[HN Gopher] Nvidia sued for stealing trade secrets: blunder show...
___________________________________________________________________
Nvidia sued for stealing trade secrets: blunder showed rival
company's code
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 166 points
Date : 2023-11-25 19:25 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.engadget.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.engadget.com)
| UberFly wrote:
| One of the employees had his previous employers' code. There will
| have to be proof that Nvidia even knew about it for this to go
| anywhere beyond the employee.
| juunpp wrote:
| I am positive Nvidia has no part in this. A corporation of this
| size is severely allergic to foreign proprietary code and would
| not risk the lawsuit. Sounds more like this individual forgot
| to read the memo on IP, and the article says he was already
| sued by the German courts for prior misconduct anyway.
|
| Kind of reminds me of the guys who do personal stuff on their
| work laptop and then get the entire company pwned. Do people
| not read the fucking manual anymore?
| alistairSH wrote:
| Anymore? People have never RTFM.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| What does it mean for "Nvidia to know" something? Does it never
| count as a "corporation knowing" unless the executives are
| aware of it? Obviously this cannot be the standard by which
| companies are held accountable.
| IshKebab wrote:
| It's pretty clear what he means. He means that the managers
| and executives are ok with stealing code.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| How many managers need to be in-the-loop with the theft
| before we can fairly say "the corporation knows"? As far as
| I'm concerned, even if no managers are aware of it, they
| _should_ have been aware of it (it 's their job to know
| what their reports are doing) so the corporation should be
| liable for the theft. Otherwise it's trivial for everybody
| to play dumb and turn a blind eye to what's going on.
| ohyes wrote:
| The magic number is 1 manager.
| Xelynega wrote:
| Yea "they were too big to know something illegal was
| going on" is a narrative that benefits these large
| companies while ensuring any individuals or small
| companies that do the same see the full force of the law.
| IshKebab wrote:
| 2
| almost_usual wrote:
| > Moniruzzaman allegedly gave his personal email unauthorized
| access to Valeo's systems to steal "tens of thousands of files"
| and 6GB of source code shortly after that development.
| latchkey wrote:
| dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38363361
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| it is... but there's apparently a lot more discussion on this
| thread so maybe that one should be rolled into this one...
| pritambaral wrote:
| TFA makes it sound as if the entirety of the blame can be placed
| on one employee. Sure, his actions do seem to support that view,
| but then again, Nvidia did hire him precisely for his previous
| experience at this rival company, on the very same project that
| the two companies were partnered on, which is the same project
| that Nvidia hired him for.
|
| There is no argument to be made that Nvidia wasn't aware he'd be
| coming with secrets. The argument that that's precisely why he
| was hired, OTOH, is looking very strong.
| juunpp wrote:
| > Nvidia did hire him precisely for his previous experience at
| this rival company, on the very same project that the two
| companies were partnered on, which is the same project that
| Nvidia hired him for.
|
| Yes, this happens all the time.
|
| > There is no argument to be made that Nvidia wasn't aware he'd
| be coming with secrets.
|
| This is not a logical conclusion from the above. Hiring for the
| exp is fine. Hiring for the trade secrets obviously is not. No
| serious company would do the latter, esp a company the size of
| Nvidia.
| devmor wrote:
| >No serious company would do the latter
|
| Of course, as we all know, large companies never take risks
| against the law and can always be trusted.
| takinola wrote:
| Risk is always balanced against reward. I doubt Nvidia is
| culpable here not because I have some strong belief in
| their morality but because I trust they would not take
| stupid tradeoffs.
| Retric wrote:
| The exposure was unexpected so the risk was likely
| perceived as low.
|
| That said, the discovery process could clear NVIDA.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| That puts a lot of faith in a lot employees.
| margalabargala wrote:
| IMO this is more of a "don't ask don't tell" thing. I'm
| sure there was never an explicit agreement that the
| employee would bring trade secrets, but they can promise
| to be able to build for Nvidia what was built at the last
| company, and Nvidia could say "yes I want that", and not
| audit the new employee's dev environment.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> IMO this is more of a "don't ask don't tell" thing._
|
| I assure you isn't. If your company (in the law abiding
| west) has any suspicion you're using another company's
| illegally obtained proprietary IP, they won't see you as
| some hero doing God's work and put you on the promotion
| track wile closing a blind eye to what you're doing, but
| they immediately ask you to delete everything and every
| trace related to that.
