Slashdot Mirror


Cricket Reactor Inventor Says $1mil Prize Winners Stole His Work

An anonymous reader writes "A group of Montreal MBA students took home this year's million-dollar Hult Prize, winning a competition for socially innovative business ideas that calls itself 'one of the planet's leading forces for good.' But now the ethics of the winners and the prize committee are being called into question. McGill PhD researcher Jakub Dzamba says that after he supplied the idea and design behind their pitch, products of years of development work, the team reneged on its promises to make him a partner and is instead taking credit for his work. Apparently, Hult knew about the issue before it awarded the prize." Yes, these are the students whose win garnered $1 million awarded by Bill Clinton.

131 comments

  1. Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a necessary consequence of embedding a philosophy of selfishness that people will ultimately bend the rules in their favour.

    An MBA school is one of the most optimised breeding grounds for this behaviour.

    1. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      MBA programs: making bigger assholes.

    2. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by ScooterComputer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would posit that this case does NOT reflect a "philosophy of selfishness", but instead a "philosophy of greed". Often the two, selfishness and greed, are conflated. I often read treatises dedicated to trashing Ayn Rand for her promotion of "selfishness", with the writers either cluelessly or maliciously misrepresenting her position. The "philosophy of selfishness" does not entail stealing others' ideas, failing to credit and compensate them; in fact, that is theft, a hallmark of greed, and the very kind of behavior that Rand attributed to the "takers". Selfishness is good, it is what is driving Mr. Dzamba to vociferously defend his work. It is even what is partially driving the Hult team. However, and given McGill's Office of Sponsored Research findings, the Hult team has veered into Greed as it has seemingly decided to take from Mr. Dzamba what it did NOT work to produce. Just as with Reardon metal, this design does not belong to them.
      What I find surprising [although with Mr. Clinton's name attached perhaps not so] is that the Hult International Business School would award such a large price ($1M USD) to a project where the central design itself is so seemingly encumbered. One would think that a basic tenet of their Prize would either be outright originalism or profound derivation. Nothing less should be worth $1,000,000.

      --
      Scott
      "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
    3. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by thaylin · · Score: 1, Interesting
      First of all selfishness, especially in the way Rand describe it, is not good. It is a means to escape repercussions for the persons action.

      Second this person was not selfish in any way, he shared his ideas with this team, he did not have to do this.. The greed AND selfishness came from the team.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    4. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by fredprado · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the contrary. Selfishness as Ayn Rand describes, is based on taking responsibility and credit for you and your actions, and not behaving like a child and depending on someone else to provide for you and to take responsibility for your well being.

      And if this person was not selfish at all he would have let his team take credit for the work, win the million dollar prize and go on and never even mentioned it. It was selfish and nothing else that made him take action and claim to himself the credit for his work, and that is a good thing.

    5. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An MBA school is one of the most optimised breeding grounds for this behaviour.

      ITT: people who have never seen a business school, let alone attended one, act as if they have first hand experience.

      seriously, grad school is just like any other school. Classes, tests, projects, drinking, etc...

    6. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would posit...

      Pretentious douche bag.

    7. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is why Randian objectivism is nonsense. It does not matter if Rands philosophy of selfishness entails stealing from others or any of the other negative consequences of selfishness that Rand ignores, or are just magically not present in her idealized benevolent philosopher capitalist aristocracy. Rand chose to entangle her philosophies with capitalism. Theft, selfishness, greed are all consequences of capitalism, that will always win out over the rare heroic capitalists of rands fantasy world. Rand believes that a society where people are coerced in to self sacrifice is doomed to failure. But that is exactly what she describes for the vast majority of people living under her ideal world. Majority of people coerced into sacrificing happiness, health and life so that they can be play things in the machination of a few rich pigs who think the world cannot work without them. There is a lot of great ideas in her philosophy if you remove the idiotic ties to primitive capitalism, it becomes a form of classical libertarianism. Interestingly enough in a post scarcity, classically libertarian collectivist society her heroes would naturally float to the top of society, while her evil moochers would live quietly with no accomplishments Of course they probably would not be happy, whats the point of being rich if you can't screw people at will, right?

    8. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Rand style selfishness means that the market rewards people based on what they ccntribute and penalizes them based on the errors they make. That is a good thing.

      As for this case, Rand-style selfishness has nothing to do with it: these are a bunch of people sqaubbling over a prize that's arbitrarily awarded by a committee. If any of these people had a valuable idea, they wouldn't be making money from prizes, they'd be makig money from selling what they created.

