Are you sure the space program was not about the military getting access to rockets that could fly a warhead from Iowa to Moscow in the shortest possible time ?
Considering the early US rockets were first military ones I'd answer "No." That technology was already being developed separately; a more useful military tool would be the ability to put military astronauts into orbit for spy missions but even that was better accomplished by satellites and Blackbirds. Certainly the military had an interest in adapting technology used for spaceflight and had a large, if not visible, presence at NASA that would be useful in identifying potential military uses of technology, especially beyond missiles.
SpaceShipTwo is not going to bring the human race into a new age. It's not a craft that can be used to reach space, no matter how much you test or develop it.
True, but the Wright Flyer couldn't be used for a lot of things either nor could Goddard's rockets reach space; but they were important first steps. Aviation is built on incremental steps and who knows where SpaceShip Two will lead? I have no idea where it will go but that is no reason not to try and see.
We already know how to reach space. This is not how. This is just for thrills.
So? Many early flights were for thrills (and money) as well. By your logic, Lindbergh's flight was just for thrills since we already knew how to reach France by boat.
Well, 5 mod points and a dozen donuts for anyone with a solution. It's bad situation considering that U.S. and China depend on each other for business and economic reasons yet we treat each other like adversaries. The Chinese government hasn't given much historical respect to the concerns of intellectual property. When it comes to bringing hard consequences to malicious hackers in their borders they offer us zero cooperation in cases like this. So WTF do we do?
Use it to supplied bad information. Bogus code, code that fails at critical times, misinformation about deals, bargaining positions, etc. Use it as a vector to infect computers with destructive viruses that destroy data, open up their machines for penetration, or cause control systems to fail.. In short, turn the malware into a double agent.
Not because anyone disagrees with him, but because they all are thinking the same thing: "Oh, deal Lord, he's going to get crazy old Mrs. Doddard stated again on fossils again. How can I get out of here politely?"
Which means you are de-facto agreeing with "crazy old Mrs. Doddard" because you are remaining silent and accepting her viewpoint. I understand not wanting to get involved with an argument with a crazy person but quietly allowing her viewpoint to remain dogma because confrontation makes you uncomfortable is rather pathetic. Crazy Mrs. Doddard is permitted to inflict her nonsense on everyone else because it is allowed.
Hardly. It's more like " I won't bring this up here because old Mrs. Doddard will then start on her rant. So, by keeping quiet the rest of us can continue our discussion and not get sidetracked by a nutcase. Nowhere did the OP say they wouldn't bring it up if someone else started the conversation or if OMD did, just that there is no reason to start a discussion you know will only end in one person ranting and everyone else looking for an exit.
who is responsible for fraudulent charges? Or if a retailer accidentally charges me twice? Takes days to redeposit a refund? When a data breach occurs and now they have my bank info? Sorry, but I like having a credit card company on my side; and I have never ever had a problem charging something back or fixing an error with them. Merchants and my bank, however...
Car thieves in any country have been expressing their opinions on the security of keyed car entry and/or control systems. The thieves are happy to steal them (often using equipment intended for dealer maintenance of the vehicles *OR SIMPLY USING A COAT HANGAR/SLIM-JIM, A PAIR OF WIRE CLIPPERS/STRIPPERS/THEIR TEETH AND THEIR HAND AND FINGERS*)
Too slow. A body pull tool pops the key mechanism out of the dash/column and exposes the wires.
Microsoft is not in the business of giving away Windows. Are you thick?
They are not charging the end user, they're charging the OEM. What the end user pays is never going to be less than the OEM price, and Microsoft is going to charge less than $1 for Windows when Hell freezes over. They invented the idea of charging for an OS. It is their raison d'etre, and if they ever stopped doing that, they would be out of business in a heartbeat.
As Apple has demonstrated, when you're selling both the hardware and the software, you can price each as you wish. That is not what this discussion is about.
No one is saying they will license the OS for less. The OEM can still charge full price for the PC and add in a small additional price for the OS; that way if someone wants a rebate they get only a fraction of the total costs to the OEM so they recoup their license fee and make a refund not much of a value.
That only works if Microsoft sells the computer. Somehow, Microsoft wants to get paid for providing the operating system. I don't think that's unreasonable.
What's unreasonable is charging you for a computer that has Windows on it. If the same computer (or a better one) is offered with no OS at a price that's lower than the Windows machine by at least the OEM price of Windows, that's reasonable.
You could charge for the computer and separately for the OS, say 1 Euro. You could have the license in as pirate envelope and if you don't want it simply mail it back or return it to the seller, get your Euro, and don't activate any of the installed software.
And - as discussed elsewhere in this thread - reputable manufacturers have means of holding their suppliers accountable, both in terms of QCing products they source, and in terms of indemnification for defective merchandise.
Agreed, but all of that doesn't prevent it from happening. Your argument seems to be that a component manufacturer who bricks counterfeit parts is more desirable; I would question the decision making process of a company that did such a thing and be worried about the stupid decision's potential impact on my company.