|
| Foreign IP is radioactive and they don't want to get sued
| because you're bringing some source code and PDFs from
| their competitor, which might not even be that useful for
| them anyway.
|
| There were even cases of companies ratting out their
| employees they found using IP they stolen from their
| previous employers and getting them arrested, because if
| you stole IP from their competitor what's stopping you
| from also stealing from them?
|
| _> not audit the new employee's dev environment_
|
| Audit how? Against what? Stolen foreign source code you
| don't have? That's just not realistically possible to
| audit every employees work and accurately determine if
| they are or not reusing source code they stolen form a
| competitor, especially if the employee doing this is
| careful to change or redact what he's checking in.
|
| Only thing you can audit is against FOSS code that is
| public, but not if it's stolen proprietary code and the
| employee made sure to not check-in anything giving away
| the origin of the original IP holder. They didn't catch
| this guy until he got sloppy and made this huge blunder.
|
| You can never secure everything and audit everyone,
| especially if you want people to get any work done and
| not feel violated, so everything boils down to trusting
| employees they won't steal from you, and trusting the
| legal framework and law enforcement they'll do their job
| when in need, so you just have everyone sign NDAs and
| hope for the best.
| winocm wrote:
| A thought that came to me recently in the shower: Isn't all
| knowledge effectively based on previous knowledge, and by
| extension, experience?
|
| i.e: A programmer knows how to do X, leaves a company to do
| Y, where Y is in the same field of work as X. Doesn't X still
| affect the programmer on a subconscious level and henceforth,
| their thoughts indirectly?
| jfim wrote:
| You can bring your expertise in X without the source code
| that does X. The former is legal, the latter is not.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Bringing knowledge is one thing, which is legal, but
| stealing source code and design files from your employer to
| copy it to the systems of their competitor where you now
| work is a completely different thing which is illegal.
|
| Companies want your knowledge, not you bringing proprietary
| IP from their competitor to work, as they know that's a
| very expensive lawsuit waiting to happen.
| wombatpm wrote:
| But what if I have an idemic memory?
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Then you'd be able to draw and type out everything from
| scratch directly on your employer's PC and not have to
| download it via USB drives or email, like this guy did.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Then congratulations, you're able to ~~excel~~ exfil more
| data.
|
| We live in an imperfect world and solve problems as best
| we can.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| Then copyright comes in to play. You should have been
| taught how to avoid plagiarism in school. Use those
| techniques to reimplement. These techniques involve more
| than just using synonyms and rephrasing.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| This is the "inevitable disclosure" argument - AKA the idea
| that the experience _is_ the secret, and thus nobody should
| ever be allowed to switch employers ever again.
|
| For various reasons (notably, the fact that slavery is
| illegal), we don't accept this in general. You have to show
| that secrets were _copied in full_. Employees cannot
| memorize millions of lines of source, they can only
| memorize vague architectural details that would be easily
| reverse engineered by competitors. If you want to own those
| vague details, get a patent, or shut up.
| throwaway914 wrote:
| In theory, one can memorize a great deal.. I do agree
| with you, though.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Memorizing a sizable fraction of Windows source code so
| you can take it to Apple sounds like the most pointless
| and difficult heist imaginable!
| zik wrote:
| > No serious company would do the latter
|
| It happens literally all the time:
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/27/anthon
| y-l...
|
| [2] https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/22/23317502/xiaolang-
| zhang-p...
|
| [3] https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/former-engineer-
| sentenced...
|
| [4] https://apnews.com/article/korea-samsung-china-copycat-
| semic...
|
| [5] https://www.reuters.com/technology/twitter-may-face-
| difficul...
| beardedwizard wrote:
| This proves individual employees routinely steal trade
| secrets; yes, they do. It does not prove that the companies
| they join (US public companies in the United States anyway)
| willfully use it.
|
| Think about the large scale conspiracy required to keep
| something like that secret from an entire company.
| Guthur wrote:
| Lol are we talking about the same nvidia, they're up their
| with the most corrupt.
| takinola wrote:
| I don't have direct knowledge of this company or the parties
| involved but I would be highly doubtful that Nvidia would want
| to have an employee steal the secrets of a competitor/partner.