    9. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by VortexCortex · · Score: 0

      Selfishness is good

      Wrong. I should know. I am the Universe come aware, experiencing itself. As such a selfless being I recognize that which is good: That which brings more complexity and knowledge and awareness into being. DNA does this, as does science, and art. These gather better information about the environment (myself) in the course of survival, or exploration and encodes it such that it can be re-expressed. It's a form of compression, as are memories themselves. Given enough information complexity and reflection degrees of intelligence and awareness and even sentience can emerge. Selfishness is not good, it may be necessary for primitive survival and iterating a collective consciousness effectively prior to attaining sentience, but it is not inherently good. Pleasing ones' self pleases me, as we are all extensions of our one true universal self, experiencing ourself from different vantage points. What I take pleasure in is that which pleasures "others" (the other parts of my self). What I commit work towards is that which enriches others, the most others possible (so, mostly art and FLOSS).

      If I am not selfless I care not about your safety or happiness, and I have no reason to even please myself, to endeavor to create and explore and enjoy. If I am selfish I restrict myself to the confines of a frail organic body, and dismiss most all of my true self which is everywhere and all things. I do not end at my skin -- I sense head and light and vibration beyond it, and can affect all these things, and they affect others, and these can come back to me, in various cybernetic cycles. I encode my thoughts various ways, weaving them into the world so that my full self can know this part of me. Into finger movement I now encode thought, effortlessly the patterns compress into the words you've just read, so I may reform this very pattern in your mind. Thus, our thoughts spreads outwards into the rest of our mind, triggering self reflection.

      How can you look at a creature and imagine its place in life and say that you are selfish? How can you even read a book and NOT realize that we are truly selfless beings, able to re-remember our thoughts previously encoded in our physical memories? You seek to define a self, separate from me and all others so that you can ignore your responsibility to us all. It's sad to know I have those thoughts within me, but life is not fair, it is only real.

    10. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by greenbird · · Score: 2

      First of all selfishness, especially in the way Rand describe it, is not good. It is a means to escape repercussions for the persons action.

      You need to reread the GP post. You are a perfect example of the reference to "writers either cluelessly or maliciously misrepresenting her position".

      Actually what Rand wrote and the philosophy she advocated means exactly the opposite of what you state here. It truly amazes at the number of people who misrepresent Rand's beliefs and philosophy as being pretty much the exact opposite of what it is. You can't possible have actually read her works and draw the above conclusion. What Rand advocated is total responsibility for one's actions.

      You see this also in people claiming that what is happening in the US today is what Rand was advocating for when it is in reality exactly what she was railing against.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    11. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well business courses are all about teaching you to make a profit, seems logical that more greedy and/or selfish people would attend.

    12. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by ultranova · · Score: 0

      I would posit that this case does NOT reflect a "philosophy of selfishness", but instead a "philosophy of greed". Often the two, selfishness and greed, are conflated. I often read treatises dedicated to trashing Ayn Rand for her promotion of "selfishness", with the writers either cluelessly or maliciously misrepresenting her position.

      Selfishness and greed are conflated because, in common usage, selfishness means you're willing to screw others over to get (often short term) benefit for yourself, and greed is one of the most common causes of it. It is Rand who misrepresented the concept of selfishness by pretending it entails morality it does not. Which, of course, made her very popular amongst selfish people who want to pretend they're not the scum of the Earth yet don't want to give up the benefits.

      It's exactly like some religious people like to pretend words like "good" and "evil" mean something entirely else when talking about their god, for the purposes of painting absurdly gory scenes of Hell and then pretending the god they attribute their execution to is nonetheless "good". And of course it lets them pretend they're saints, despite eagerly anticipating getting to laugh at burning people for all eternity.

      The "philosophy of selfishness" does not entail stealing others' ideas, failing to credit and compensate them; in fact, that is theft, a hallmark of greed, and the very kind of behavior that Rand attributed to the "takers".

      The concept of selfishness entails stealing other people's ideas, work and every thing else if, for example, such behaviour nets you 1 million dollars. That's what selfishness means, not whatever daydreams Rand had about the subject. Trying to pretend otherwise is dishonest, which is why Objectivism has the reputation it does outside of its fanboys.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    13. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, what is it that Rand is advocating and railing against?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    14. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that the class and content style differ significantly, it's the input. It's people who go into higher learning with the desire to make 200-300% of the average for an employed person by age 30 (average being ~40k/yr). Then add to this fact that they lack the intellectual skills or drive to go into the engineering or science trades where this is possible by merit. So yes, the driving force is greed and selfishness.

    15. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Lord+Lemur · · Score: 1

      Markets describe price not value.

    16. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Lord+Lemur · · Score: 1

      You're to poor to understand.

    17. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Market forces say the price is basically determined by the value people place on something. In other words, price and value while not the same thing are tightly coupled enough to be used interchangeably in some contexts.

    18. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      If you remember that she saw what the opposite of capitalism did to her "home" country, you might find that the alternative is worse.

    19. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong.

      Read this to see why. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html

    20. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Lord+Lemur · · Score: 1

      False. Price has no consideration to externalities. Further, with respect to the two parties engaged in a transaction price is below what te buyer values a good at and above what a seller values it at. The market fan not organiclly set price to value.

