[HN Gopher] Instead of collaborating or supporting me, Google st...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Instead of collaborating or supporting me, Google stole my idea
        
       Author : FloatArtifact
       Score  : 245 points
       Date   : 2023-09-14 21:14 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (github.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
        
       | athorax wrote:
       | "be evil whenever possible" - Google, maybe (probably)
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | lainga wrote:
       | I'd like to hear the other side of the story from the GOOG
       | employee who has been mentioned in the issue []
       | 
       | [] https://github.com/lmoroney
       | 
       | ed. not GOOG user, employee, but GH user, you know...
        
         | gman83 wrote:
         | It seems like this guy has nothing to do with this project? I
         | mean, he could have told other Googler's about this idea, but
         | maybe it's just a coincidence?
        
           | lainga wrote:
           | Based on a sibling comment I thought he might have merely
           | collected information about Mr Oz's project, in a DevRel
           | role, and someone else gotten hold of it. But IANAL and
           | IANAJ, I just thought that since he's been mentioned he'd
           | like to speak for himself. Esp. considering what some of the
           | sibling comments are saying.
        
       | pedalpete wrote:
       | The first things that come to mind are
       | 
       | 1) why would Google steal this instead of bringing Oz onto the
       | team, which assumes he wanted to work for Google)
       | 
       | 2) what can we as a community do to support Oz .
       | 
       | Oz, if you're reading this, you're obviously a very capable
       | person, how do you think we can support you. Not just in relation
       | to MidiBlocks, but beyond. That is just one project, I'm sure
       | you've got more in you, if you want to pursue other things.
        
         | romanhn wrote:
         | With a big company like Google you can't just randomly hire
         | someone without putting them through the rigorous interview
         | process that can be months long (been there, done that),
         | accomplishments or not (see the Homebrew dude).
        
           | rmbyrro wrote:
           | They have thousands of contractors and consultants that don't
           | go through this process. That's not a valid reason.
        
           | dappermanneke wrote:
           | of course not, you have to acquire their LLC to let them skip
           | the interview process. so building stuff does count, but only
           | if done commercially
        
       | swader999 wrote:
       | They should just be good about this but I guess that isn't their
       | motto. And I tend not to believe articles like this.
        
       | dappermanneke wrote:
       | sounds like this dude got caught in someone's promo packet
       | assembly. i wouldn't worry too much if i were him. this'll be
       | deprecated in three years or so once it served its purpose to
       | signal how good of an engineer the person who made it as part of
       | their promo package is
        
       | rg111 wrote:
       | I am here to say something tangential.
       | 
       | I found that deeplearning.ai and GoogleX in edX had some MOOCs
       | where the person who is facing the allegation was an instructor.
       | 
       | After some minutes, I found the person to be average, and not
       | really up to my expectations as an instructor in AI. The rigor of
       | those MOOCs were quite low, too.
       | 
       | Digging up, I found that he was an "AI Advocate" at Google, which
       | is just devrel. He is not a full-fledged developer or a scientist
       | or research engineer.
       | 
       | Of course, I didn't finish or purchase those MOOCs.
        
         | kristjansson wrote:
         | I think this is useful context and deserves fewer downvotes
         | than it currently has.
        
       | chaps wrote:
       | Oz, if you're reading this -- is there anything we can do to
       | support you and your work?
        
       | steeve wrote:
       | That was a lot darker than I thought it would be. Google should
       | absolutely respond.
       | 
       | As for Oz, what an incredible story.
        
         | metadat wrote:
         | And no reply from Elgoog since this was posted back in May, now
         | more than 4 months ago. "Disappointing" would be an
         | understatement.
        
         | paul7986 wrote:
         | Google is known for doing this as seen in this other HN post
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18566929
         | 
         | As well I met them and it wasn't a pleasant experience. It was
         | a decade ago around the same time Sonos met with them and they
         | did similar to Sonos. Though Sonos recently won their case
         | against them https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/6/22871121/sonos-
         | google-pate....
        
           | rmbyrro wrote:
           | > Though Sonos recently won their case against them
           | 
           | Ouch. That one hurt. Google is looking worse every day. Is it
           | going to be "the Yahoo of tomorrow?"
        
         | klipklop wrote:
         | Agreed, the story is so wild it's hard to believe at first.
        
       | ingenieroariel wrote:
       | I have a lot of respect for Oz's ability to ship and skills /
       | imagination.
       | 
       | Only thing I can think of is for people to think thoroughly the
       | license they set. BSD in this case, 4 years ago. And to not take
       | any contributions unless they sign a CLA so the license can be
       | changed in the future.
       | 
       | As for my own point of view, I screen apps/libraries that are not
       | MIT/BSD/Apache2 and I may want to link statically to or sell
       | services for and try to sponsor on Github projects I rely heavily
       | on.
       | 
       | [1] https://github.com/ozramos/handsfree/blob/master/LICENSE
        
       | galaxyLogic wrote:
       | I don't know what is the remedy here since it seems Google broke
       | no laws, did it?
       | 
       | Can you sue someone for "stealing your idea"? Unfortunately this
       | is the world we live in. Only thing I can think of is that people
       | vote into power parties who are willing to check the power of big
       | corporations:
       | 
       | https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2023/09/biden-doj...
        
