Replit used legal threats to kill my open-source project (2021)(intuitiveexplanations.com)
intuitiveexplanations.com
Replit used legal threats to kill my open-source project (2021)
https://intuitiveexplanations.com/tech/replit/
121 comments
Is there any reason why its been reposted now? Have Replit been in the news recently?
Added
(Are you a HN mod now? :) )
Not clear from your reply whether you added it (as a mod) or you are announcing to the gp that the year has since been added as at the time of your comment (i.e. by the poster or a mod).
Not clear from your reply whether you added it (as a mod) or you are announcing to the gp that the year has since been added as at the time of your comment (i.e. by the poster or a mod).
> you added it
Yes
> as a mod
I consider adding a year to a post to be more of a janitorial service than moderation, similarly how some users can flag comments. But of course you can call it whatever you'd like
Yes
> as a mod
I consider adding a year to a post to be more of a janitorial service than moderation, similarly how some users can flag comments. But of course you can call it whatever you'd like
Well, I certainly can flag comments but don't have any ability to adjust the title of a post as you can.
In a way, that makes you a mod even if you don't agree with the moniker.
In a way, that makes you a mod even if you don't agree with the moniker.
but don't have any ability to adjust the title of a post as you can.
I can't find the specific dang comment out of the zillions but you can just email [email protected] if you are lusting after the power to fix the years in titles.
I can't find the specific dang comment out of the zillions but you can just email [email protected] if you are lusting after the power to fix the years in titles.
oh year sorry i forgot to add that. Thanks for pointing it out
Appears that OP, a former Replit intern, used Replit to create a site that might be construed as a Replit competitor. Replit responded with a heavy hand.
I don’t care about Replit. But this just seems like a bad idea.
I don’t care about Replit. But this just seems like a bad idea.
Tbf Replit is an online IDE for full stack development, that means that almost any idea you work on Saas dev tooling could be construed as a competitor.
Yes so you should keep that in mind if you sign documents specifically agreeing not to do this in the next 2 years... we may never know what the guy signed, but I assume interns at least sign NDAs.
The fact that CEO is a (insert bad word) is also true, however.
The fact that CEO is a (insert bad word) is also true, however.
If NDAs were breached, that DEFINITELY would have been brought up in all of this.
True...
Noncompetes are illegal in California where Replit is based. As far as I can tell, they were illegal in 2021, and they've become more illegal since.
That's nice. I wish more places worldwide followed. My contract has a noncompete:(
Earlier this year the FTC banned noncompetes in the USA.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/...
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/...
I have excellent news: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/...
Nice, now I only need to move to the US.
We're now making INTERNS sign non-compete agreements??!
It doesn't matter if he used replit they don't own the code you write with it and it doesn't matter if he used to work there they don't own former employees either.
If you remove the irrelevant details it can be shortened to A personal created what could be construed as a replit competitor this seemed like a bad idea which only makes sense if it's a bar owned by the mafia.
Furthermore they didn't respond "with a heavy hand" This statement carries the implication that some reaction was warranted and they overdid it.
A manipulative sociopath reacted to a non-issue by using insane threats to silence someone on the off chance that he might become a legitimate competitor.
Did you catch the part where he made it about him him growing up a "struggling kid from Jordan" whist still essentially asserting most of the same position.
https://intuitiveexplanations.com/assets/amjad-hn-1.png
This is basically a narcissist simulating a normal person territory.
It's basically saying sorry you made the projected economic cost of my bad behavior negative I'm going to save face here.
If you remove the irrelevant details it can be shortened to A personal created what could be construed as a replit competitor this seemed like a bad idea which only makes sense if it's a bar owned by the mafia.
Furthermore they didn't respond "with a heavy hand" This statement carries the implication that some reaction was warranted and they overdid it.
A manipulative sociopath reacted to a non-issue by using insane threats to silence someone on the off chance that he might become a legitimate competitor.
Did you catch the part where he made it about him him growing up a "struggling kid from Jordan" whist still essentially asserting most of the same position.
https://intuitiveexplanations.com/assets/amjad-hn-1.png
This is basically a narcissist simulating a normal person territory.
It's basically saying sorry you made the projected economic cost of my bad behavior negative I'm going to save face here.
