> Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but a judge in the case noted last year that the firm has argued that Attia gave Google rights to his technology “without a condition of later payment.”
So Google's defense isn't even that the substance of the accusations are false, but that they had the legal ability to do so?
Is this common behavior for Google, if the story is true?
This may be naive, but it seems downright illogical to act like that with a reputation as huge and important as Google's. I'd be concerned if I were a collaborator.
> Is this common behavior for Google, if the story is true?
It depends on details of his contract. It's quite plausible his employment contract in "Project X" did say that he would transfer knowledge and ideas in exchange for money. It's pretty standard stuff.
In other words, it might not be exactly a slam dunk case. A racketeering charge seems pretty outrageous as well.
However if Google did these things (which looks like they did), it would make them look shady. Maybe legally in the clear but ethically like you said, it would seem they threw their reputation under the bus.
Maybe once companies are a certain size they think they are untouchable and say stuff like "Yeah this is shady, but we've got lawyers and PR people to handle this, no biggie"
And this is why maybe a charge like racketeering is nice move - it might not be winnable in court, but it is outrageous enough to damage Google's reputation. Had it been some mundane case over a minor legal term, we wouldn't have found out.
> Is this common behavior for Google, if the story is true?
Google/GV was shit listed by a bunch of startup founders in Portland many years ago because they "stole a company" they were partnering with there. The founder was somebody everybody liked and PDX tech didn't take it well (and yes, we all talk to each other).
This does happen and you need to be very careful with these sorts of arrangements. They know they put stars in people's eyes and I've seen them take advantage of it.
> with a reputation as huge and important as Google's
Not trolling: What reputation?
Among non-techies, their reputation is one of creepy and spying.
Among techies, it's that company that keeps killing loved products.
Among developers, it's one of terrible support and awful job interviews.
Common to everyone is they are impossible to get hold of, a faceless and heartless machine that makes decisions you can't argue with.
None of this matters because they have the best products on the market in a few key areas and everyone keeps using those regardless of their reputation.
So what reputation do they have to lose? Their reputation is already bad, and it doesn't matter anyway, and they presumably know this as well as everyone else does.
Before Uber became Public Enemy #1 and prior to the Otto/Levandowski dispute, Google was planning on competing with Uber despite being an investor, which led Kalanick to e-mail David Drummond about it [1]. Drummond eventually left Uber's board (which harkens back to Schmidt leaving Apple's board) but this was well after the relationship had been deteriorating.
> So Google's defense isn't even that the substance of the accusations are false, but that they had the legal ability to do so?
Without additional context of the judges statement (or, better, either the actual filings in the case), that's far from clear.
It's not impossible or even uncommon for a defendant in a case to make an argument in the style of “I didn't take it, and, even if I had, I had permission to take it.”
You can't infer the nonexistence of the first part of the claim from the existence of the second.
>> So Google's defense isn't even that the substance of the accusations are false, but that they had the legal ability to do so?
But they were under NDA not to disclose the ideas, and yet they started a company marketing a product based on those ideas. If this is a correct interpretation, they don't have the legal ability to do so.
Of course the wording of the NDA is everything in a case like this. I'm assuming Google wrote the NDA when this guy should have provided one for Google to sign.
Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but a judge in the case noted last year that the firm has argued that Attia gave Google rights to his technology “without a condition of later payment.”
This is why, when you visit Google, you should never sign the overreaching NDA for a visitor's badge. You still get a visitor's badge; it just has a warning on it so Googlers know not to tell you too much.
The plaintiff's lawyers say that Google has won five out of six similar lawsuits on procedural grounds so looks like pretty common.
As for reputation, why would a behemoth like Google care if they squash a little guy (or two, or a dozen)? Even if they go on a PR offensive they still won't be able to outmatch or shout over Google. At most people like the HN audience will find out and then... proceed to do nothing because Google's products are either ubiquitous (like search) or first-in-class (because they are free, like email).
That is, in fact, exactly what the case is trying to demonstrate by referring to several other lawsuits against Google for similar acts. Remains to be seen if it works.
As a former insider, I can tell you likely pre-story which might cast a different light on this:
* Google employee comes up with an idea.
* They go and research the idea to check if there are any already existing companies which do it.
* If any are found, they meet and decide if they should buy the company, reinvent the idea, or that it isn't relevant.
* If, after investigation it is determined the company's tech isn't good enough, they will re-invent. Google has fairly strict tech requirements (no php, no shady licenses/ownership, no pirated stuff, etc.), so many companies don't pass.
* When they reinvent, they will do it "clean room" - ie. none of the people who reviewed the original company will be involved in the re-invention.
