are right, only CEO's should be able to command those kinds of dollars
  - 6d0debc071 12y ago
    Because big-wigs would totally pay their regular employees more if their expenses were lower rather than celebrating slightly more profit for themselves?
- abawany 12y ago
  They unfortunately have an anti-pattern recourse as well: non-compete agreements. I was presented one today after a few months on the job and it is a doozy. Being in Texas, I am sure the courts will look much more kindly upon its shackles than California has so far. Such is the price of "living free" :).
  - hga 12y ago
    Side note which doesn't affect your point: without "consideration", such as more money, or when you start a job, the job itself, a non-compete is worthless, it's a contract where each side has to gain something. And "keeping your job" isn't one of those. As for California vs. Texas, well, you do get some serious considerations by making a move in either direction. Greater note: I've been convinced for some time that the non-enforcablility of non-competes is "Silicon Valley's" unique advantage. Given the steadily increasing difficulty of doing business in the state, it's almost certainly been critical in keeping that Golden Goose alive and somewhat healthy.
- rgbrenner 12y ago
  Companies do have recourse. It's called treating your employees well enough that they don't leave. Except one person is part of a team that produced the IP. So they would always have access to IP worth more than their salary (since salary x NTeamMembers must be <= 100% of the IP value). So even if the team members were paid every dime of the value they've created, a single person would always be able to earn more by stealing IP/trade secrets.
  - bsder 12y ago
    You have a lot of incorrect assumptions. First wrong assumption: that one person can carry 100% if the IP with them. That's simply not possible for anything remotely complex. Companies regularly have trouble managing software when they own the people and the source code. Any single individual only can carry a small portion of the knowledge. Second wrong assumption: technology is complete when "stolen". Something like a semiconductor process is always live and being debugged. In 4 years, that knowledge will move a VAST amount and what you "stole" has no value. Third wrong assumption: a company can incorporate the "stolen" knowledge into its business. Semiconductor processes rely on many things which are specific to a company. Back when Digital Equipment Corporation was working with Samsung to second-source the 21264, it took dozens of colocated engineers almost 24 months to work out and paper over the differences between the semiconductor processes. As I pointed out, this sounds like there was a political struggle for technology direction at TSMC and Liang lost. Really, at that point his ONLY option is to leave. His employer has said "we don't believe in your assessment". The fact that he turned out to be right and led Samsung to leapfrog TSMC is TSMC's own fault. In addition, people are discounting the amount of money Samsung spent to develop that process WAY too much. Samsung is a $150 billion a year company and can allocate vast resources when it decides to. TSMC is a lot smaller.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Oh, where's the fun in that. Having shady corporate security services, paranoid employees, and cloak-and-dagger shenanigans is much more emotionally engaging than merely buttering people up with cash and company outings. I'll take life in the Blade Runner future over that of The Truman Show any day. Disturbingly, I'm only half joking :-/
x0x0 12y ago
Yet somehow intel, nvidia, amd, and a thousand other companies manage to do just fine in CA, where non-competes are largely unenforceable.
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  Funny how that works.
- gaius 12y ago
  They do it illegally, the news has been full of it. Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs were the masterminds who set it up.
- rm445 12y ago
  Carrying expert knowledge to another company is one thing, but disclosure of trade secrets? Not a lawyer, but I gathered that when trade secrets are properly handled, you have legal recourse against an employee (or ex-employee) who discloses them.
  - hga 12y ago
    Indeed. The only legal basis for non-competes being valid is that they prevent the "first bite of the apple", the damage caused by the first such disclosure of IP, which then requires the harmed company to sue to obtain recourse.
gcb0 12y ago
wrong, they should patent it. let the hobbyist learn how they do, and prevent competitors from copying. they tried to have the cake (don't patent, don't publish) and eat it too (not pay people and processes enough to protect your trade secrets)
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  Patents don't work if they can't be enforced. How would you enforce a manufacturing process if you weren't allowed into your competitors factories? "We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition is in China," said Musk in the interview. "If we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book."

bsder 12y ago

> When corporations have no recourse about their knowledge workers leaving and working for a competitor and giving up their IP/Trade Secrets Companies do have recourse. It's called treating your employees well enough that they don't leave. If your company isn't smart enough to know who is important and how to keep them happy, then your company is going to have problems. Technical staff, especially, tend not to jump for small amounts of money or minor problems. As for technical workers, you simply can't prevent knowledge from leaving when they walk out the door. Especially for things like semiconductor manufacturing research, the knowledge of what was tried and didn't work is often more valuable than the knowledge as to what did work. How in the world would you stop that? Finally, he left in 2011. You're going to have a pretty difficult time convincing me that Samsung's current 14nm node is solely base upon TSMC manufacturing that was only at 28nm at the time. Overall, it sounds like TSMC had an internal political battle over what direction the semiconductor process research should go. Liang lost the battle and left. It seems that Liang was correct from an engineering standpoint, and the folks who stayed behind at TSMC were wrong. Sucks to be TSMC.