Once you create a product/project that is in some ways similar to that of a former employer, you have entered potential conflict-of-interest territory. If you can afford the time and legal expenses to argue that it is not a conflict of interest, that's fine. If you cannot, then you should think twice about what you are doing.
Should it be that way? The answer is a definitive maybe. Part of the reason why the legal system exists is to resolve disputes like this. The real problem is the cost and time involved make it mean that both parties rarely have equal access to it, and that it is often used as a heavy handed threat by those who know they have better access to it (with the end result being to silence people rather than seek a just resolution).
As for the personalities of the parties involved, that has nothing to do with it. You can be the biggest jerk in the world and be right, or the kindest person in the world and be wrong.
Should it be that way? The answer is a definitive maybe. Part of the reason why the legal system exists is to resolve disputes like this. The real problem is the cost and time involved make it mean that both parties rarely have equal access to it, and that it is often used as a heavy handed threat by those who know they have better access to it (with the end result being to silence people rather than seek a just resolution).
As for the personalities of the parties involved, that has nothing to do with it. You can be the biggest jerk in the world and be right, or the kindest person in the world and be wrong.
The term conflict of interest is meaningless in context of someone who no longer works for you. There just can't be one. If you work for a McDonald's then and open a burger king next door there is no conflict your public goal was first to aid your employer and now it is to destroy them.
It's not a dice roll to find out if you are infringing on IP. If you are aren't infringing you can discourage a lot of bullshit by simply ignoring their strongly worded letter. It costs 30 seconds to send an email but your lawyer needs something real to work with.
It's not a dice roll to find out if you are infringing on IP. If you are aren't infringing you can discourage a lot of bullshit by simply ignoring their strongly worded letter. It costs 30 seconds to send an email but your lawyer needs something real to work with.
If a former employee of mine uses proprietary information to build a competitor, I’d be upset. The key is what is classed as proprietary. You start barking up the software patent tree and you never know what the lawyers will throw back down.
You read the situation more accurately than I did, thanks
The Replit CEO has proven himself time and time again to be.. this.
I hope that every potential customer will consider the culture he cultivates. We don't need this in tech.
I hope that every potential customer will consider the culture he cultivates. We don't need this in tech.
> Please note that Riju is only available on IPv6-enabled networks due to the higher financial cost of supporting legacy protocols.
Like it. More people should do this
Like it. More people should do this
> Riju is only available on IPv6-enabled networks ... More people should do this
Of the 12 wireline ISPs here, 2 support IPv6. One of the two is available to 2% of the customers; the other costs 50% more than IPv4-only. For the extra money you get 5% of the upload + much higher latency. I'm looking into starting my own ASN just to get IPv6 here.
In the US there are millions of locations stuck with IPv4 only networks due to ISPs that are solidly committed to never supporting it.
IPv6 evangelists don't give a meaningful crap about those millions - and are happy to push IPv6 rosiness in a way that denies their existence.
Because of this, IPv6-only services can only ever get so far off the ground. An exciting service is less exciting when it's unreachable from point B.
Of the 12 wireline ISPs here, 2 support IPv6. One of the two is available to 2% of the customers; the other costs 50% more than IPv4-only. For the extra money you get 5% of the upload + much higher latency. I'm looking into starting my own ASN just to get IPv6 here.
In the US there are millions of locations stuck with IPv4 only networks due to ISPs that are solidly committed to never supporting it.
IPv6 evangelists don't give a meaningful crap about those millions - and are happy to push IPv6 rosiness in a way that denies their existence.
Because of this, IPv6-only services can only ever get so far off the ground. An exciting service is less exciting when it's unreachable from point B.
You can get a free 4 to 6 tunnel here https://tunnelbroker.net/
It's really not a big deal.
It's really not a big deal.
Seemingly they don't allow using gmail addresses to sign up. Seems like a really opinionated service.
I guess maybe I should expect this sort of militant behaviour from the sort of ppl who run a chunk of the internet backbone?
EDIT: realized [email protected] should work[1]
[1]: https://webapps.stackexchange.com/a/126265/19949
I guess maybe I should expect this sort of militant behaviour from the sort of ppl who run a chunk of the internet backbone?
