Programmer's question. - page 5

New comment
 
Реter Konow:
If protection is extremely simple, it is in fact non-existent.))

There is no protection for the creator-developer against venture capitalists. Watch the TV series "Silicon Valley", where life situations are humorously played out. The one who has money is the owner (if he is not stupid) and he can easily bypass all the copyrights of the little man.

You forget that he can easily hire programmers who will copy and modify your idea if necessary, and to sue him you are not strong enough.

P.S. Life is not chess with clear rules of the game. There are immeasurably more variables and unknowns, and strategies are more complicated.

Work in a software company and watch less TV :-).

Or just work, there will be less wild fantasies.

 
Maxim Kuznetsov:

Work for a software company and watch less TV :-)

Or just work, there will be less wild fantasies

(chuckles): Okay.
 
Реter Konow:
....

It seems to be the opposite, as one financially well-off person said "money doesn't make the money, money makes the staff".

That is, the likelihood that he will hire someone for the job who is conscientious and enthusiastic about doing exactly what he has in mind is not very high. There is also the possibility that this person will try to steal the idea (try to sell it). It also takes a ton of time to explain exactly what you need from him.

It's 1000 times easier to buy even if it's 50 times more expensive but with author (product leader - work on contract for x years).

So for example masks in instagram were bought with their leader, despite the fact that they took the code for writing their idea from open sources - and it's probably not even the best. So in fact they bought open source code.... but with a leader

 
Maxim Kuznetsov:

Work for a software company and watch less TV :-)

Or just work, there will be less wild fantasies.

People at rambler worked too)))) Without the fantasies the beginning was criminal)))) No, it's all in accordance with the law, and by the way, there is an article for libel, but no article for a criminal case under vague circumstances))) But you're already a party to criminal proceedings.

That's what he says.

 
Alexandr Andreev:

It seems to be the opposite, as one financially well-off person said "money doesn't make the money, money makes the staff".

That is, the likelihood that he will hire someone for the job who is conscientious and enthusiastic about doing exactly what he has in mind is not very high. There is also the possibility that this person will try to steal the idea (try to sell it). It also takes a ton of time to explain exactly what you need from him.

It's 1000 times easier to buy even if it's 50 times more expensive but with author (product leader - work on contract for x years).

For example masks in instagram were bought with their leader, despite the fact that they took the code for writing their idea from public sources - and it's probably not even the best

1. Genius =》 Idea =》 Algorithm =》Product =》Money.
 
Реter Konow:
....

it's not quite like that.

2. there are strict conditions in the contract that prohibit profits from similar activities.

3. In general, all the trouble is that the percentage of the author's share is constantly falling, as a result, the author himself becomes not interested in.... - Well, he himself plummets (based on examples).

Any investor regards any idea as a commodity. I.e. how quickly it will scale.

Hence the first point looks like this:

1. Genius =》 Idea =》 Algorithm =》 Trying to get investment =》 Really pinching the author's % for little money=》 Promote =》 Advertising=》 Getting interesting offer=》 Another blurring of shares=》 Money.And loss of interest from the author

or

1. Genius =》 Idea =》 Algorithm =》Trying to sell the product =》 Realizing that it needs a community around it=》 Providing it for free to build a community =》 Getting interesting offers=》Money

such things.

In other words, even an AI from you is of no interest to anyone if there is no community around that AI. If there is a community, then the offer from investors will go to you - without trying to hire outsiders

 
Alexandr Andreev:

it's not quite like that.

2. there are strict conditions in the contract that prohibit profits from similar activities.

3. In general, all the trouble is that the percentage of the author's share constantly serves, as a result, the author himself becomes not interested in.... - Well, he himself plummets (based on examples).

Any investor sees any idea as a commodity. I.e. how quickly it will scale.

Hence the first point looks like this:

1. Genius =》 Idea =》 Algorithm =》 Trying to get investment =》 Really pinching the author's % for little money=》 Promote =》 Advertising=》 Getting interesting offer=》 Another blurring of shares=》 Money.And loss of interest from the author

or

1. Genius =》 Idea =》 Algorithm =》Trying to sell the product =》 Realizing that it needs a community around it=》 Providing it for free to build a community =》 Getting interesting offers=》Money

such things.

In other words even AI from you is of no interest to anyone if there is no community around that AI

Interesting thoughts, need to think about it...
 
There are decent people in every field. As the saying goes, it's not the place that makes the man, but the man the place.
 
And anyway...
 

Well done, Peter, working on yourself. I think this is the right point of view - if you have an idea, try to implement it, regardless of the fact that it might be stolen. All ideas are floating in the air for everybody anyway, and this way you will have a chance. So if it's stolen, it's stolen; we'll come up with a new one and let them use it.

So ideas without implementation are worth nothing, as long as there are only intentions. Everyone has a pile of them in his head, and all for free.

1234567
New comment