This story showed more than meeting or talking though. Agreements of some sort were signed, and he was asked to move out to Google and work with them.
Sounds like Google's position is that they did do what was alleged, but that Attia had signed terms that made it legal.
What you described above is similar. Legal, but shitty. Some amount of information obtained under false pretenses is surely passed to the "clean room" team. Otherwise, why meet with the target at all?
Your post doesn't shed a new light on anything. At best, that's the equivalent of a big firm going through deep "technical due diligence" with a startup's technology under the guide of a merger. Then, they tell the startup they are not interested and implement the same tech in-house using a "clean room".
'Clean room' development doesn't necessarily absolve them of
IP issues, and of 'nasty tactics' that may not be illegal but which would be hypocritical of a company trying to promote a specific image.
So the contention is that Google stole his idea for building design software? His representation is a bunch of patent trolls and the suit has already been going on for 3 years. The only news is now they are contending that many major Google products are based on coordinated and systematic IP theft (Search, Ads, Maps, Wallet, Hangouts, Youtube, Android). Pretty sure this is entirely bullshit.
Thanks for posting the link. I just read the first several pages, and I disagree with your conclusion.
This was more than a simple idea or patent. It was developed by someone with extensive experience in a vertical industry. Google actually paid to contract with him to develop a proof-of-concept, with the idea if the tech panned out and had market viability, they'd take it to market with him.
Google doesn't hire patent trolls or rely on their expertise in developing products.
The lawsuit is full of hyperbole (which hurts it in IMHO), but the underlying claim looks pretty believable.
In simple terms, google baited people with good ideas to join google x labs. Then pursued to cancel the projects, and thus cutting out the people who originated these ideas. Finally, google went on to use these ideas to create their own technology, and some have even graduated from Google X Labs.
That's simplistic. Why would they go to the trouble of "cutting out the people who originated these ideas" if they are already at X Labs and the project was to continue?
Wow this story is shocking. I want to point out it’s quite believable if you look at this situation historically. Microsoft was known for doing this exact same thing. Their tactic was to wine and dine startups, give them the “big megacorp company treatment”, ask them to divulge just a little of how they were doing what they were doing. Then they would go back to Seattle, put out an identical product 6 weeks later, and dare the company to sue them. Also another tactic of theirs was to get their executives or those on their payroll onto the boards of startups, sometimes as advisors, and then feed info back to MSFT. Their behavior has changed a ton from then I want to point out, but now looks like Google has picked up where they left off...
This is just plain scummy. Their defense is a that it's legal but this is just plain ridiculous. How do you fight a company that has a team of lawyers that can sink you for years and doing so prevents future attempts from happening.
I think the NDA meetings that result in what the lawsuits allege. Note, allege. Should have more stringent regulations to protect the smaller guy. Also google sinking its paws into everything and in many cases misbehaving makes me glad that we have sensible regulations against monopolies if it ever gets that far
Google is embedded in most web services, including this site (as capcha via cloudflare). But, you eventually would learn that non-google services that are mostly as good (except maps), and you would use no-script.
Will be very interesting to see what happens. I do think that companies as big as google certainly seem untouchable. They have a huge amount of resources that could probably flood you with paperwork and litigation. Kudos to this guy for sticking up for his beliefs, at any cost.
The best way this can affect Google is if the people they want to 'partner' with in the future turn around and tell them: "sorry you guys have a reputation now for being untrustworthy partners. We'd love to work with you but you will have to pay up big and first before we even share even the smallest details"
I had a similar experience with Google; a mutual NDA was signed as seen here https://goo.gl/K9Wd1U.
- Feb 2013 created SpeakerBlast; turn multiple devices into one sync speaker via a URL
- March 2013 Samsung released the Galaxy 4 with Group Play (same concept as SpeakerBlast)
- April 2013 Google/Motorola emails/calls me asking would I sell SpeakerBlast for inclusion into the Moto X
- May 2013 Fly out from Baltimore to demo/meet with Google ATAP in the hopes of fulfilling my goal/dream of being a successful inventor. During the meeting they bait my partner and I for our secret sauce then leave the room. They come back and say time to go and lead us to the elevator and say the race is on. See ya!
As the David in this David n Goliath story I have no idea if our work was used in Chrome Audio or not. The head of that unit is run by the Google ATAP tech lead we met with.
Ive heard this is just how it is in Silicon Valley.. treat the little guy and girls like crap. Take their hard work, steal it and stomp on them. Things need to change!!!
Just for context, Eli Attia, the architect, is not really the one pursuing the claim against Google here.