EDIT: realized [email protected] should work[1]
[1]: https://webapps.stackexchange.com/a/126265/19949
I mean, fair is fair, Google will block you from using search from a HE IP. Unless you're signed in, then you ONLY need to do like 10 CAPTCHAs per day.
Not sure if I fully understand how tunnelbroker works, but does the complete traffic get redirected over them?
So it's as insecure as all these vpn services that sell your data.
This is a big deal, for just getting access to ipv6.
This is a big deal, for just getting access to ipv6.
Much of your traffic is probably passing through Hurricane Electric servers already, given their position on the backbone (https://he.net).
ok, didn't knew that it was a backbone.
It's true that HE is a backbone but there is an enormous difference between having bits of your traffic transiting a firehose and sending your entire session thru someone's endpoint.
The latter is much more comprehensive and identifiable.
This isn't to throw shade at HE; I don't recall any complaints about their integrity. It's just to say HE's tunnel is in a practical position to monitor, should they choose or be compelled.
The latter is much more comprehensive and identifiable.
This isn't to throw shade at HE; I don't recall any complaints about their integrity. It's just to say HE's tunnel is in a practical position to monitor, should they choose or be compelled.
Traceroute to various websites. You'll see that the IPs on the pathway are owned by companies that are neither you nor the guy you're accessing. It's how the Internet works at the network layer. You may find that some people are on every path. Your carrier, certainly, but often the first provider they're connected to.
Yes, didn't knew that this was a backbone.
You'll see that the IPs on the pathway are owned by companies that are neither you nor the guy you're accessing. Yes, but you shouldn't add another one you didn't know (e.g. free vpn).
You'll see that the IPs on the pathway are owned by companies that are neither you nor the guy you're accessing. Yes, but you shouldn't add another one you didn't know (e.g. free vpn).
I've run across a half doz or so tunnel services. HE peers closest to my ISP; I'm looking at them as a temporary stopgap.
With my own ASN, I have a shot at peering with my ISPs IX.
With my own ASN, I have a shot at peering with my ISPs IX.
It depends how big a deal you consider Netflix. They block HE tunnels.
That line made me chuckle because if anything like that was on the original announcement, it should’ve become immediately obvious to the Replit CEO that this guy is not a threat. Excluding half the internet from your potential userbase isn’t much of a startup move.
and is also a window to the guy's psyche, which makes me believe the line where he was "the most demanding intern" they had
What is the limiting factor there? I don't understand. I assumed these programming languages were working in a browser (wrapped into wasm or some other VM) so everything was client side. Is that not the case? Are they running the language kernels in their servers? I don't understand what the "cost" here is.
Anyone still using Replit? Or is it something from the past?
Am actually interested in this question in a non-snarky way.
Many years ago, I taught lots of programming workshops in academia and managing the student environments was always a pain. So when I heard of replit and similar tools it always seemed to me like a good solution for this problem.
However, I was struck recently when I went back to teaching how little in roads it made in this space, out of 4 universities in the UK (cohorts of 100s) I saw hardly anyone using it or even heard of it.
It seems the preferred option now is to just use google colab, which works great but doesn't give students the feel of a full-blown IDE.
Many years ago, I taught lots of programming workshops in academia and managing the student environments was always a pain. So when I heard of replit and similar tools it always seemed to me like a good solution for this problem.
However, I was struck recently when I went back to teaching how little in roads it made in this space, out of 4 universities in the UK (cohorts of 100s) I saw hardly anyone using it or even heard of it.
It seems the preferred option now is to just use google colab, which works great but doesn't give students the feel of a full-blown IDE.
They messed up the pricing time and again sadly, then they made it free and now they killed the classroom product.
I haven't used it in a while, but it was great for playing around with python ideas as someone who maybe doesn't want to set everything up on their own machine
I've used it occasionally. They provide some online compilers for languages that are hard to find elsewhere, e.g. TCL.
I think both are wrong. Replit should have used care considering their customers are developers that like to code, especially open source. Also Radon(?)while inspired by his internship played very close to a line. As an employer, I would be worried how easily it would be to cross the line.
Kid from Jordan was a typical PR speak to get sympathy even when he is acting like a bully
Important to read this first: https://intuitiveexplanations.com/tech/replit/#how-did-repli...
