Context if you forgot the end of season 2, since it is relevant to the trailer:
SPOILERS
Richard Hendricks was ousted as CEO of Pied Piper by the board. (the website has a great joke in the team roster regarding that event: http://www.piedpiper.com/)
Is Carla still working with Pied Piper though? I thought she quit with the rest of the new hires. My suspicion is that they'll find a way to keep her character in the show either way.
It's interesting how this show gives a glimpse of what life in Silicon Valley as a founder is like.
Obviously it's by no means an accurate representation but it is in some ways a source of inspiration for people working on their startups.
In the show Hooli claims ownership of the underlying IP since Richard worked on Pied Piper during Hooli time and ran some tests on Hooli hardware. How likely is such a scenario to actually occur? I know it's technically possible, but I am not aware of any such high profile case.
As a counterpoint to the Silicon Valley show accuracy, I recently marathoned Betas, which is an Amazon original series which attempted to add comedy to Silicon Valley culture (and actually predates the HBO show). The problem is that it played the culture completely straight.
That's a little different; Hooli owns the IP because it was developed using Hooli resources. I am presuming the University wasn't claiming license to the professor's pool cleaning business, but rather prohibiting his use of their equipment for other enterprise.
I don't know about specific legal cases, but that kind of rule in employment agreements is basically de rigueur, and there's a big body of established law around it. It's potentially an issue for any new company/invention started by an employee, and for University students.
In some cases, the student knows the legal issues and drops out first to avoid the Uni claiming IP ownership.
Some quick research suggests that funding may play a key role, particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act . So perhaps the IP claims are less important if the student is developing things on their own time, on their own dime.
There really needs to be a standardized framework for IP related clauses for companies as well as universities to implement and one which favors inventors/founders as long as they are not exploiting the employer's resources in any way including on employer time.
These restrictive IP clauses that many companies and some universities have are really just a hindrance to innovation.
Pied Piper fooled our crawlbots into thinking it was a real company. Not only that, but it fooled our first line of human research and only got caught when someone who had seen the show before we pushed the update to our platform saw the name and thought "huh... I don't think that's actually a real company."
Our bots index all of their sources as well, and they had fake fundraising press releases and the wonderful Pied Piper website listed as a legit source to warrant including this company in their scrape.
We kept it in our platform as an easter egg for a while.
That's a pretty broad question. Answer: Things that are deadly serious in the real world are played for laughs, and obviously there's some exaggeration involved, though not as much as an outsider would think.
28 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 71.7 ms ] threadSPOILERS
Richard Hendricks was ousted as CEO of Pied Piper by the board. (the website has a great joke in the team roster regarding that event: http://www.piedpiper.com/)
Obviously it's by no means an accurate representation but it is in some ways a source of inspiration for people working on their startups.
In the show Hooli claims ownership of the underlying IP since Richard worked on Pied Piper during Hooli time and ran some tests on Hooli hardware. How likely is such a scenario to actually occur? I know it's technically possible, but I am not aware of any such high profile case.
The issues with the show can be summed up in one scene: https://twitter.com/minimaxir/status/682261750222209024
```
```#change_tone :unironic
#SystemStackError
That contract will typically stipulate that everything you produce whilst an employee belongs to your employer.
More forgiving contracts will limit this to just things created on company time or using company resources.
If you turn up at work and use your work machine for a side project, your work owns the IP you create in that project. Period.
Universities used to require undergraduates to sign something similar, but that's fallen out of fashion.
No, because the reality is even crazier than the show.
Some quick research suggests that funding may play a key role, particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act . So perhaps the IP claims are less important if the student is developing things on their own time, on their own dime.
You might also like to read this:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120517/02521218947/notab...
These restrictive IP clauses that many companies and some universities have are really just a hindrance to innovation.
But if anyone could do it Mike Judge can - that guy is a genius
Pied Piper fooled our crawlbots into thinking it was a real company. Not only that, but it fooled our first line of human research and only got caught when someone who had seen the show before we pushed the update to our platform saw the name and thought "huh... I don't think that's actually a real company."
Our bots index all of their sources as well, and they had fake fundraising press releases and the wonderful Pied Piper website listed as a legit source to warrant including this company in their scrape.
We kept it in our platform as an easter egg for a while.
[i ask for innaccuracies as i think they will be fewer than "accuracies"]