         | empiko wrote:
         | I really do not see what google did wrong here. There should be
         | no flag-planting in the open source community. The fact that
         | one person develops an idea does not mean that nobody else has
         | a right to develop their own version. In this case the authors
         | has even deleted all his repositories due to mental stress. It
         | makes even more sense for Google to develop their own version
         | so that they can be in the control of their project.
        
           | throwmeout123 wrote:
           | Open source is unsustainable if we act like this. A 100k
           | grant costs a fraction of the latest leetcode wanker member
           | of the blind church of tc. Add to it a couple of seniors to
           | mentor the dude a couple afternoons a Week and you're
           | steering the project without too many problems at lower cost.
           | 
           | "Give back to the community" used to be something I admired
           | in the American culture as an European, but I guess most
           | exchanged it for a L6 promo
        
           | aaomidi wrote:
           | The wrong things is that they actually spent time talking to
           | Oz.
           | 
           | It wasn't just a random repository they came across.
           | 
           | Anyway this is why I GPL everything. At least it ensures that
           | the changes to it remain free.
        
         | fallat wrote:
         | The remedy is Google gives the guy a job or some damn payment.
         | "They don't have to" - well no shit, we don't have to be nice
         | to each other, yet most of us are. Why can't Google be nice to
         | people?
        
           | pvorb wrote:
           | They don't have to be nice to people, but it would be better
           | if they (still) were _not evil_.
        
           | msm_ wrote:
           | Because Google is a corporation, not a person. Even if Google
           | decides to be "nice" in this case, this will be for purely
           | selfish reasons (they decide good PR they get from paying
           | this guy is worth more than whatever they pay). Expecting
           | corporations to behave like people is a sure way to get
           | disappointed.
        
             | jjnoakes wrote:
             | Corporations are made up of people, and people can
             | influence the actions of the corporation, if they try.
        
               | yoyohello13 wrote:
               | Yeah good luck with that. The founding principal and
               | mission of a corporation is to make money at all costs.
               | Being "Good" will always come second to making money, the
               | individuals who make it up are powerless to stop it.
        
               | jordan_curve wrote:
               | Do you have a source for this? As far as I know the
               | purpose of corporations is to shield owners from losses
               | and not a whole lot beyond that.
        
               | rmbyrro wrote:
               | The best way to shield owners is to not form a business
               | in the first place.
        
         | lol768 wrote:
         | The legal system isn't the only means to a "resolution".
         | 
         | Public shaming can work pretty well too, sometimes.
        
         | toyg wrote:
         | Just because something is legal, doesn't mean that it isn't
         | utterly immoral.
         | 
         | The Google guy should be ashamed of himself, apologize, and try
         | to remedy the injustice he perpetrated - get Oz a job, and/or
         | credit him in their work.
        
       | calrain wrote:
       | This is a problem with specific people within Google, and
       | Google's inability to manage their staff.
       | 
       | Google's Legal department can definitely resolve this problem.
        
       | DiabloD3 wrote:
       | Somebody at the DoJ should reach out to this guy and see if he'd
       | be willing to testify.
        
       | matt3210 wrote:
       | [flagged]
        
         | rmbyrro wrote:
         | Sure, that's why they should steal other people's work without
         | any credit or consideration to their morals. Because it's a
         | "fiduciary responsibility", this is totally fine.
        
         | archgoon wrote:
         | This is a fiction. I'm not sure if it is pushed by corporate
         | apologists, or by people trying to convince others the system
         | is completely broken and must be destroyed (and replaced with
         | system X).
         | 
         | An analysis of this claim:
         | 
         | https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
         | 
         | In general, corporations are given a large leeway as to what is
         | 'in the best interest of the coporation'. Fidiciuary duty
         | basically means CEO's just can't run the company into the
         | ground and spend all the cash on cocaine parties.
        
       | madrox wrote:
       | I'm often skeptical of claims like the one I read here...not this
       | time. This is is pretty egregious, and thanks to Professor Levin
       | for providing lots of supporting material, making the offense
       | even more obvious.
        
       | dinkleberg wrote:
       | This is depressing to read.
       | 
       | This is so close to being the amazing story we all want to hear
       | about.
       | 
       | A veteran, suffering from PTSD, falls on hard times and ends up
       | homeless. Despite his hard situation, he strives to help those
       | who are even worse off. He learns how to program and uses these
       | skills to build something to improve the lives of those are
       | severely disadvantaged. He spends years working on this project
       | and ends up building something really cool and useful.
       | 
       | So useful in fact that his dedication pays off and one of the
       | biggest software companies in the world is inspired and brings
       | him on to scale up this technology to help improve the lives of
       | millions.
       | 
       | Except of course that doesn't end up happening. Instead, we're
       | left reminded that life can be cruel.
        
       | pickingdinner wrote:
       | Ya, F google. But that's what corporations do. I wouldn't expect
       | otherwise. But that's also why the PR department could get on
       | this and make it right, and profitable (which is always the only
       | motivation).
       | 
       | The Honda "random acts of helpfulness" goes a bit too far to be
       | tasteful to me, because their acts are so random.
       | 
       | But if an individual could use help, and the situation is related
       | to a companies service or product, the business should help, even
       | just for PR, especially if they are selling to consumers, whom
       | are all individuals.
        
       | Kaibeezy wrote:
       | Evil.
        
       | solardev wrote:
       | Don't be (caught being) evil.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-09-14 23:02 UTC)