"Luckily we're bigger now, and crucially have a lot of money to pay for top lawyers now if we're forced to go that route."
As a top dog CEO you may think that. But it is incredible stupid, arrogant, and immature to put that in writing when dealing with one of the little people.
As a top dog CEO you may think that. But it is incredible stupid, arrogant, and immature to put that in writing when dealing with one of the little people.
The ceo of replit is arrogant; just check his tweets, especially responses.
True
Thanks but no thanks, my idea of work is not pursuing relentless work to help with somebody else's ego
Thanks but no thanks, my idea of work is not pursuing relentless work to help with somebody else's ego
[deleted]
You should read that dudes Twitter account. It really can be something else sometimes.
Not to mention "you were the most demanding intern we've ever had"
The apology was a bit self-serving. Came across as something he had forced to do rather than something he needed or wanted to do. He pulled out the old hard-working kid-with-a-dream too soon.
Not sure why he thinks he is in the right here? I would be pissed too if an intern left and then made a website that was just copying the internal work. I love how he says with a straight face that he didnt use any of the code from replit when obviously as an intern he saw all the ideas and constructs. Its not like he had a mind wipe.
I’m in a small minority on this site I’m sure but professionalism is important and this screams immaturity.
I’m in a small minority on this site I’m sure but professionalism is important and this screams immaturity.
>but professionalism is important and this screams immaturity.
Using knowledge that you have to create a competing product is professionalism, using Legal threats to eliminate competitors - is not.
Using knowledge that you have to create a competing product is professionalism, using Legal threats to eliminate competitors - is not.
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.
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.
Replit 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.
I'm not sure you can have non-compete close on an internship contract anyway (in my country you cannot for sure).
IDK if that is true or not. It could be.
If that is true, that author should have just ignored it.
If that is true, that author should have just ignored it.
I'm not saying the noise is restricted to just one party.
ossm1db(1)
[deleted]
[deleted]
This was discussed in about 1300 comments when it occurred in 2021. Is there anything new about replit that warranted the re-submission?
And I see personal attacks on the CEO here in some comments that refer to his opinions about the most divisive topic on HN nowadays.
And I see personal attacks on the CEO here in some comments that refer to his opinions about the most divisive topic on HN nowadays.
How about how they offered a classroom product for teachers to deploy an online IDE. Then with no notice while people were in the middle of classes replit pulled the plug on it with no notice.
No one should be patronizing a company like this.
No one should be patronizing a company like this.
That was 7 months ago. They canceled a free plan for a product. Yes I agree that their communication were bad and didn't give enough warning for people. But how that related and how is that an answer to my question?
Google used to give universities unlimited storage but even with their billions they pulled the plug and left universities in a difficult situation (so did MS later).
Google used to give universities unlimited storage but even with their billions they pulled the plug and left universities in a difficult situation (so did MS later).
How it’s related, to answer your question, is that it’s more evidence the company has horrible leadership. The more visibility of that the better, this CEO shouldn’t be rewarded with customers.
In the intern's place, I probably would not have bragged about copying that company's idea.
Then again, as the company, if I felt a former intern could threaten my business like that, I'd ask serious questions about my value proposition and moat (which could be premium features, sales, or an attractive/viral free tier - not too familiar with what they do). On a personal level, I can see how it could feel unfair, but the idea does not seem that original.
Then again, as the company, if I felt a former intern could threaten my business like that, I'd ask serious questions about my value proposition and moat (which could be premium features, sales, or an attractive/viral free tier - not too familiar with what they do). On a personal level, I can see how it could feel unfair, but the idea does not seem that original.
You cannot patent or copyright ideas. Furthermore it is quite debatable if it’s unethical to copy ideas.
What the intern did is absolutely fine in my book.
What the intern did is absolutely fine in my book.
I think all parties in this are bad.
I think the guy is obviously young, and a bit naive . And really shouldn’t have gone to social media.
And the CEO handled it poorly
I think the guy is obviously young, and a bit naive . And really shouldn’t have gone to social media.
And the CEO handled it poorly
Why not? He should roll over and allow someone with more money and power to threaten them? No thanks, I applaud his actions because it takes courage to do that in such a position. The CEO is a public facing figure and deserves the scrutiny. He was treating the kid like a peon. This world would be a lot better off if more people took to the airwaves to call out insufferable CEOs who think they are above others because they got a large round.