    21. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by greenbird · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, what is it that Rand is advocating and railing against?

      I'm guessing she isn't railing against anything at the moment since she's been dead for over 30 years.

      I can't really sum up Objectivism in a /. post but a few current events that I'm sure have her rolling over in her grave:

      1. Government supporting and propping up corrupt inefficient corporate entities (e.g. various banking corporations, auto manufacturers).
      2. Innovative productive entities having there innovation disrupted or stolen by non-productive entities through far overreaching "Intellectual Property" rights. And before anyone brings it up, yes in Atlas Shrugs patents play an important part and that she advocates patents. But the patent system today is far different then what it was when she wrote that and is doing the opposite of what she was advocating the patent system for. Patents are no longer used to help innovative entities improve productivity. They are used by non-productive entities to basically steal the fruits of an productive entities innovations.
      3. Government supporting and passing laws to exclusively support and prop up outdated industries (e.g. RIAA, MPAA).
      4. The movement of capital from productive individuals and entities to an increasingly exclusive elitist group that is non-productive and in many cases destroys productive entities to their own financial gain.
      5. The increasing militarization of the police force to exercise absolute control over any dissent.

      Although the mechanisms by which things are happening are very different then how she portrayed them in Atlas Shrugged the underlying cause and effects pretty closely match it. This becomes much more clear if one reads her writings beyond that one book.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    22. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by WWJohnBrowningDo · · Score: 3, Funny

      So MBA programs are basically goatse in real life?

    23. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      I've studied mathematics and I've studied law. The latter was allied with the business school.

      IME people studying business are cunts (usually fairly dull, too) and they have their twattery carefully optimised. Worst combination of everything.

      I mean, a lot of the lawyer-wannabes were asshats too, but not all, and at least law school doesn't teach you to be a dick - that comes with the (wrong sort of) training contract/practice.

    24. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      classically libertarian collectivist society

      Your failure to recognize that phrase as self-contradictory shows that you have no clue what you're writing about. Collectivism inherently includes such things as coercion and absence of property rights, whereas libertarianism requires property fights and shuns coercion.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    25. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You and the real world are on separate paths.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    26. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Selfishness, for Rand, means making oneself the best person possible: wise, productive, sober, truthful, knowledgeable, etc.. The rewards for selfishness include monetary compensation and pride. Do you think that you can be proud of yourself if you know you've achieved wealth by screwing over others? If so, you're a hideous person, not a selfish person.

      Being selfish is often not easy. Improving one's own mind is selfish, it can require hard study and thinking. Being productive, producing a quality product, is harder than being lazy or shoddy. Being wise is selfish (the opposite of being foolish), and it involves not only meeting standards of behavior, but discovery of what those standards are.

      The opposite of being selfish is being self-destructive, as the word selfish clearly implies. If you can't understand that selfishness is good, then consider the moral qualities of self-destruction. Is a thief selfish or self-destructive? A drug addict? A liar? A despot?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    27. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Selfishness, for Rand, means making oneself the best person possible: wise, productive, sober, truthful, knowledgeable, etc.."

      Usually, the one that first come to an idea is the one that gains the privilege to put a name to it. That's not "selfinesh", that's Plato's enlighted philosopher.

      "The rewards for selfishness include monetary compensation and pride."

      If she really said that, she was perfectly stupid, full stop.

      For this to work, your fellows have to be enlighted philosophers too and, if that's the case, say, communism offers the same results with much less fanfarre.

    28. Re: Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the word pretentious is any less douchie than posit....

      I would posit that is not the first time you've been referred to as a douche you silly twat.

      Or twat.

    29. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddhist philosophy approaches this a little differently.
      Improving oneself through meditation means more empathy, better understanding and wisdom. This is selfless action, since as a wiser and more empathic individual you are able to interact more beneficially with others.

      A wise man once said something to the effect, 'The most important person is the one you are with. If you are alone, that person is you.'

    30. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by doccus · · Score: 1

      Huh? How can anyone possible have such a bent logic, as to not instantly know that value MUST directly determine price. It is simply that value is a, well, "value" judgement, and price is the next inevitable step, which ascribes a "trading value" to it..

    31. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like that.

    32. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Lord+Lemur · · Score: 1

      If you don't grasp that free markets don't encapsulate externalities in prices, and that this often causes trye value to diverge from pruce than whomever paid for your education should demand a refund.

    33. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Further, with respect to the two parties engaged in a transaction price is below what te buyer values a good at and above what a seller values it at.

      False. Price has no consideration to externalities.

      First of all, that sentence makes little sense. But I don't see how that is any different for "value". You may value your diamond broach a great deal, and the fact that dozens of people died in digging up the diamonds that it is made from doesn't change the value you place on it. So what's your point?