A company called Max Sound [1], whose only line of business seems to be suing Google, bought rights to sue over this in May 2014 and then sued Google in Dec 2014 [2]. They seem to have filed at least one other somewhat questionable lawsuit against Google in the past [3].
Hmm, all these news just tell me the winning strategy is no longer being generous like it was in 00s, where free/open source/access exploded, rather selfishly secretively keep all information to your advantage to yourself. Not sure I'd like to live in such a society. Can't wait to have enforced-by-automation toxic daily life.
>Google's leadership profoundly betrayed the longtime personal trust and friendship of Apple's leadership in stealing what Steve Jobs believed were Apple's most prized possessions.
You may think it’s a coincidence, but then you realize it isn’t.
Can someone ELI5 whats the core tech behind Project Genie or Flux? What I've found are some vague descriptions like "Flux provides seamless data exchange between industry design tools such as Rhino and Revit".
[+] [-] alehul|8 years ago|reply
So Google's defense isn't even that the substance of the accusations are false, but that they had the legal ability to do so?
Is this common behavior for Google, if the story is true?
This may be naive, but it seems downright illogical to act like that with a reputation as huge and important as Google's. I'd be concerned if I were a collaborator.
[+] [-] rdtsc|8 years ago|reply
It depends on details of his contract. It's quite plausible his employment contract in "Project X" did say that he would transfer knowledge and ideas in exchange for money. It's pretty standard stuff.
In other words, it might not be exactly a slam dunk case. A racketeering charge seems pretty outrageous as well.
However if Google did these things (which looks like they did), it would make them look shady. Maybe legally in the clear but ethically like you said, it would seem they threw their reputation under the bus.
Maybe once companies are a certain size they think they are untouchable and say stuff like "Yeah this is shady, but we've got lawyers and PR people to handle this, no biggie"
And this is why maybe a charge like racketeering is nice move - it might not be winnable in court, but it is outrageous enough to damage Google's reputation. Had it been some mundane case over a minor legal term, we wouldn't have found out.
[+] [-] kyledrake|8 years ago|reply
Google/GV was shit listed by a bunch of startup founders in Portland many years ago because they "stole a company" they were partnering with there. The founder was somebody everybody liked and PDX tech didn't take it well (and yes, we all talk to each other).
This does happen and you need to be very careful with these sorts of arrangements. They know they put stars in people's eyes and I've seen them take advantage of it.
[+] [-] ZoFreX|8 years ago|reply
Not trolling: What reputation?
Among non-techies, their reputation is one of creepy and spying.
Among techies, it's that company that keeps killing loved products.
Among developers, it's one of terrible support and awful job interviews.
Common to everyone is they are impossible to get hold of, a faceless and heartless machine that makes decisions you can't argue with.
None of this matters because they have the best products on the market in a few key areas and everyone keeps using those regardless of their reputation.
So what reputation do they have to lose? Their reputation is already bad, and it doesn't matter anyway, and they presumably know this as well as everyone else does.
[+] [-] IBM|8 years ago|reply
[1] http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/595ea97dd9fccd31008...
[+] [-] Sylos|8 years ago|reply
Google is an advertising company. They can easily sacrifice reputation where it brings them the most profit and fix it again with a bit of PR.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
Without additional context of the judges statement (or, better, either the actual filings in the case), that's far from clear.
It's not impossible or even uncommon for a defendant in a case to make an argument in the style of “I didn't take it, and, even if I had, I had permission to take it.”
You can't infer the nonexistence of the first part of the claim from the existence of the second.
[+] [-] phkahler|8 years ago|reply
But they were under NDA not to disclose the ideas, and yet they started a company marketing a product based on those ideas. If this is a correct interpretation, they don't have the legal ability to do so.
Of course the wording of the NDA is everything in a case like this. I'm assuming Google wrote the NDA when this guy should have provided one for Google to sign.
[+] [-] Animats|8 years ago|reply
This is why, when you visit Google, you should never sign the overreaching NDA for a visitor's badge. You still get a visitor's badge; it just has a warning on it so Googlers know not to tell you too much.
[+] [-] lobotryas|8 years ago|reply
As for reputation, why would a behemoth like Google care if they squash a little guy (or two, or a dozen)? Even if they go on a PR offensive they still won't be able to outmatch or shout over Google. At most people like the HN audience will find out and then... proceed to do nothing because Google's products are either ubiquitous (like search) or first-in-class (because they are free, like email).
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|8 years ago|reply
That is, in fact, exactly what the case is trying to demonstrate by referring to several other lawsuits against Google for similar acts. Remains to be seen if it works.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] paul7986|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] londons_explore|8 years ago|reply
* Google employee comes up with an idea.
* They go and research the idea to check if there are any already existing companies which do it.