gress 12y ago
You say 'treating their employees well enough that they don't leave' but that ignores the fact that a small number of employees will be able to blackmail the company for millions with the IP they have access to, while regular employees pay the price.
- wombatpm 12y ago
  you are right, only CEO's should be able to command those kinds of dollars
- 6d0debc071 12y ago
  Because big-wigs would totally pay their regular employees more if their expenses were lower rather than celebrating slightly more profit for themselves?
abawany 12y ago
They unfortunately have an anti-pattern recourse as well: non-compete agreements. I was presented one today after a few months on the job and it is a doozy. Being in Texas, I am sure the courts will look much more kindly upon its shackles than California has so far. Such is the price of "living free" :).
- hga 12y ago
  Side note which doesn't affect your point: without "consideration", such as more money, or when you start a job, the job itself, a non-compete is worthless, it's a contract where each side has to gain something. And "keeping your job" isn't one of those. As for California vs. Texas, well, you do get some serious considerations by making a move in either direction. Greater note: I've been convinced for some time that the non-enforcablility of non-competes is "Silicon Valley's" unique advantage. Given the steadily increasing difficulty of doing business in the state, it's almost certainly been critical in keeping that Golden Goose alive and somewhat healthy.
rgbrenner 12y ago
Companies do have recourse. It's called treating your employees well enough that they don't leave. Except one person is part of a team that produced the IP. So they would always have access to IP worth more than their salary (since salary x NTeamMembers must be <= 100% of the IP value). So even if the team members were paid every dime of the value they've created, a single person would always be able to earn more by stealing IP/trade secrets.
- bsder 12y ago
  You have a lot of incorrect assumptions. First wrong assumption: that one person can carry 100% if the IP with them. That's simply not possible for anything remotely complex. Companies regularly have trouble managing software when they own the people and the source code. Any single individual only can carry a small portion of the knowledge. Second wrong assumption: technology is complete when "stolen". Something like a semiconductor process is always live and being debugged. In 4 years, that knowledge will move a VAST amount and what you "stole" has no value. Third wrong assumption: a company can incorporate the "stolen" knowledge into its business. Semiconductor processes rely on many things which are specific to a company. Back when Digital Equipment Corporation was working with Samsung to second-source the 21264, it took dozens of colocated engineers almost 24 months to work out and paper over the differences between the semiconductor processes. As I pointed out, this sounds like there was a political struggle for technology direction at TSMC and Liang lost. Really, at that point his ONLY option is to leave. His employer has said "we don't believe in your assessment". The fact that he turned out to be right and led Samsung to leapfrog TSMC is TSMC's own fault. In addition, people are discounting the amount of money Samsung spent to develop that process WAY too much. Samsung is a $150 billion a year company and can allocate vast resources when it decides to. TSMC is a lot smaller.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Oh, where's the fun in that. Having shady corporate security services, paranoid employees, and cloak-and-dagger shenanigans is much more emotionally engaging than merely buttering people up with cash and company outings. I'll take life in the Blade Runner future over that of The Truman Show any day. Disturbingly, I'm only half joking :-/

x0x0 12y ago

Yet somehow intel, nvidia, amd, and a thousand other companies manage to do just fine in CA, where non-competes are largely unenforceable.

ChuckMcM 12y ago
Funny how that works.
gaius 12y ago
They do it illegally, the news has been full of it. Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs were the masterminds who set it up.
rm445 12y ago
Carrying expert knowledge to another company is one thing, but disclosure of trade secrets? Not a lawyer, but I gathered that when trade secrets are properly handled, you have legal recourse against an employee (or ex-employee) who discloses them.
- hga 12y ago
  Indeed. The only legal basis for non-competes being valid is that they prevent the "first bite of the apple", the damage caused by the first such disclosure of IP, which then requires the harmed company to sue to obtain recourse.

gcb0 12y ago

wrong, they should patent it. let the hobbyist learn how they do, and prevent competitors from copying. they tried to have the cake (don't patent, don't publish) and eat it too (not pay people and processes enough to protect your trade secrets)

chrisbennet 12y ago
Patents don't work if they can't be enforced. How would you enforce a manufacturing process if you weren't allowed into your competitors factories? "We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition is in China," said Musk in the interview. "If we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book."