I agree with you on all that especially the power dynamic, I just think the intern guy also is a bit socially unaware. I mean he basically copied his employers business lol.
Though as someone else said, if your moat is so shallow someone can copy it in a weekend…. Power to him.
Really i wish we could all just work together on great things
I try to stay out of the drama
Though as someone else said, if your moat is so shallow someone can copy it in a weekend…. Power to him.
Really i wish we could all just work together on great things
I try to stay out of the drama
If some random dude on the internet copies it's ok, if he copies it, because he happened to work for them years ago it's not?
There's no logic to that.
> Really i wish we could all just work together on great things
Indeed, but for that to happen you need to be open-source since day 1, and not work for profit. And even then you get ego issues, which this CEO apparently has.
We'd need capitalism 2.0 because the current version just sets incentives to not make you work somewhat harmoniously together.
There's no logic to that.
> Really i wish we could all just work together on great things
Indeed, but for that to happen you need to be open-source since day 1, and not work for profit. And even then you get ego issues, which this CEO apparently has.
We'd need capitalism 2.0 because the current version just sets incentives to not make you work somewhat harmoniously together.
The only thing causing the company from withdrawing illegal threats is social media.
And the CEO was right, you can’t copy cat the idea of the place you worked at no matter how simple it is.
It’s common sense - he did behave in an unethical way.
It’s common sense - he did behave in an unethical way.
i dont think that's unethical - provided that no copyright is violated. Ideas are not copyrightable, and surely they do not have a patent on sites like replit.
It can be unethical without being illegal.
When I work for a company, I don't spin-off that company using corporate knowledge, I just find something else to do (and that's probably why I'm not rich :D), but it's the most elegant thing to do.
Zuckerberg is a famous example of such behaviour.
I think this Radon is talented too (good tech + doesn't wait for others to give permission + very interesting ideas), and what he did is probably okay-ish, a bit borderline but still on the ok-side (he seems more like a fan of Repl.it than anything).
I just wouldn't go til the point where I complain about it publicly.
When I work for a company, I don't spin-off that company using corporate knowledge, I just find something else to do (and that's probably why I'm not rich :D), but it's the most elegant thing to do.
Zuckerberg is a famous example of such behaviour.
I think this Radon is talented too (good tech + doesn't wait for others to give permission + very interesting ideas), and what he did is probably okay-ish, a bit borderline but still on the ok-side (he seems more like a fan of Repl.it than anything).
I just wouldn't go til the point where I complain about it publicly.
> don't spin-off that company using corporate knowledge
That is a very common way to do a spin off. Usually it involves some patents or non public knowledge and you make an agreement with the original company for it. But when it is all open there is nothing, legal or moral (in my opinion), from stopping you from making your own spinoff. Companies don't care about you, you shouldn't care about them.
That is a very common way to do a spin off. Usually it involves some patents or non public knowledge and you make an agreement with the original company for it. But when it is all open there is nothing, legal or moral (in my opinion), from stopping you from making your own spinoff. Companies don't care about you, you shouldn't care about them.
> don't spin-off that company using corporate knowledge,
If everyone followed this rule there would be no Fairchild and no Intel.
If everyone followed this rule there would be no Fairchild and no Intel.
There'd be nothing. A lot of competitors have come about from people starting companies to compete in the same field. All of the modern gaming industry is basically based on disenfranchised game developers starting their own companies.
I don't understand at all why this would be unethical. Maybe I'm working for a company making a product I have expertise for and I'm passionate about, but they're making decisions that I feel make it worse for users unnecessarily. I leave and start my own competing product to do it my own way that I consider to be the better way. This isn't unethical. This is the nature of all competition everywhere going back as far as anybody can remember. I've stolen nothing at all, so I'm not sure on what basis it would be unethical.
And if it's a topic or industry I have expertise and knowledge of, why would I throw that all away just because I worked for a company where I used that expertise and knowledge? That's basically implying that we're all "ethically" subject to non-competes for the rest of our lives after working for a company making a particular kind of product.
That's clearly and absolutely "inelegant", to use your phrasing.