| In my experience, companies of this size would aggressively not
| want tainted IP inside their companies. He would need to be
| bringing across something as valuable as AGI, cure for cancer,
| etc for it to be even worth considering. There are numerous
| examples of companies being offered trade secrets of their
| competitors and reporting it back to the FBI just so they can
| avoid even the suspicion of stealing corporate secrets.
|
| If you think about it for a second, it is kind of obvious.
| Pretty much every technology is reproducible with the right
| amount of talent, funding and time. Why commit a crime when you
| can simply throw money (of which you have a lot) at the
| problem? Responsible corporate officers know this and act
| accordingly.
| aaomidi wrote:
| > Why commit a crime when you can simply throw money (of
| which you have a lot) at the problem?
|
| Indeed. But the stupidity of committing a crime does not
| actually stop companies from doing so. Mainly because the
| penalties for it are never harsh enough.
| szundi wrote:
| Stupidity in this case probably means low level employees
| cheating for benefits and career
|
| Nvidia can get out of this fairly low cost then
|
| Who knows
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> Stupidity in this case probably means low level
| employees cheating for benefits and career_
|
| That's most likely the case here. FFS, the guy stole 6GB
| of proprietary data and police found the stolen design
| files pinned on his wall at home, so the guy was fully
| committed to his scammer role, and not just an accidental
| "oopsie I walked out with some proprietary IP by mistake,
| better discard it and keep this low key so nobody finds
| out".
|
| By the looks of it, this guy, most likely a
| Bluecard(German equivalent of H1B) was just cheating and
| stealing his way up the career chain through the
| revolving door of the blue-chip automotive sector, until
| he got caught.
|
| Companies both big and small, never ever encourage you to
| bring to work proprietary files and data from your
| previous workplaces, since that's a guaranteed lawsuit as
| these things always get out eventually.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| The company I worked for, was paranoid as hell about IP in
| the code. They hired some source scanning firm, for a _lot_
| of money, to continually scan our codebase.
|
| They were mostly looking for GPL ( _nasty, naasssssty GPL!_ )
| code, but they also scanned for code that couldn't be
| accounted for in our "clean" repos. Not exactly sure how that
| worked (or even, if it worked at all. I think they brought
| smoke[0]).
|
| [0] https://www.tell-a-tale.com/nasreddin-hodja-story-smoke-
| sell...
| andy99 wrote:
| > nasty, naasssssty GPL!
|
| What does that mean? Why would scanning for gpl code be
| looked at badly? It presumably means a company is
| proactively abiding by gpl licensing. The only thing better
| would be to use gpl and share their source as well. But of
| course it's a legit choice to just not use any gpl'd code.
|
| It's probably more common to just turn a blind eye to gpl
| code, so it's good to see companies making sure they're on
| the right side of it.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| It was a joke.
|
| I'm not a fan of "viral" licenses, and agree that, if a
| company doesn't want to abide by the license, they should
| not include them, but I am also not a fan of trying to
| force others to force others, to force others, etc., _ad
| nauseam_.
|
| I tend to use MIT, which isn't always everyone's cup of
| tea, but means that you can use my code, and it would be
| nice to be credited, but I won't cry myself to sleep, if
| you don't.
| MertsA wrote:
| Would Nvidia the company want to engage in this? No. Would
| some middle manager involved in poaching this guy from the
| competitor want to do it? I have my suspicions. It takes two
| to tango and Nvidia didn't catch this themselves which raises
| some red flags. How was he hired? What kind of compensation
| was he able to negotiate? Was it well above the compensation
| Nvidia would ordinarily pay for an engineer of his level? How
| did he introduce the code into Nvidia's version control? Were
| there obvious red flags about the "development" pace that
| should have raised eyebrows during peer review?
|
| I work at a big tech company and if I tried something
| similar, I'm pretty sure it would be caught internally. Even
| if I managed to pull it off, all it could realistically give
| me is a foot in the door. Some sketchy hiring manager isn't
| going to be able to just sweep some $500,000 signing bonus
| under the rug and $100k isn't unheard of for regular
| engineers here anyways. As far as compensation and promotion
| opportunities afterwards it stands little chance of mattering
| for that either. For the first few months nothing I did was
| even used performance reviews and it's a peer driven process
| to rate/promote engineers.
