← Back to context

Comment by truetraveller

5 years ago

I didn't actually know that. I stand corrected about that. But it's still arguably "morally wrong". Especially if Replit's unique design decisions and/or secrets are incorporated into this, as is claimed.

14 comments

truetraveller

Reply
ncmncm  5 years ago

If, in fact, there were any plausible argument that it was morally wrong, we would not have a written statute specifically, actionably defending it.

Rather, making threats over what amounts to it, at someone not equipped to face even such a specious attack, is clearly and indefensibly morally wrong. Shame on Replit, and shame on you for supporting them.

Any company that has $20M in the bank but could possibly be threatened just by a new college grad coding alone does not deserve to exist. Give the money back to the investors and close up shop.

xenihn  5 years ago

> But it's still arguably "morally wrong".

According to who? You? Hundreds of people in this thread disagree with you. As does the law.

  • truetraveller  5 years ago

    Actually, I apologize. I don't think Radon's actions were morally wrong. I take that back. I can't edit my original comment.

    The only beef I had was the non-compete agreement, which I believe is illegal in California.

  • moosebear847  5 years ago

    As a thought experiment, if you ran a business, and all your ex-employees released a free version of the same product, would you be cool with this? Could you hang out with them, smile and say everything is totally cool?

    Or would you want to ask them to not release free versions of your paid product?

    • ghosty141  5 years ago

      Why should people leave your company and start something new if they are happy in their position right now?

      Most of the time, this kind of "exodus" happens because the business somehow mismanaged their employees which resulted in them not being happy, leaving the business and opening up a new one.

      Even then, if I knew my business would be superior, I wouldn't mind that much. In the case of repl.it I don't see any reason why Riju would pose even the tiniest threat. It's super basic with no obvious plans to be compete with repl.it. Just look at the polish of both products, one is a serious business with funding secured while the other one is a small OS web-app written by somebody in their free time.

      1 reply →

    • xenihn  5 years ago

      >As a thought experiment, if you ran a business, and all your ex-employees released a free version of the same product, would you be cool with this? Could you hang out with them, smile and say everything is totally cool?

      I've actually seen this exact situation play out twice (except the new products were not free), though I wasn't directly involved. Both times, it only happened because the business owner was, to put it bluntly, a bad person who had no business (heh) running a company, and the result was a mass exodus that birthed a direct competitor.

      To answer your thought experiment:

      I am looking at this as an employee, as a controlled person. You are looking at it as a founder, owner, or some other type of position that holds power. A controller.

      Those with power would view it as immoral. An action like this threatens their power. Those who have enough power to exert a controlling influence, want, above all else, to maintain that power, while also increasing it. Anything that impedes that is unfair, and thus immoral.

      Those without power, or with less power, do not see it as immoral, because it is a redistribution of power to those who deserve it just as much, if not more. It is fair. It is just. It is moral.

      You see this as immoral because your sympathies lie with those who have power. Might makes right. The states that enforce non-competes have the same view as you, but California does not, and that is one of the many reasons that it remains the global center of technological innovation.

      3 replies →