@mmasnick "Elon Musk is not only stranger than we think, he is stranger than we CAN think."
-- Werner Heisenberg, probably.
I told y'all he is a nutter.
#Bluesky, which directly competes with Twitter, has hired Twitter employees & all 3 Board members worked at Twitter. Bluesky has plainly been using Twitter IP, trade secrets & confidential information to accelerate its development. The attraction to its users is that it is basically a copycat clone of Twitter - but Musk has never made a peep about it. And never will.
That should tell perceptive journalists & observers something very important about Bluesky
In this context, it should also be noticed that Bluesky is the only competing platform that Musk has never tried to ban, or used his unilateral power at Twitter against (to try to stop Twiitter users from encouraging other users to switch to it).
I would expect tech journalists on this beat to explicitly note this for their readers but I'm not sure that I've ever seen it.
I would be absolutely gobsmacked if they had not. The key Bluesky people, including Dorsey & Twitter project lead-turned-CEO Graber, were deeply exposed to Twitter’s inner workings & code & tech strategies & algorithms from 2019 to 2022. Dorsey probably through the present day. Regardless, any claim that could be drafted vs Facebook could be alleged against Bluesky just as plausibly, if not more so.
#Bluesky was invented as a protocol for Twitter.
To transition Twitter to a platform where they could monetize eyeballs & rage farming, while plausibly telling congressional hearings on disinformation campaigns that they *couldn't* deplatform or ban Nazis.
Jack has many times said he thought it was the wrong decision for society to ban Trump from twitter for inciting violence *during the Jan 2021 coup*.
Nazi content stays on Twitter & proliferates. That's the plus side.
@trinigod
@mmasnick @neonbubble Not about non-compete, apparently:
"You don't need a non-compete to bring a.misappropriation claim in CA. It's irrelevant to proving the elements of the cause of action, which is why the Quinn Emanuel letter doesn't even mention non-competes."
https://progressives.social/@chargrille/110671902934722533
@[email protected] You don't need a non-compete to bring a.misappropriation claim in CA. It's irrelevant to proving the elements of the cause of action, which is why the Quinn Emanuel letter doesn't even mention non-competes.
@mmasnick
Interesting that X claims that the employees, they fired, continue to have obligations to Twitter, beyond intellectual property protections, especially when you think about how intellectual property really works in the software development industry.
Also keep in mind that courts have ruled that non-compete clauses are unlawful and unenforceable.
@mmasnick My favorite part is “these employees had and continue to have access to Twitter’s trade secrets and other highly confidential information”
Like, Twitter, whose fault would that be? Twitter, did you *mean* to say that you never cut off these former employees’ access to Twitter’s internal systems? Because that’s basically what you just said there, Twitter.
@mmasnick Can you even sue over trade secrets? I thought they had no legal protection, it's on you to keep them. That's the whole point of patents, to add legal protections for inventions.
But yeah, fire a bunch of your employees, don't be surprised if they take jobs elsewhere.
File it, nutter.
Almost makes me want to create a Threads account.