|
| Combined that means that even if I wanted to do this, and I
| found a corrupt hiring manager that wanted to play ball, I'd
| have to sit on that IP for a few months after being hired,
| slowly introduce it into the codebase, alter it in response
| to peer review and to fit the new code base's coding styles,
| etc. In the end, that would prove useful for a grand total of
| one peer review cycle and then it's sink or swim on my own
| merits from that point forward.
|
| All that to say, yes Nvidia doesn't want this kind of thing
| as a company, but there are still individuals who potentially
| stand to benefit and there's a lot of opportunities for
| Nvidia to catch this before it's accidentally shown on screen
| to the competitor it was stolen from this far down the line.
| I don't know much about Nvidia's corporate structure but it
| kinda seems like they're trying to avoid finding out about it
| rather than trying to actually prevent it.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| A problem here is that while the companies will generally make
| very clear that they don't want you to have any single line of
| code, any schematic, any drawing, anything at all from your
| previous company; they may also expect you to bring
| "experience" from the previous company, thereby pressuring more
| junior employees into doing exactly that - bringing some docs
| from the previous company - but not telling about it. Through
| my career I have been to several meetings where everyone was,
| notebook in hand, expecting to hear the "experience" from the
| new guy. That is obviously as legal as it gets, but the
| pressure for the junior employee to have kept a couple of notes
| is there, and you'd never know.
|
| i.e. I suppose no one was aware that he had this code, and it's
| unlikely it went into nvidia's codebases or that nvidia wanted
| it; but it also doesn't mean nvidia did not pressure the guy
| into doing that.
| redder23 wrote:
| And they will get a slap on the wrist at best. They made billions
| this is just peanuts.
| redder23 wrote:
| This fucking site is like Reddit, people hate facts. So
| pathetic.
| tmtvl wrote:
| Should just give the board of directors 100 lashes. Except of
| course if it turns out they didn't know about it, then they
| should get 200 lashes, have their genitals chopped off, and
| their immediate family be given 10 lashes. Just like the good
| old days.
| steponlego wrote:
| I just avoid NVIDIA because they hate Free Software, not for any
| other reason.
| kkielhofner wrote:
| 400 GH repos:
|
| https://github.com/orgs/NVIDIA/repositories
|
| Not to mention tons of other projects that live outside of the
| main org, contributions to other projects all over the place,
| etc.
|
| So much hate for free software.
|
| The "I hate Nvidia because all I know is their driver is
| proprietary" schtick is old.
|
| They crossed the $1T mark in value solely because of the almost
| completely open source ecosystem (a large portion of which they
| directly develop and contribute to) that runs on top of their
| hardware and (yes, proprietary) driver.
|
| They're not angels but this position is something out of
| Slashdot circa 2005.
| clnq wrote:
| This often happens ingenuously, not out of calculated ill intent.
| Coders will keep code snippets and thoughts in personal knowledge
| tools like Notion, and then reuse them in different companies. Or
| contractors will straight up copy and paste code from source
| files of projects they worked on for different companies,
| thinking "I wrote it, so I could write it again, but why
| bother?", or something along those lines. People don't usually
| brag about these things, but they do come to light in random
| conversations.
|
| This is exactly what happened here:
|
| > According to Valeo's complaint, Mohammad Moniruzzaman, an
| engineer for NVIDIA who used to work for its company, had
| mistakenly showed its source code files on his computer as he was
| sharing his screen during a meeting with both firms in 2022
|
| In most cases, these people are asked to remove all such code
| from the codebase and never do it again, but news about this
| rarely reaches the executive level. Usually, there aren't clear
| rules that it's supposed to be reported, so low level managers
| handle it the best they can. Of course, this guy got caught in
| very unusual circumstances.
|
| It is also very unfortunate to be the software engineer who
| notices others doing this, because it puts you in a
| whistleblower's dilemma. The upper management does not want to be
| implicated in this and they do not want to know. Besides,
| informing them would definitely lead to the coder's firing. What
| is worse, many programmers see liberal use of IP as "not a big
| deal". So you would be perceived as causing problems for upper
| management, and getting people fired for "petty" reasons. It can
| sink your career in most companies if you witness this and it
| gets out. There are laws that protect whistleblowers from being
| let go sometimes, but it's not conducive to anyone's career
| growth to remain in the company because they cannot be fired.