And if it's a topic or industry I have expertise and knowledge of, why would I throw that all away just because I worked for a company where I used that expertise and knowledge? That's basically implying that we're all "ethically" subject to non-competes for the rest of our lives after working for a company making a particular kind of product.
That's clearly and absolutely "inelegant", to use your phrasing.
Companies want you hire you and for you to bring your existing knowledge, skills, and understanding to build a product.
Then they want you to not use the knowledge, skills, and understanding to build a product when you aren't working for them.
This is hypocritical and self-contradictory. They require you to do the very thing they don't want you to do, just as long as it's in their favor.
Then they want you to not use the knowledge, skills, and understanding to build a product when you aren't working for them.
This is hypocritical and self-contradictory. They require you to do the very thing they don't want you to do, just as long as it's in their favor.
Everything is subtle warfare. Act accordingly.
Employers do what they think they can get away with to extract maximum value from you. If you are smart, you will do what you think you can get away with to extract maximum value from your employer, too. Playing fair when the other side doesn't is just forfeiting.
Employers do what they think they can get away with to extract maximum value from you. If you are smart, you will do what you think you can get away with to extract maximum value from your employer, too. Playing fair when the other side doesn't is just forfeiting.
It's neither illegal nor unethical to open a bake shop after working for a bake shop, or even a single type of cookie shop, as long as it's not a solen private recipe.
If the intern was under a no-compete, or stole any IP, this would be known and there would be nothing to talk about.
If the intern was under a no-compete, or stole any IP, this would be known and there would be nothing to talk about.
Let's put it this way some CEO spent years finding a product market fit and they hire you - they pay you and let you have access to their internal conversations and ideas and you suddenly brainstorm a project with uncanny resemblance to what the company is making - that in my view is stealing IP and is very unethical and shady behavior.
It just isn't. You're allowed to make products that compete with products already on the market, even if you've worked for the company making that product. Unless there's specific IP that was stolen, I don't see how this is in any way unethical or shady. They hired you to develop that product, and you did. Nowhere in that contract is anything saying you can never use what you learned elsewhere. They'd need to pay you significantly more than what they paid you (which they won't). And there are great reasons why non-competes are basically invalid in most places.
> Unless there's specific IP that was stolen,
To wit, stealing trade secrets is recognized as an actual crime, and got someone 8 years of jail for trying to sell the formula for Coca-cola to Pepsi.
To wit, stealing trade secrets is recognized as an actual crime, and got someone 8 years of jail for trying to sell the formula for Coca-cola to Pepsi.
Strange logic. Would you consider it unethical for former Google employees to start their own search engine? Or to quit and go work for Bing? Assuming they aren't stealing code this happens in every industry. Can former Ford employees not work for Chevy? I don't see the difference.
What IP did they steal. Please be specific.
That’s like saying I can’t write my own hobby OS because I used to work for Microsoft.
It is not the idea that matters but the execution. Execute well and you will succeed with a mediocre idea, execute badly and the best idea in the world is not going to help you.
Do if you ever work at an Italian restaurant you aren't allowed to ever own one thereafter?
wait - so I worked for Thomson Reuters Legal solutions once, so I can't make a better legal search solution?
I mean I couldn't for the first year after working there because I had signed a contract saying I wouldn't which is what most people do, is that what you mean? That if you sign a non-compete agreement you can't? Because ok, but I would think if you don't sign the non-compete agreement it means you can because otherwise why would people have non-compete agreements?
I mean I couldn't for the first year after working there because I had signed a contract saying I wouldn't which is what most people do, is that what you mean? That if you sign a non-compete agreement you can't? Because ok, but I would think if you don't sign the non-compete agreement it means you can because otherwise why would people have non-compete agreements?
If you worked for a small company (let's say < 100 people) it's not a good idea, as you will actively focus all your energy destroying the jobs of your former colleagues and take their marketshare (in some way, even indirectly), and these ideas with small teams usually require deep secret knowledge.
If it's a huge company (e.g. you work for a large telecom company and launch a new telecom company), then it's fine because you started only from one brick, and had to figure out most of the pieces by yourself.
If it's a huge company (e.g. you work for a large telecom company and launch a new telecom company), then it's fine because you started only from one brick, and had to figure out most of the pieces by yourself.