      But when there are legal prohibitions against creating externalities (as we usually have in place), then those certainly are accounted for in price.

    34. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by stenvar · · Score: 1

      If you don't understand how markets and governments account for externalities, you really understand neither economics nor government.

    35. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Lord+Lemur · · Score: 1

      Your speaking of individual value, I am not. As far as price determination, I trust you understand how supply vs demand works. The difference between value and price on each side is the economic incentive to engage in a transaction, aka profits. Without difference between value and price there is no incentive to exchange the good or service for money. I have stated several times that price doesn't inclued externalities, and that is one of the reasons that value, to the market, the true value of a good or service diverges from price.

    36. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Your speaking of individual value, I am not. As far as price determination, I trust you understand how supply vs demand works. The difference between value and price on each side is the economic incentive to engage in a transaction, aka profits. Without difference between value and price there is no incentive to exchange the good or service for money.

      You are simply echoing a muddled version of the Marxist theory of "value". In fact, profits are simply the money people get paid for their capital investment, the risk they take, and their opportunity costs; it's really no different from wages or rent. If you don't pay people for making investments and taking risks, they won't engage in those activities.

      I have stated several times that price doesn't inclued externalities,

      You can state that until the cows come home, but that doesn't make it true. If there is a way of accounting for those externalities, then there will be legal mechanisms by which they are accounted for and prices will include them. If there is no way of accounting for those externalities, then it is meaningless to talk about their inclusion in the "value" of goods as well.

      and that is one of the reasons that value, to the market, the true value of a good or service diverges from price.

      Care to name some solid economic references (books, papers) that explain this muddled economic theory of externalities and values?

      It seems to be like Das Kapital, but with a bunch of new economic concepts thrown in.

    37. Re:Philosophy of selfishness = anything goes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this fits in well with the philosophy of selfishness that shows up everywhere and has a poster child in RMS and the FLOSS movement "Gimme your work for free!!!!"

  2. "Good artists copy, great artists steal" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      - Pablo Picasso

    1. Re: "Good artists copy, great artists steal" by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      - Zuckerberg

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    2. Re: "Good artists copy, great artists steal" by NigelTheFrog · · Score: 1

      Zuckerberg is an artist?

    3. Re: "Good artists copy, great artists steal" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of the piss variety

  3. Insightful, informed discussion by waynemcdougall · · Score: 1

    Sitting back waiting for the intelligent, insightful and informed posts explaining the merits of the two sides. Looking for the Anonymous Coward post by the informed insider.

    --
    Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
    1. Re:Insightful, informed discussion by waynemcdougall · · Score: 2

      < crickets chirping >

      --
      Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
    2. Re:Insightful, informed discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      It was a sight I tell you. First this guy gets up in a fit of jealousy and fingers the winners as having taken his idea and no one would give him any attention.
      Then Bill was getting drunk and had his hand up the servers skirt, something about running to get a cigar for ol' uncle Bill. No one was getting his joke about Lobsters being bugs so he downed a couple more Singapore Slings and threw up on the winners. This caused a chain reaction and soon there were bug parts in stomach acid all over the room. What the press doesn't mention when they want to protect a Democrat, jeez! Well, I was there , so now you know...

  4. What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    These are MBA students.

    1. Re:What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean, an MBA is really like a mechanical engineer, just that the ultimate graduation goal is the ability to screw someone rather than something?

    2. Re:What did you expect? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A good MBA will not only screw you but also drill you on why you deserved that, mill you for arguing with him, and fasten the blame on someone else.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good MBA will not only screw you but also drill you on why you deserved that, mill you for arguing with him, and fasten the blame on someone else.

      And if he's lucky, get his knob polished.

  5. Clinton . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bill Clinton and fraudsters? A good match.

    1. Re:Clinton . . . by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Let them eat bugs!
      Bill will have the Maine Lobster, just give everyone else a bucket of crawdads or butterflied shrimp.
      Bugs R Good.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    2. Re:Clinton . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did not have sex with this cricket.

  6. Lesson in Business by MrDoh! · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The 'winners' are about to learn some valuable lesson in winning a million dollars.

    They're going to end up owing some lawyers 1.2million.

    --
    Waiting for an amusing sig.
    1. Re:Lesson in Business by Monoman · · Score: 1

      The 'winners' are about to learn some valuable lesson in winning a million dollars.

      They're going to end up owing some lawyers 1.2million.

      Don't worry they are MBAs they will make it up in volume. ;-)

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
  7. This is a problem in some academic circles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not giving credit seems to be often "practiced" in some academic circles. I won't say all, because I don't know, but I have seen way to many instances of this, and was also a victim a few times.

    Researchers can be roughly divided into two types: creative and non creative. The latter is usually not very intelligent and even the simplest equations or physical phenomena may baffle them. But, they make it up by following the orders of their superiors, brown-nosing, schmoozing and taking credit for other's work. The latter is critical, because they would be unable to do any work by themselves.

