Cool, thanks for the info.
557 karma · joined February 12, 2010
A couple critiques: When I was first learning, I was desperate for Hello World code I could paste and run. As basic as this tutorial is, sometimes even a little abstraction makes it hard for newbies to grasp. For example, why not make the doWhatever function do something, so they can run the code and see how it works?
Same with assignment vs eval... demonstrate it in a fully functioning piece of code they can copy, paste and hack themselves.
Analogies to noble gases aren't the best... since non science people may not even remember what that is. Also, a can easily be changed, so I'm not sure the analogy even holds.
Nice post overall. I think Hacker news should have a way to easily find all articles like this.
At this point, it probably doesn't make sense to get in a legal fight. I think worst case scenario is you break off and continue on your own, and jettison the minimal contribution your partner has made to the project. It doesn't sound like the business is at the point where he is going to lawyer up and sue you. It would cost you both more than its worth at this stage.
It would help to know more about the scale of he project and what you will do with the data.
More importantly, if he isn't pulling his weight, you need to have a "come to Jesus" meeting, where expectations are set. Make clear that you want to continue with the business, and that if he doesn't perform, you would like to split off and work on your own, and are willing to give him a 10% equity stake to walk away. Barring that, you are going to walk away yourself and start from scratch with a new partner (this time you will maintain control, and use an earn-in structure for future partners).
The bright line standard for trademark lawsuits is essentially "would a reasonable person mistake your brand for your competitors?". In this case, based on what you have said here, you have taken your competitors name, and added "my" in front of it. So most reasonable people would conclude that it is highly likely someone will mistake your competitors brand for yours.
If you were in a completely different industry than the similarly named company, then there would be some wiggle room, because you could argue that even if someone was initially confused about the two companies, there is no possibility for them to buy your product thinking it was the competitors. However, you are in the exact same industry, so the likely conclusion is that the customer will be confused and likely to buy your product thinking its your competitors.
Unfortunately, the domain name issue is irrelevant in the face of trademark law. In fact, as has happened with many other infringement suits, it is likely that if you lost the lawsuit, you would be forced to transfer the domain to your competitor.
The reason I rephrased is that the competition always matters. You may be able to make a better product, but if the competition is so strong and differentiation so lacking in the market that you will never be able to make any money, then you are in trouble regardless.
A large part of management structure in the first place is to try to insulate the organization against changes at any level. Want to replace the entire C suite and the board? No problem... business goes on as usual. With this structure, the company becomes highly dependent on the people at the very top. Any changes there might have the effect of blowing up the whole organization, because there are only a few people who are unquestionably in charge. I think there are lots of benefits from trying to reshape the corporate org chart, as I mentioned in another post, but it is also dangerous to be overly idealistic in terms of how your employees regard this structure and the risk they place on working under it. If most of them feel its appropriate, then I suppose there is no problem. However, I wouldn't automatically assume that's the case, just because they have chosen to work without a title. Also, a large part of their continued work at the firm may have to do with their relationship with you personally, which may put the long term viability of the business at risk.
What if "promotion" doesn't necessarily mean domain over other people, which seems to be the other issue. There can only be one SVP of Technology, for example, in most organizations.
What if, like in school, you get "degrees" for achieving things within the organization? If you launch a major new product successfully, you achieve a "master programmer" honor, and the associated pay benefits. This doesn't necessarily give you any right to control others in the organization, but it rewards employees for stellar performance. They can then put that on their resume if they go to another company.
I would argue it is a little short-sighted to say that the company can exist in a vacuum, when every other company in the world, for the most part, operates with a title. That doesn't mean you have to play that game within the company, but you should at least accommodate employees' concerns that they work for you for 10 years, and then can never get a comparable job because it looks like they never advanced. If they stay in your good graces, it probably isn't an issue, since I'm sure you will give them a good recommendation. But if not, they could be in big trouble when they go to find a new job.
The takeaway for me is that you should be constantly questioning whether there is a different way to run things that enhances the performance of your organization as a whole. I have personally been privy to how the people with the most impressive titles frequently have the least connection to what's going on in the business. Some of the methods taken at 37Signals seem to be aimed at fixing this problem, which I think is commendable.
At the same time, it seems a shame to have to let go of a good employee because they want to take on more responsibility. If their view on more responsibility is simply a bigger title, then perhaps they weren't the right fit for 37Signals. However, in my opinion, ambition and competence should be rewarded, so it seems like there may have been a better way to handle the situation than choosing between staying in the same role and leaving the organization.
I don't mind paying $5 to rent a movie that I want to see. The fact is I don't have enough time in my life to watch all the stuff I want to watch, so when it comes down to it, I simply want the most convenient method of watching something. I'd prefer it not be shot with an unsteady handycam in a movie theater in Brazil with subtitles; I will pay to make sure the version I watch is of decent quality.
The fact is that the media industry is so busy trying to put out what it sees as fires (and these piracy fires are endless, by the way), instead of giving the consumer what they want. If they even had the smallest inkling of a brain, they would have already put their entire catalog online for direct purchase. No retarded DRM, or anything like that. Simply let people download the songs, at high quality, and then go after the most egregious forms of piracy. This would lead to higher margins (sales costs effectively go to 0), and they would be able to chill out a bit as well. Instead, they seem to think that living in their bunker somewhere is the way out of the situation, and are passing on probably the greatest revenue opportunity of all time.
You can see how there is some Cover Flow similarity there. However, why should this be patentable at all? Otherwise, shouldn't I just sit down and sketch as many UI configurations as I can think of, patent them all, and then sue the hell out of anyone who then implements them? Just seems silly.
It is indeed difficult to decide what is truly "innovative" or "new". The patent system defines the criteria for issuing a patent as novel, non-obvious, and useful. These are very broad standards, and were much more applicable to physical invention than information technology invention.
In my opinion, the patent system needs an update for the 21st Century. Those involved in developing software and information based technologies need to collaborate on a set of rules that set a high bar for issuing a patent, and a set of guidelines that streamline the application process for the U.S. Patent Office. The issues involved are usually highly technical, and rather than have a bunch of software engineer working in the patent office, it would make sense to force the applicant to prove via the application process that the product deserves protection.
Personally, I think that pure software should be copyrighted, not patented. If there are hardware and software components, that is the only time that a patent should be considered. Ditto with genetics. You should not be able to patent the information for a gene. It may be reasonable to patent the tools used to discover genes, assuming they are not straight derivatives of naturally occurring enzymes.
The link you referenced would generally be considered the far-left stance, in that there really shouldn't be any property ownership at all (the referenced writings seem to suggest that even real property is a menace).
Personally, I think there should be some reward for truly novel invention. I agree with the referenced writings that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich does not qualify for such protection, despite what the Patent Office may do. This is simply an indication of the level of work being done at the Patent Office, however, amongst other structural problems in the system.
I do think that the patent system serves a purpose. For invention that is truly novel, it is worth the price of temporary monopoly to encourage disclosure. Many of the novel drugs on the market today might not exist without patent protection. It is simply too expensive to create a new drug without the promise of a future upside free from the inevitable copycats, who could underprice because they have no R&D expense. While drug companies are not usually considered the good guy due to over-pricing (because of patent monopolies), I think we are better off having the drugs in the long term and suffering the short term consequences of issuing the patent.