It's not over yet, at least not definitively. Nature Magazine like every other source so far is basing its comments on the attempted replications using the leaked paper. It's considered fairly certain at this point that the paper was incomplete/not enough to duplicate the material.
The full paper with the original samples were reportedly sent to Korea University of Science and Technology for examination. That lab group has only so far verified the structure of the material, no word on whether they've replicated it or its actual properties based on replicated samples or the original samples.
Until we hear from them, everyone (including Nature) is just guessing.
Well, you want the right people to have access. If you're a small shop or act like one, that's your "top" techs.
If you're a mature larger company, that's the team leads in your networking area on the team that deal with that service area (BGP routing, or routers in general).
Most likely Facebook et. al. management never understood this could happen because it's "never been a problem before".
The current system has as its main purpose the justification of Youtube the corporation showing rights holders that it is "doing something" about copyright violations. In that, it serves its purpose very well.
The system is meant to flag the vast majority of uses of other people's videos but glosses over any questions about whether such use is considered "fair use" per local law or whether the presumed owner of the video actually cares or has granted permission for the use.
It assumes anyone using a video that's not theirs is doing so in violation of copyright, and refuses to allow that video to be posted. It's automatic and often wrong, but Youtube don't care because it's keeping the parties that can have a significant effect on Youtube's business (and bottom line) happy - the large conglomerates, corporations, and industries that profit off of media world wide.
They want any valuable media to be producing income for them forever, with Youtube and other online providers strong armed into policing their unfair system.
Thus, the imbalances in the present copyright system (infinitely extending copyrights providing rent to corporations) is extended into Youtube's de facto monopoly on sharing user videos.
Youtube's automated takedown system steps on ordinary content creators daily, but Youtube (Google) doesn't care, because individual content creators can't cause them as much trouble as corporations.
So, it's working just fine if you keep that in mind.
Youtube and Google are monopolies that need to be broken up.
>if the government continues to print money, and the real wages of the existing wage earners who actually produce value for the good of society by working are eroded and redistributed to those who don't wish to work.
I bet I can guess which group you think you belong to.
>I think lots of myth and propaganda about work got blown up in the last year.
Many years of corporations "boiling the frog" and slowly lowering flexibility and not improving pay have been reset. People hadn't noticed, and now they have.
It'll probably happen all over again, but at least there's hope for now.
The manufacturers are mostly run by people who were trained in "standard" corporate governance. This includes the ways to protect corporate revenue streams by suppressing (legally, of course) competition, delivering a range of products by producing the top end model and crippling it to sell at a cheaper price point, and repeatedly reducing costs to increase profits in a "race to the bottom".
Until a new set of management philosophies is adopted for teaching, a large number of companies will keep doing the same thing, because in general corporate managers have a lead time associated with them, and we won't run out of the old school ones until 20+ years after philosophies change.
This is an opportunity for anyone who can do things differently, of course.
ERP software and in particular SAP is awful, has some major limitations, and is a pain to use, but the alternatives are much worse. Only a company like IBM might manage to develop an in-house ERP based on open source technology... but more likely they'd fail.
Some "enterprise grade" software is literally that. SAP works. It sucks and it's expensive, but it works.
The thing is, though, that many modern startups don't make a distinction between doing an integration and writing software.
It sounds like OP did the former, which means there's not likely an original product to sell, just a custom assembly of other products that form a system. That's a worthwhile thing to build and can be a money maker, but it's not an asset itself.
If you take away the installs of the products that make up your solution, then look at what's left... that's the asset that's being offered to OP. It might be something worthwhile, but most likely he's being offered it because he has an emotional attachment to what he's built, and they think he will take it without looking too closely.
It's a subtle difference, but I would say a change in phrasing is what's needed.
Rather than "you are a complete idiot" it should be "You are acting like a complete idiot" or better "In this instance you've been duped/fooled, you're being taken advantage of"
I had the same thought. OP talks about authored code, but then lists all the pieces that are glued together into a solution.
That takes some customization, but he's not talking about a software product, he's talking about what amounts to a professional services integration of several existing products. Consulting gigs like that can make you money for your time, but the end result is too specific to the situation with too few lines of original code to have much/any value.
If OP hasn't been paid for his work and it's being suggested this software is his pay, then I'm going to agree with other posters and say his co-founder is just dumping him and walking away with anything worthwhile, including the percentage of the corporation OP had which might be worth $$$$ or $0 in the future depending and leaving him with worthless code... and if there's a no-compete written into the sunset agreement for him, he probably can't even use the code, sell it, or consult with it.
The full paper with the original samples were reportedly sent to Korea University of Science and Technology for examination. That lab group has only so far verified the structure of the material, no word on whether they've replicated it or its actual properties based on replicated samples or the original samples.
Until we hear from them, everyone (including Nature) is just guessing.