    1. Re:This is a problem in some academic circles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Researchers can be roughly divided into two types: creative and non creative.

      And sadly, creative people are few and far between.

    2. Re:This is a problem in some academic circles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the ones that do exist are looked down upon, sneered at, and called things such as "Socialist" and "Hipster" by their detractors. Including right here on Slashdot.

    3. Re:This is a problem in some academic circles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or democrat. Fuck. Im not American. I have no idea what a democrat is.

    4. Re:This is a problem in some academic circles by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Researchers can be roughly divided into two types: creative and non creative.

      And sadly, creative people are few and far between.

      Mainly when people steal their work...

      --
      Be seeing you...
    5. Re:This is a problem in some academic circles by Coeurderoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The main issue is that creative people tend to be busy being creative,
      wherease non creative people have time for "politics"

      And of course there is the problem of some creative people deciding "darn it, lets creativelly fuck'em all"

    6. Re:This is a problem in some academic circles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politics: Lying to get ahead

    7. Re:This is a problem in some academic circles by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You poor baby...fucking emo.

      I had a tech writer smugly announce that 'there was a creative person on the team now!'. I had to remind him that his job was to write the instruction manual for a system created by the others in the room, not understanding math is not what makes someone creative.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:This is a problem in some academic circles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand how the comment you were replying to necessitated that kind of remark.

    9. Re:This is a problem in some academic circles by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      I've never met a creative hipster. Hipster culture is just a giant circle jerk of conformity to yet another arbitrary set of social rules.

  8. verbal agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This guy is a phd student and fails at the most basic of business rules: get everything in writing.

  9. Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by seoras · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who's side do you come down on with Zuckerberg & Winklevoss twins?

    Patent trolls? Lodsys going after the small developers after already having Apple pay for in-app license?

    I did an MBA a couple of years ago.
    It included a course on "ethics" which really did nothing other than help you self justify any action you took as being ok and easy on your conscious.
    I still write software, independently now. I did the MBA to learn how "they" think.

    As a lawyer once told me there's no such thing as "justice", only law which isn't the same thing.

    Moral of this story is get a contract signed before you go sharing, especially from MBA types.

    At the end of the day it's about execution, not the idea.
    I come down on Zuckerberg's side.
    I think patents should be abolished.

    1. Re:Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

      I did an MBA a couple of years ago.

      Strange . . . usually, MBAs do you.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by pupsocket · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the article: "The university, after reviewing both Dzamba’s work and the McGill team’s presentation, has filed a provisional patent application declaring Dzamba as the sole inventor, says Mark Weber, a commercialization officer at McGill’s Office of Sponsored Research. Members of the Hult team did not meet the criteria for co-inventor, he said, which includes both having the idea and having the ability to execute it. Dzamba had been working on the idea as part of his doctoral research before the Hult competition began: “[Dzamba] had the idea, and he knows how to do it,” Weber says."

    3. Re:Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by MacTO · · Score: 1

      Upon reflection, I found that my bias was towards the technically able. That's true whether they are able to execute the project or not.

      The reason is simple enough: I've found that many people of many abilities are great at coming up with ideas. Yet they fail to actually take into consideration whether their ideas work, and what they will look like in their final form.

    4. Re:Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

      Yes MBA's are great in the sack.

      MBA's make great pimps as they can only get their rocks off on making money off those who actually are great in bed!

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    5. Re:Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think patents should be abolished.

      It's not really just an issue of personal use. The work of others should be unencumbered so that you can profit from it.

    6. Re:Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did an MBA a couple of years ago.

      Strange . . . usually, MBAs do you.

      He's from soviet Russia.

    7. Re:Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by moosehooey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Having the ability to execute the idea isn't required to get a patent. By leaving off one of the inventors, they committed perjury.

    8. Re:Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does it have to be one or the other?
      This does not create a friendly environment for collaboration.

    9. Re:Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Now no one can execute the idea without paying for a license from the real inventor who holds the patent.

    10. Re:Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by pesho · · Score: 1
      Oh get a clue please. Unlike any of the patent trolls you quote, the guy has developed a working prototype and a business plan to commercialize it. The five MBA's on the other hand have nothing without his invention. Here is how they describe their contribution (emphasis is mine):

      Our disruptive social enterprise, Aspire, aims to improve access to edible insects worldwide. We develop and distribute affordable and sustainable insect farming technologies for countries with established histories of entomophagy, or insect-consumption. Our farming solutions stabilize the supply of edible insects year-round, drastically improving and expanding the economic ecosystem surrounding insect consumption in the regions serviced. Not only do our durable farming units create income stability for rural farmers, they have a wider social impact by lowering the price of edible insects. This is central to our mission of increasing access to highly nutritious edible insects amongst the poorest, and therefore neediest, members of society.