* If any are found, they meet and decide if they should buy the company, reinvent the idea, or that it isn't relevant.
* If, after investigation it is determined the company's tech isn't good enough, they will re-invent. Google has fairly strict tech requirements (no php, no shady licenses/ownership, no pirated stuff, etc.), so many companies don't pass.
* When they reinvent, they will do it "clean room" - ie. none of the people who reviewed the original company will be involved in the re-invention.
[+] [-] tyingq|8 years ago|reply
Sounds like Google's position is that they did do what was alleged, but that Attia had signed terms that made it legal.
What you described above is similar. Legal, but shitty. Some amount of information obtained under false pretenses is surely passed to the "clean room" team. Otherwise, why meet with the target at all?
Edit: This Verge story has pretty good detail on the backstory: https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/17/8048779/google-x-eli-atti...
[+] [-] lobotryas|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d0100|8 years ago|reply
The room can be clean, but what about everything else? There's more to software than the actual written code.
[+] [-] rasz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rebelde|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eecks|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wslh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexasmyths|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _-david-_|8 years ago|reply
Are there other languages Google doesn't like?
[+] [-] greydata|8 years ago|reply
Actual lawsuit: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
[+] [-] erdojo|8 years ago|reply
This was more than a simple idea or patent. It was developed by someone with extensive experience in a vertical industry. Google actually paid to contract with him to develop a proof-of-concept, with the idea if the tech panned out and had market viability, they'd take it to market with him.
Google doesn't hire patent trolls or rely on their expertise in developing products.
The lawsuit is full of hyperbole (which hurts it in IMHO), but the underlying claim looks pretty believable.
[+] [-] paul7986|8 years ago|reply
You can read more about my experience with Google ATAP via this post...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15422475
[+] [-] gamesbrainiac|8 years ago|reply
Basically, evil incubation.
[+] [-] noncoml|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pishpash|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Top19|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] propman|8 years ago|reply
I think the NDA meetings that result in what the lawsuits allege. Note, allege. Should have more stringent regulations to protect the smaller guy. Also google sinking its paws into everything and in many cases misbehaving makes me glad that we have sensible regulations against monopolies if it ever gets that far
[+] [-] Teever|8 years ago|reply
How do you do research? How do you communicate with your lawyer?
They know everything about what you do, when you do it, and who you do it with.
[+] [-] klodolph|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] drtillberg|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blammo999|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seqastian|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uptownfunk|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rasz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jarym|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johansch|8 years ago|reply
https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/17/8048779/google-x-eli-atti...
This 2008 patent application has a number of interesting illustrations:
https://www.google.com/patents/US20090234696
(note the actually granted Google patents that reference this one)
Seems like the original idea was LEGO-like modular system of components that can be combined into buildings.
[+] [-] noncoml|8 years ago|reply
I have never heard of Google being accused of something similar in the past. Does anyone have any pointers to similar incidents?
[+] [-] paul7986|8 years ago|reply
- Feb 2013 created SpeakerBlast; turn multiple devices into one sync speaker via a URL
- March 2013 Samsung released the Galaxy 4 with Group Play (same concept as SpeakerBlast)
- April 2013 Google/Motorola emails/calls me asking would I sell SpeakerBlast for inclusion into the Moto X
- May 2013 Fly out from Baltimore to demo/meet with Google ATAP in the hopes of fulfilling my goal/dream of being a successful inventor. During the meeting they bait my partner and I for our secret sauce then leave the room. They come back and say time to go and lead us to the elevator and say the race is on. See ya!
As the David in this David n Goliath story I have no idea if our work was used in Chrome Audio or not. The head of that unit is run by the Google ATAP tech lead we met with.
Ive heard this is just how it is in Silicon Valley.. treat the little guy and girls like crap. Take their hard work, steal it and stomp on them. Things need to change!!!
[+] [-] vikingmetal|8 years ago|reply
A company called Max Sound [1], whose only line of business seems to be suing Google, bought rights to sue over this in May 2014 and then sued Google in Dec 2014 [2]. They seem to have filed at least one other somewhat questionable lawsuit against Google in the past [3].
[1] http://maxd.audio/
[2] http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/newsStoryPopup.go?story...
[3] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-max-sound-google-lawsuit/m...
[+] [-] bitL|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StanislavPetrov|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ijafri|8 years ago|reply
You may think it’s a coincidence, but then you realize it isn’t.
https://verbose.co/33
[+] [-] nova22033|8 years ago|reply
Is it just me or has there been an increase of anti-google piling on after the James Damore thing?
[+] [-] LeeHwang|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ComodoHacker|8 years ago|reply