Ask HN: Is it unethical to finish project from a company that never finished it?
I worked on a mobile application for a project that I was really invested in but after graduating, different developers with different coding beliefs - the project just fell apart. I still love the idea and put so much time into it. Has a lot of potential I think. Can I just complete it on my own. Do I even have an obligation to ask them if I can do it? When is their idea no longer "thiers". Also did not like the direction they were going with the business.
50 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadAnd I think another important thing is, be sure you are not apart of the project anymore in anyway. No more being paid from them or working with them sometimes. Be sure you create the business paperwork setup for yourself. Start fresh!
If you need help in anyway, let me know, I'm a nobody fyi. haha
The (unknown) exposure is with how the previous project stakeholders might react to you running with it and turning it into something viable. If they won't sell when it's worthless, I'd personally take it as a given that they'd litigate if it ever becomes viable or profitable. Even if you can reasonably expect to prevail in such a case, it's still a concern.
That's a great point and I think that collapsing that uncertainty was the lingering reason why I loved the idea, that I couldn't quite put the finger on.
I kind of worry that the worst case scenario is management says ok now, but later changes mind when it's turns up well, but if it's in writing, then whatever.
If you take the code, that's unethical. They paid you to write the code, so they own that. But you're free to do whatever you want.
If you’re using existing code, they may still have a stake in the IP. You may need to make sure they either license it or turn over ownership to you. In the latter case you may want to set up an official bill of sale and pay them something for it, even if it’s only $1 each.
AFAIK there’s no legal ownership of the idea if it hasn’t been patented. But your options may also be restricted if you signed a contract that includes a non-compete clause.
Imagine a software engineer invests half-a-year of full time work, iterating through product/idea. Paying market rate of that person is $200k/year. A $100k invested into R&D.
Now you are a VC. A software engineer shares the results of the work (idea/prototype) with you. It's primarily the refined idea that holds all that invested value. And then VC just claims - ideas are not protected - it is perfectly ethical to use ideas for free?
Doesn't it destroy trust? Would such software engineer next time go to the same VC? How is it not equivalent to stealing $100k worth of someone's work?
Unequivocally, yes.
And he was able to do this because (TIL)... he had patented the idea more than half a dozen ways!
But now I'm rethinking my mapping from mega-corp to large group and small business to small group. Both are more like a small groups of people, the owners, with a varying amount of resources to trade for goods and services (supplies, manufacturing, workers, bribes, etc). The smaller group doesn't necessarily have less resources. And now the idea of a group is muddying the waters, why not just consider them a person? So the question becomes, is it ethical for a person with more resources to copy the technology of a person with less resources without giving something in return? Hell, now the difference in available resources is getting in the way. Is it ethical for a person to copy another person without giving something in return? Keep in mind that copying works both ways. My answer is still yes.
For myself, I have found this type of reasoning to be an anti-pattern: simplifying the world to the point that I can wrap my head around it and (most importantly) arrive at a simple, clear-cut answer. I find that I can always make adjustments to my assumptions until I arrive at a world where the logic for my desired position holds firm.
I've personally gotten more out of incorporating the messy nuances of the world into my mental gymnastics (e.g. mega-corporation != small business != group of people) even though that almost always comes at the expense of a clear-cut answer. Just a thought; YMMV!
In the case of copyright and patents, I believe the intention was to give small business a head start, but the reality is that they empower mega-corps far more than the small business. Mega-corps can support the continuation of copyright and patents in the name of the intended spirit (using their resources) while consistently acting against the spirit without most people noticing. Pointing that out is my overall intention.
I think we'd all be better off if we could just copy each other freely without fear of legal repercussions, then we could all compete on quality of service and efficient use of available resources.
The answer they seem to like to hear is "only Joe-Engineer could have invented this algo/tech/thingy, in this way, thus we have a patent on it!"
It's true that an idea in isolation is worthless. People need to bring it into existence, refine it, market it, in order to get any money out of it. That doesn't mean the idea has no value. To illustrate, one can ask "why this idea vs some other idea" and suddenly one is better than another.
In either event, I'd strongly suggest speaking to a qualified attorney before doing anything. At the very least, you'll want them to review any contracts you signed, walk you through your possible exposure, and give you some recommendations for either minimizing or managing it. It's not a cheap move by any means, but if you genuinely want to move forward with this project, it'll help you avoid possible long-term problems.
Can you delete all the code, and start from scratch?
But it sounds like you should just take the idea, and start building code from scratch, pick a new name, domain, etc. Just don't use any code/assets from the original project.
Ethically speaking, why not ask them?
I'm sure you are incurring risk, you have to ask yourself how much risk you are incurring, and if you consider it acceptable, even if you fail.
Ethically, I think you're giving them the same or more consideration than they'd give you. Companies screw over small developers all the time, it's just business.
As a non-lawyer offering non-legal advice, I suggest you rebuild the project from scratch (using a different language if possible/feasible, as well as different graphics) so that there can be no question as to whether or not you used code or graphics for which you do not hold the correct license (in the case of code) or copyright (in the case of graphics).
If you mean "finish it" by taking the idea and starting fresh, it's probably competitive so I'd double check that you didn't sign some sort of non-compete or "won't reuse this information" kind of thing.
Of course, either you could roll with it and see what happens.. no one is going to pop up to make a claim unless you a) offend them or b) are successful. And even under (a), it's unlikely they'll hire an attorney to cause you angst.
The main thing to avoid is intellectual property (trademark, copyright, patent, and nondisclosure) infringement.
When you say 'finish' that implies using code/assets the company owns. Unless it was produced under a permissive license (I.e. BSD/MIT/GPL) you can't use it without explicit permission from the copyright owner.
As far as taking the idea and running with it, as long as you didn't enter into a non-compete/NDA agreement, you're probably fine. There are examples of this all over the place in business history (with matching lawsuits when they weren't careful to respect the rights of / agreements with former employers)
sounds like a college project. You should ask them. if not you can start over. nobody owns the idea.
IANAL
A lot of the value of any idea comes the execution - which doesn't mean the code, it means the marketing, branding, support, networking, customer acquisition, and reputation-building.
Unless it's a very unusual idea that needs minimal customer interaction - they exist, but are rare - or something that works solo (games, mostly) you should budget time and money for all of these.
Many apps are killed by the support process, not the development process. The app sells, bugs appear, customers get various shades of irritated and angry, negative reviews are left, and dealing with all of this can turn into a huge time sink if you're not planning for it. This is even more true of projects that have a significant server back end.
The app store is full of abandonware left by devs who didn't realise how much extra work is involved in turning an idea into a reliable income stream.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but I am saying it needs some consideration before you go ahead and spend time (weeks? months?) on a clean-room rebuild of everything you've done so far.
If you are really invested, have a conversation with the highest decision making authority you know about what you would like to do and what would be a fair way for you to continue with this? Tell him you are broke and then offer him solutions - buyout the codebase for a token sum? future revenue share? have them invest in you? If the guy/gal is worth his salt this wont be a waste of time.
You would be surprised and what you can get if you just ask.