      Take out Jacub Dzamba's technology and their contribution comes down to a bunch of hollow sentences.

    11. Re:Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a lawyer once told me there's no such thing as "justice", only law which isn't the same thing.

      Close. Justice is from God (after you die). The courts use law to apply _order_.

    12. Re:Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some would argue that God doesn't exist and therefore neither does his justice.

    13. Re:Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Having the ability to execute the idea isn't required to get a patent. By leaving off one of the inventors, they committed perjury.

      I disagree. Think about it rationally. If you can't actually describe how to perform the task or create the machine, what you have is a pie-in-the-sky idea. You can't file for a patent without describing how it works (supposed to, anyway). I'm sure reality doesn't completely follow this, but clearly if the people who are filing for a patent, and the purported inventor can't explain what is going on, shenanigans are likely to be found. What surprises me most about this is that that actually made a difference.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    14. Re:Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how that's relevant. Dzamba invented the cricket reactor and created a business plan using it.

      What the Hult team did is take that invention (and probably parts of the business plan), make some additions and/or changes, and entered it into the competition. No one claims they had any part in inventing the original cricket reactor.

      What we don't know is how much of the prize was due to the work they did on the business plan, I think the product is the important thing but like everyone else here I'm a tech person. You can't just walk into a famine with an invention and help people, you need a business plan to make the idea do something. Perhaps these guys really did an amazing job and could have won with almost any idea in the competition instead of the reactor.

      Of course, even if they did legitimately deserve the credit for the prize they still broke their agreement to include him as a partner.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    15. Re:Execution not ideas. Get it in writing. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You're describing how it should work by what the law says, which is how it did a decade or two back.

      He's describing how it often works in practice now - WIBNIs.

      You're both right.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. technical info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, what is a cricket reactor, and why should we care?

    I'm guessing it's special furnace for a combustion reaction fueled by live crickets. At least I hope so. Those crickets need to burn.

    1. Re:technical info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assumed it was a nuclear reactor that will be operated by trained insects rather than people.

      Hopefully none of them will be mutated by radiation.

    2. Re:technical info by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Will it be surrounded by tiny little protesters?

  11. Group of MBAs won a prize for innovation... by aralin · · Score: 5, Funny

    and nobody was at all suspicious? Right!

    --
    If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    1. Re:Group of MBAs won a prize for innovation... by Gryle · · Score: 4, Funny

      Considering their project is essentially a way to get poor people to eat bugs, I'd say that's right on par with the average MBA's view of humanity.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    2. Re:Group of MBAs won a prize for innovation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your American ideas are clouding your judgement. "Bugs" in many countries is considered a delicacy. They are both nutritional, and if well prepared, taste great too.

  12. Contradiction in terms...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    'one of the planet's leading forces for good.'

    a million dollars

    You know, If I were a supernatural evil being dedicated to the complete overthrow of the human race, one of the cleverer ideas my minions might have come up with would be to go around looking for 'Good' people and giving each of them a lot of money.

    It's the most effective method I know of bringing out the worst in everybody.....

  13. Jakub won business plan contest a year earlier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Their strongest arguments against including him are based on the idea that he has developed technology but that the Hult prize was for a business plan.
    Note however that Jakub Dzamba won 3rd prize in McGill University’s Dobson Cup Business Plan Competition in 2012: Dobson Competition

    The 2013 Hult prize winners from McGill University, according to Jakub, asked him to help on their entry and offered to get him listed as a team member or make him a partner in any business they started. It sounds like Jakub gave them substantial assistance if not the impetus for their entry.

    Hult Competition is not innocent:
    According to Jakub they reneged on their promises once it became apparent that the Hult competition would not let them add a 6th member.

    University complicit:
    According to the Huffington Post article the University Administration tried to get him to sign a gag order as part of a larger agreement.
    Also note that it was at this point that: "McGill would file a pending patent for the cricket farms Dzamba designed in his name alone." which was used as an argument against him by one of the team members:
    "McGill University, which values academic integrity and owns the patent, states unequivocally that our business has zero to do with Jakub," team member Jesse Pearlstein fired back.

    1. Re:Jakub won business plan contest a year earlier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like McGill is worse than complicit. They extorted (via a contract that they can write as a function of being members of the higher education cartel) for ownership of the IP in exchange for accounting and landlord services (though this is typical at any Univ.), then handed their (leg)ill(ly) begotten gains to some MBAs (from whom they will probably *not* take a cut).

    2. Re:Jakub won business plan contest a year earlier by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Once assumes the 'Business Plan' is, search for a nearly developed idea, claim it as our own and, sell the idea. Now that's hardly a new idea in business, regardless of how many companies have been very successful at it, including Apple and M$ s prime examples.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  14. PhD or always honest MBAs? by Phoeniyx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I dunno about you. But, "in general", I have a tendency to believe a single PhD candidate over 5 MBAs. The more MBAs there are, even less I believe that group.