I prefer "treat others as they would treat you" as a moral principle - or slightly better than they would treat you. How do you think your company would treat you, if they found a developer that did a better version of whatever you're doing? If you found a better way to do whatever your company is doing, the answer should be the same.
This is ridiculous. There are no rules, not even ethical ones, preventing you from starting a competing company. Especially since generally we don't start companies "putting our effort into destroying the jobs of our former co-workers". That's an absurd take.
It's like if you work in private army A and go to create private army B to fight against army A on the same territories.
No reasons to be surprised if private army A colleagues don't like your move.
No reasons to be surprised if private army A colleagues don't like your move.
Why should anyone care about the emotional state of members of a "private army"? Why would this be one of your analogies in the first place?
It's not just unethical, it's most likely in breach of the employment contract he signed for his internship and he would have definitely lost in court.
That guy didn't get bullied by the CEO, the CEO got bullied by HackerNews.
That guy didn't get bullied by the CEO, the CEO got bullied by HackerNews.
You mentioned an employment contract which is very open and shut. It's a very simplifying argument which unfortunately isn't mentioned by anyone else involved and such a clause wouldn't even be legal in California where Replit is based.
A logical conclusion is that the breach doesn't exist and arguments that rest on it are unfounded
A logical conclusion is that the breach doesn't exist and arguments that rest on it are unfounded
im reading this gengis khan book and it makes me wonder what he'd have done in this situation.
I think your emotive language is confusing. Perhaps you meant to say "you shouldn't copy". Obviously he "can" do whatever he did!
Interesting, I've seen it used like this in the past:
"you can't just walk to Mordor" - I guess the "cant" is to refer to the grave consequences. (orcs with blades are dangerous)
"you can't just walk to Mordor" - I guess the "cant" is to refer to the grave consequences. (orcs with blades are dangerous)
[deleted]
Someone interned at a company, saw and worked on the IP and architecture, and after leaving created something that can be viewed as a copy(the emails say that even some of the UI design and languages description were copied) of the core business of the place they worked at, maybe the response was a bit too heavy handed, but you don't exactly expect roses after doing something like that.
This seems somewhat unethical, and whether it is legal or not that is up to lawyers and specialized people of law to decide, and the founder wanted those people to get involved to decide that, again nothing crazy to expect after you create a copy of a project you were paid (or at least trained) to work on and learn all about it.
This seems somewhat unethical, and whether it is legal or not that is up to lawyers and specialized people of law to decide, and the founder wanted those people to get involved to decide that, again nothing crazy to expect after you create a copy of a project you were paid (or at least trained) to work on and learn all about it.
The idea is hardly novel. On top of that, if lines of code were not copied, no foul.
Not only was the CEO being a bully but he was wrong. There is no ethical dilemma here. It happens every day. You are allowed to copy an idea for software. Not the literal code. If he wrote it all himself this should be a non-issue. I also urge you to look at how the CEO “apologized”. I will never use their service for that alone.
Not only was the CEO being a bully but he was wrong. There is no ethical dilemma here. It happens every day. You are allowed to copy an idea for software. Not the literal code. If he wrote it all himself this should be a non-issue. I also urge you to look at how the CEO “apologized”. I will never use their service for that alone.
This is deceptive as his specific role at Replit had nothing to do with his later open source work. Also, Replit is not innovative as there exist many similar solutions. How can you be accused to copying someone's work if that work is itself a copy of other existing work?
Moreover, quote from his article:
> I worked for Replit in Summer 2019, where I was asked to rebuild Replit’s package management stack
What does a package management stack have to do with an open source IDE?
If someone interned as a doctor's assistant at a medical center and then later started their own medical center. Can their previous employer sue them for that? It's nonsense. There is nothing innovative or exclusive about launching a medical center. Just like there is nothing innovative or exclusive about launching an IDE. It's old tech that has been implemented 1000 times. The author is the only one who innovated on the concept by making it open source.
If Replit can sue this guy, then Cloud9 can sue Replit, WebStorm can sue Cloud9, Microsoft can sue WebStorm, etc, etc... Who even invented the first IDE?
Replit was deceptive. They know they are in the wrong and used malicious, unfounded legal threats to scare him into doing what they wanted.