| asddubs wrote:
| what about this:
|
| >Valeo said its former employee admitted to stealing its
| software and that German police found its documentation and
| hardware pinned on Moniruzzaman's walls when his home was
| raided. According to Bloomberg, he was already convicted of
| infringement of business secrets in a German court and was
| ordered to pay EUR14,400 ($15,750) in September.
| kuroguro wrote:
| > paste code from source files of projects they worked on for
| different companies
|
| I wonder what would happen if legal action started between two
| companies and it turned out a coder pasted code from personal
| projects that predates both.
| Crosseye_Jack wrote:
| INAL (so take this with the pinch of salt that it comes from
| someone just thinking out loud), but I think it would depend
| on a number of factors such as how novel the code was, and
| how integral the code is (just to name two factors)
|
| If the code was something as simple as let's say leftpad for
| a simple example, it could be argued that it's not the "meat"
| of the application so those few lines can not by themselves
| be copyrighted but the whole work (or even larger portions of
| it) can be.
|
| If it was some special sauce algorithm, it could be argued
| under their work contract that the employee assigned
| copyright of the code of the personal project to the first
| employer they did the work for.
|
| It also depends on the status of the employee, the contract
| of the employee, and the jurisdiction of both
| employee/employee.
|
| A "full fledged" employee work is often deemed as the
| companies property if done under the course of their
| employment. A contractor in the US is about the same, however
| in the UK a contractor by default can retain the copyright of
| the "work product" unless stipulated otherwise in the work
| contract (so most contracts will state that you as a
| contractor are assigning copyright for the work you do to the
| company).
|
| So in that last case it could be argued that the coder still
| owns the copyright but licenses the use to both parties. It
| would then be a case of the two companies maybe suing the
| coder for selling code they may have represented as given
| them an exclusive license to it, but obv didn't because it
| was licensed to multiple companies.
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| For most contractual agreements you assign copy-write of your
| work to your employer. So if you used your personal project
| in work for your employer the copy-write becomes theirs.
|
| My guess is that in your hypothetical scenario the first
| company would own the IP and could sue the worker or other
| company for infringement.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> I wonder what would happen if legal action started between
| two companies and it turned out a coder pasted code from
| personal projects that predates both._
|
| Highly unlikely. This was no FOSS web library he was working
| on, but some relatively cutting edge embedded automotive
| stuff, which few people do in their free time as a side
| project to put on github.
|
| And anyway, according to most industry contracts and work
| laws, whatever code you check in your employer's systems
| during work hours and using work equipment, automatically now
| becomes your employer's code which you now can't share
| anymore.
| ohyes wrote:
| Or worse, they may just remember how they coded it last time
| and code it the same, or only remember subconsciously and code
| it the same without knowing.
|
| Someday there will be technology to erase all memory of work
| you did in service of your corporate overlords and you'll be
| able to start with a true clean slate at every job.
| kennethrc wrote:
| > Someday there will be technology to erase all memory of
| work you did in service of your corporate overlords and
| you'll be able to start with a true clean slate at every job.
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11280740
| muhehe wrote:
| Or
|
| https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0338337/
| mnd999 wrote:
| Nvidia definitely don't have form for stealing trade secrets.
| They never stole anything from SGI.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| How can you know that?
| Symmetry wrote:
| One of the generally accepted reasons why its hard to get
| graphics companies to open source their drives has always been
| that everybody is violating everybody else's patents. And while
| everybody knows this making it too obvious is a legal
| disadvantage. But I hadn't expected it was also true of
| copyright.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> everybody is violating everybody else 's patents_
|
| Violating patents is one thing, as you're only violating the
| concept/idea, but the implementation is still up to you meaning
| it will still be clean room design, whereas this guy also
| blatantly copied the source code and design files which is a
| slam dunk lawsuit, hence why no company ever wants to have
| competitors' IP on their systems.
| throwaway54_56 wrote:
| > Violating patents is one thing, as you're only violating
| the concept/idea, but the implementation is still up to you
|
| The concept/idea is not what is patented. The patent is (or
| should be) for the specific execution of the idea.
| Competitors are free to implement their feature using methods
| other that what is covered by the patent, even if the end
| result gives the exact same functionality.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> The concept/idea is not what is patented. The patent is
| (or should be) for the specific execution of the idea._
|
| Have you ever seen patents? They rarely cover the
| implementation details, or at most they're intentionally
| super vague about that, most of the time it's just the
| general idea on how the widget would work and what it does,
| but not how to implement it technically.