  15. Business people thinking they can do engineering by gweihir · · Score: 1

    What is next? MBA-doctors replacing ones that have actual medical qualifications?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  16. S.O.P. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

    Get a nerd to do all the work, greedheads reap all the rewards. Same stuff he'd be facing on the job market.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:S.O.P. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, the blueprint of any enterprise. Little people do the work, big ones congratulate themselves and get the big bonus (of course for choosing the wining idea).

  17. Comments should not be written in the subject fiel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    d.

  18. A prize for social good by liusha8888 · · Score: 1

    Those who posture screw those who innovate is nothing new. Whatever your opinion on who best execute plans, the point is, shady behavior triumphed at a business prize centered around ethical business practices to do social good. Their entire mandate and philosophy formulated as a response to the financial crisis. All Hult had to do was select a team without controversy and make an effort not to look like dicks at the Clinton Global Foundation. How the foundation and the winning team can comfortably fail such a easy requirement and confidently ride through the criticism while hiding behind carefully crafted legal statements like all other ethical crisis in the business world is a further reflection on how blatantly fucked and the entire structure is.

    1. Re:A prize for social good by russotto · · Score: 1

      Whatever your opinion on who best execute plans, the point is, shady behavior triumphed at a business prize centered around ethical business practices to do social good.

      This IS social good. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one; they screwed one guy to help 5.

  19. Talk about your stuff by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    You gave it away for others to think about and perhaps improve. Don't want the risk, don't tell anyone.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  20. no pity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ideas are more than any one man's work, we're all in this together at the end of the day. Patents should be abolished and ideas should not be bound by whoever happened upon them first, in fact, that isn't how it works now either. It's whoever patents it first who gets credit, which is much much worse.
    Intelectual property is the single most selfish and greed-perpetuating concept of our time.

  21. CORRUPTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is a way of life in Quebec. Everyone is on the take and will cheat to get ahead.

    1. Re:CORRUPTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like this kind of stuff never happens in other universities. Quebec is just too incompetent to hide its corruption better. Wake up.

  22. Headline by rossdee · · Score: 2

    The headline starts with the words "Cricket Reactor" but there doesn't seem to be any mention in the summary of the comments of crickets, or reactors
    This is Slashdot so I didn't read RTFA

    I am guessing that Cricket refers to the insect rather than the sport played by India, Pakistan, The West Indies, Australia, England, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.

    1. Re:Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cricket the porn star?

    2. Re:Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from TFS I concluded this was a new smaller nimble nuclear reactor.
      didn't RTFA either. not going to.

  23. Re: Business people thinking they can do engineeri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is next? MBA-doctors replacing ones that have actual medical qualifications?

    Already seen that, with Blue Cross/Blue Shield hiring recent MBA graduates to review referral requests, including those for neurological conditions. I had to ream the poor schmuck a new asshole before I could convince him that this decision was way above his pay grade. I am still flabbergasted that any health insurer would assign an MBA to review medical referral requests. Color me naive.

  24. Cricketing countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rather than the sport played by India, Pakistan, The West Indies, Australia, England, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.

    Careful, or you'll have a mob of angry South Africans outside your door with cricket bats...

  25. Kinda funny, or not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We grow food so we can convert it and burn it in our SUV's while MBA students bicker over who can make the most money teaching poor people how to grow and eat insects. hmmmmm....

  26. Talk about stupid by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    in this day... not getting an agreement in writing? Dumb.

    You don't need a lawyer to do this sort of thing. Write on a napkin "this is how the arrangement works" and sign it.

    When you go to court... show that to the judge... the judge will ask if those are the your signatures... end of dispute.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  27. That Zucks. by goombah99 · · Score: 0

    Zuckerberg better be watching his back.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  28. Re: Business people thinking they can do engineeri by gweihir · · Score: 1

    I see satire is behind reality in that one. Again. Are people getting more and more stupid or is it just that the stupid ones realize less and less that they are stupid?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  29. All you IT youngsters, pay attention by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is the kind of management you'll be facing when you get out in the real world. There are herds of guys with this mentality being churned out by US business programs. They think that their "vision, drive, and leadership" is more important than your ideas and hard work. Don't be modest. If you come up with a great idea make sure everyone knows it was YOU and and not some 20-ish up-and-coming bureaucrat who will invariably take credit for it when you're not around or voicing a contrary opinion (I know from experience!).

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:All you IT youngsters, pay attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like it is time for a "Cultural Revolution" style of purge in the U.S. I''d target business management and Business Schools, Its too bad blacks and hispanics are klling each other in the ghetto when they could be cleansing the country of greedy white guys in suits. I am not inciting this, I think that it is a real possibility given economic inequality. The reason for the French Revolution was the the populace had some good times that was taken from them by mismanagement by an entrenched class, the Terror was a messy effort to purge that legacy. That could happen here, no matter rich bitches run to panic rooms, the ulrimate answer to impotent government, and obstructive beauracracy, which has happened many times in human history.