Moreover, quote from his article:
> I worked for Replit in Summer 2019, where I was asked to rebuild Replit’s package management stack
What does a package management stack have to do with an open source IDE?
If someone interned as a doctor's assistant at a medical center and then later started their own medical center. Can their previous employer sue them for that? It's nonsense. There is nothing innovative or exclusive about launching a medical center. Just like there is nothing innovative or exclusive about launching an IDE. It's old tech that has been implemented 1000 times. The author is the only one who innovated on the concept by making it open source.
If Replit can sue this guy, then Cloud9 can sue Replit, WebStorm can sue Cloud9, Microsoft can sue WebStorm, etc, etc... Who even invented the first IDE?
Replit was deceptive. They know they are in the wrong and used malicious, unfounded legal threats to scare him into doing what they wanted.
> If someone interned as a doctor's assistant at a medical center and then later started their own medical center. Can their previous employer sue them for that? It's nonsense.
As I said the legality of this is not so simple to answer, yes you can intern as a doctor at one place and then open a similar one, and if someone tries file a suit about this then I think it will be very hard to find a sympathetic judge to look into it, but once you bring IP into this it becomes a lot more complicated, calculus is also about ideas, yet it didn't stop Leibniz or Newton from making accusations of plagiarizing.
>If Replit can sue this guy, then Cloud9 can sue Replit, WebStorm can sue Cloud9, Microsoft can sue WebStorm, etc, etc... Who even invented the first IDE?
the difference here is that the guy worked/interned at replit, this what moves it for me from the founder being an asshole to a grey area where he sees someone had access to all resources at the company and now wants to use that knowledge(or at least having access to it) to create an alternative and he decides to go with a heavy handed approach before it becomes a big headache, was he nice in how he went about it? no
As I said the legality of this is not so simple to answer, yes you can intern as a doctor at one place and then open a similar one, and if someone tries file a suit about this then I think it will be very hard to find a sympathetic judge to look into it, but once you bring IP into this it becomes a lot more complicated, calculus is also about ideas, yet it didn't stop Leibniz or Newton from making accusations of plagiarizing.
>If Replit can sue this guy, then Cloud9 can sue Replit, WebStorm can sue Cloud9, Microsoft can sue WebStorm, etc, etc... Who even invented the first IDE?
the difference here is that the guy worked/interned at replit, this what moves it for me from the founder being an asshole to a grey area where he sees someone had access to all resources at the company and now wants to use that knowledge(or at least having access to it) to create an alternative and he decides to go with a heavy handed approach before it becomes a big headache, was he nice in how he went about it? no
What IP was stolen. If neither you nor the CEO can specify there is none.
> As I said the legality of this is not so simple to answer … but once you bring IP into this it becomes a lot more complicated, calculus is also about ideas,
From a legal perspective, there is no such thing as “IP”. There are copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. If you want to talk about legalities, you have to start by saying which of those four were violated. “Ideas” alone have no legal protections.
From a legal perspective, there is no such thing as “IP”. There are copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. If you want to talk about legalities, you have to start by saying which of those four were violated. “Ideas” alone have no legal protections.
You think it's unethical to work at a company and then later create a copy of what the company does. Fairchild Semiconductors would like a quiet moment with you.
Does it still seem unethical if the proposition is inverted? What if a company figures out they no longer need your skills and/or labour. Is it unethical for them to lay you off? What if they actually had to do some work behind your back in order to figure out how to do this?
What do you think about a company that offers people a home for their digital creativity, and then uses that creativity to build technology that makes the skills and network their "users" have acquired over their lives worthless.
You'd expect the users to adapt to the situation, find new skills and get on with their lives right? Which is exactly what replit should do instead of sueing. Apparently they are well funded now so it should be a problem.
Does it still seem unethical if the proposition is inverted? What if a company figures out they no longer need your skills and/or labour. Is it unethical for them to lay you off? What if they actually had to do some work behind your back in order to figure out how to do this?
What do you think about a company that offers people a home for their digital creativity, and then uses that creativity to build technology that makes the skills and network their "users" have acquired over their lives worthless.
You'd expect the users to adapt to the situation, find new skills and get on with their lives right? Which is exactly what replit should do instead of sueing. Apparently they are well funded now so it should be a problem.
Last time on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27424195 (4022 points!!!)