| throwaway54_56 wrote:
| I have seen patents. The whole point is to share a method
| of doing something, in return for exclusive use of that
| method for a period of time. That's the theory, anyway.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Then you misunderstood or saw too few patents.
| anon373839 wrote:
| I'm sure we'll all be glad one day that Apple shared this
| research breakthrough:
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/6/16614038/apple-
| samsung-sl...
| atq2119 wrote:
| Idea is a pretty general term. I have a bunch of patents
| and I would describe them all as patenting an idea (for how
| to achieve some goal).
|
| The implementation or execution of the idea usually takes
| the form of some Verilog or some C++. That is covered by
| copyright.
|
| The patent is for the idea. Which is part of why I'm so
| opposed to patents, not just in software. In other fields,
| like medicine, patents are perhaps for _discoveries_ ,
| which are IMHO similarly valuable as the execution. But
| ideas aren't that valuable, or shouldn't be.
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _The concept /idea is not what is patented. The patent is
| (or should be) for the specific execution of the idea.
| Competitors are free to implement their feature using
| methods other that what is covered by the patent, even if
| the end result gives the exact same functionality._
|
| IP lawyer here: That's a considerable (and potentially-
| dangerous) oversimplification. What matters is whether what
| you do comes within the _claims_ of the patent.
|
| (For a more-detailed explanation, written in pseudocode-
| like terms, see a 2010 post I did:
| https://www.oncontracts.com/how-patent-claims-work-a-
| variety....)
| conradev wrote:
| The specific execution of an idea is also an idea, though
|
| I feel like the granularity of patents is defined more so
| by where the frontier of knowledge is for a given domain
| than the patent office (i.e. what is hard but also
| valuable). But, I also haven't spent a lot of time with
| patents
| ip26 wrote:
| Given independent invention is apparently not a defense against
| infringement, that makes a lot of sense. I can't even imagine
| trying to screen the codebase for that.
| sokoloff wrote:
| "Infringement" is not specific enough there. Independent
| invention is not a defense against _patent_ infringement, but
| is a defense against _copyright_ infringement.
| kahnclusions wrote:
| No, but a patent can be invalidated if you can show that the
| idea is obvious to practitioners of the trade, i.e. given the
| same problem most software engineers would arrive at the same
| solution.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| and now we have AI violating everything.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| _always_ refactor, rename and relib when you reuse !
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| > German police found its documentation and hardware pinned on
| Moniruzzaman's walls when his home was raided
|
| WTF actually prints out documentation? Let alone pins it to their
| walls? I mean....seriously does anybody actually do this?
| rightbyte wrote:
| I do. I can't read any length of text on a screen. I pin stuff
| to the wall too, of quick sheet character. Like Emacs hotkeys,
| C operator precedence, pinouts, general specs etc.
| filchermcurr wrote:
| Same. I recently bought a Kindle Scribe (would have preferred
| Kobo, but enh) to see if that would make it easier than
| constant printing and shuffling papers. It's alright. Better
| than a monitor, slightly less good than paper.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| I'd love to have a 100 inch hidpi eink wall.
| WalterBright wrote:
| So would I. But I settle for an extra monitor in portrait
| mode, and will stick the pdf documentation in it when I'm
| following a spec.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> WTF actually prints out documentation?_
|
| Probably easier to exfiltrate confidential documents when
| printed, rather than digitally through the company internet
| which is logged and points straight to you.
|
| If I print something confidential and take it home there's only
| the printer logs as proof that I printed it, but no proof that
| I also took it home (unless there's surveillance footage).
|
| _> Let alone pins it to their walls?_
|
| The man is proud of his work, wants to see it daily for
| motivation.
| AndroTux wrote:
| Germans. We love printing, faxing and scanning stuff.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> Germans. _
|
| > _Mohammad Moniruzzaman_
|
| Very German.
| siva7 wrote:
| Never share your screen, only a window!
| jonplackett wrote:
| Was hoping they stolen CUDA from AMD
| aunty_helen wrote:
| > Too many requests -- error 999.
|
| Did engadget get the hug of death???
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-25 23:00 UTC)