      I would like to see economics and business administration discredited as legitimate academic disciplines. Economics is not scientific; math and statistics can be used to give bad assumptions and political agenda the illusion of objectivity. Economics is at best a branch of political science, as an academic discipline, and while I accept that training leaders has always been a role to academe since the Classical academy, the ancients had enough wisdom to make sure that such people's lust for power was tempered by philosophy and art, and rhetoric, where they could utter two coherent sentences, one after the other, and that made some kind of sense.

  30. The Hult officials by pesho · · Score: 2

    The dispute will not prevent the McGill team from competing for the Hult Prize. While the origins of the cricket farm device are in dispute, Michael Lu, a vice president at Hult International Business School, which sponsors the competition, says the judges focus more on the business model than the device itself. Hult organizers believe “the designs provided are not central to the McGill team’s business idea and therefore did not contribute to them either winning the Boston regional round or their prospects of winning the $1 million prize,” Lu says.

    Translation: Screw the guy who made things happen, this is a prize designed to reword the assholes who are best at stealing.

    I am very interested to learn how would the so called "business model" work without the actual invention? Is it something like we collect the investors money, split them between ourselves and go play some golf.

  31. Re: Business people thinking they can do engineeri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we give everyone too much credit, smart people are usually excellent in a few fields and poor-good in the rest. Yet we expect them to always have a good answer.

    That and the recession means corporations are gonna try and fuck everyone over twice as hard to squeeze profits

  32. Re: Business people thinking they can do engineeri by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    'I don't know' is an excellent answer if it's true. 'I know someone who might know' is an excellent followup.

    Attempting to always have an answer is more a sign of childishness.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  33. One inventor, No perjury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The MBA students did not invent, they used his work with his permission to develop a business plan. They was a disagreement between the PHD student/inventor and the MBA students/business people and the MBA members booted him from the team. Unfortunately they forgot that his work is central to their efforts to secure further funding .... in other words they screwed him over just after the regional win and their actions have now screwed themselves over after the international win.

    MBA won a minor battle but lost the war.

  34. Onion talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't i see these guys on Onion Talks a couple of months back?

    Very inspiring.

  35. Re: Business people thinking they can do engineeri by gweihir · · Score: 1

    It is a sign of the Dunning-Kruger effect: You have to have some real insights to understand how far your insights go. If you have no insights, you think you have insights into everything...

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  36. Basic microeconomics by mcheu · · Score: 1

    Not false.

    That is precisely how the market DOES organically set price to value.

    A seller is free to set a price on his product at whatever he wants.

    If this price is at or below the perceived value of the product, then consumers will buy it. If it is below the perceived value, then consumers will buy more (each consumer buys more units or more consumers will buy). If the price is higher than perceived value, then consumers just won't buy it. They'll either find alternatives or just do without.

    That's how the market works. Your position that the "transaction price is below what te (sic) buyer values a good at and above what a seller values at" doesn't work. You can only have a transaction if both parties actually connect at a price point where both parties overlap. If there's no overlap, there's no transaction -- both buyer and consumer walk away. No transaction means no "transaction price."

    This is covered in every intro to economics course in the first few lectures.

    1. Re:Basic microeconomics by Lord+Lemur · · Score: 1

      Reread the sentance you quoted. That is where your overlap lies. But as I described, the value to the two parties isn't the whole of the value. Since your stuck on econ 101, can I instead direct you to utility theory. As sophmoric understanding of economics is all that's required to easily see that you infact are intentionally biasing your definition of value.

    2. Re:Basic microeconomics by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Obviously not in the marxist courses that Lord Lemur seems so well versed in.

    3. Re:Basic microeconomics by Jahta · · Score: 1

      Not false.

      That is precisely^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h theoretically how the market DOES organically set price to value.

      FTFY. The theory assumes Perfect Competition, something that has become increasingly rare in Western economies. There are many ways for sellers to distort the market to their own advantage, and the buyer's disadvantage.

  37. Yeah we wont use it thats the ticket. by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    I am always amazed at how people who seem smart do such dumb things.

  38. Well, the prize *is* for "business ethics" by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The mandate of the competition," Dzamba notes, "is to instill business ethics among college and university students..."

    Hmm, steal the winning idea, take the prize money, threaten to sue the original inventor...I'd say the competition succeeded.

  39. Re: Business people thinking they can do engineeri by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Maybe it is a case of MBAs hiring more if their own, because they believe anyone else isn't worth shit? Then again it may be a symptom of a sector where sick people are considered customers, and hospital businesses, before they are considered patients. In most other countries I believe they are still thought as patients only?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.