Microsoft are quite entitled to refuse to activate illegal copies of Windows, but they aren't entitled to take it upon themselves to format your hard drives when they find them.
Certainly. They only do that with legitimate window's licenses...
If I was a hardware manufacturer, this would make me MORE likely to use FTDI chips. It means I have greater confidence that what I'm getting is "real", because I know that they are actively trying to make counterfeiting their product more difficult.
True, and legitimate hardware manufacturers are probably already doing that. However, problems arise when either a component supplier decides to use cheaper chips to make a little extra profit or counterfeit chips find unknowingly their way into a legitimate supply chain and so some percent of your product now is problematic.
What could their liability be if the bricked a device and as a result someone suffered real damages when the resultant device failed to work as expected? It would seem to me to be OK to make your driver not work with fakes, but even if the driver's license agreement said you agreed to let them brick devices they could still be liable. In addition, the person plunging in the device may not be the owner of the computer and never agreed to the license that came with the driver. Or, what if it accidentally bricks a real chip due to some unforeseen bug in the driver.
I can understand their desire to stop counterfeits but it seems to me that the solution was not very well though out
Frankly, when I here "we have unique demands" I ask for clarification an detain gently guid ether to the determination they are not a unique as they think.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Speaking of unfinished jobs...?
Hey, that's authentic spell checker gibberish. At least $10 worth at current rates.
Ok, to your question. Point out that they volunteers who write their signup may not be available when they want to make changes; and as volunteers if their demands get too high they may simply drop out of the project. If they are problems with the site they have none to turn to to fix it unless the volunteers decide to put in more time; and they may expect you to take care of any problems that arise. Finally, software development takes at least 2x as long as expected and you need to test thoroughly to be sure it works. What would happen if the large event all of a sudden lost the registration of may participants? Or messed up scheduling, etc. do to an unforeseen bug? Do they have the time to sort that out and still pull of the event? Frankly, when I here "we have unique demands" I ask for clarification an detain gently guid ether to the determination they are not a unique as they think. Perhaps you could build a sample in SurveyMonkey or some other tool based on their old site and show them it meets their needs? I use SurveyMonkey because surveys are easy to create and modify and it takes away all the development and backend hassle for you.
I've used it to handle large event signups. You can add drop downs, free text fields, etc and pretty much setup any kind of information you need. You can then export the results to a spreadsheet to create name badges, sort by requests, etc as well. They have a free version but it may not allow you as many signups as you need. You can, however, buy a month to month subscription and then drop back to the free one when you don't need it.
I have an idea. Spend 1 million training kids to not wander randomly into the street. I love how there's this magic assumption that at 25 MPG you won't hit some idiot in the street but at 32 you would. You're probably going to hit the stupid kid at any speed. They should just not be in the damn street!
Or teach them to put covers on speed camera lenses...
Doesn't "Due Process" ensure that the accused can say, "That's faked, Photoshop. The network and servers are hacked, and PROVE THEY ARE SECURE."
Ever seen a municipal vendor who could certify under penalty of perjury complete compliance with all applicable law, regulation and policy?
It depends on how the fine is handled if you get to go to court. Some municipalities make it an administrative fine rather than a traffic violation so no traffic court for you, and no points on the license unlike a cop issued ticket, rather you get an administrative hearing. I guess you could sue but then again the fine is usually low enough that suing is not really cost effective.
At the other end of the spectrum, for $10,000 you can buy a heavy duty safe made of steel and concrete. For $32, I can rent a demolition saw designed to cut through concrete and steel. Since physical security costs about 300 times as much as breaking it costs, perhaps the primary goal is to not be low-hanging fruit. I've watched a car burglar go from car to car, stealing stuff from the ones that were unlocked. He skipped the locked ones, which all had very breakable windows.
Exactly. The goal of any security measure is to make it easier for someone to break into someone else's property; thus securing yours. I have a dog, and most burgers will move on before confronting it even though a steak tossed into the porch would distract it long enough to lock it out. However, it's simpler to move on to the next house. If a determined criminal wants something you have they will find a way to get it.
While that may be true in some areas; not having a college degree greatly reduces your employment chances, especially in technical fields.
In the field of software development, which is the topic at hand, it only matters for your first job (unless you work for the government). Getting that first job is a bitch, however.
True, and TFA was about recent grads and jobs; to which your comment about a first job is relevant and demonstrates the importance of a degree.
This is entirely false. I've never had any difficulty whatsoever obtaining employment related to software development or systems/infrastructure roles, and neither have most of my peers who hold similar credentials. Perhaps this trend has been partially related to our ability to demonstrate skills on demand, i.e. "get the job done, and done properly" rather than an appeal to a piece of paper that essentially says "trust this guy; he passed some exams that may or may not actually bear any relation whatsoever to the work your business needs done right now."
I am perpetually amazed by the volume of collective myth parroting that persists on this topic. To be perfectly clear: lack of a college degree may indeed greatly reduce your chances of employment in many fields, but it matters a hell of a lot less than you've been led to believe for software development and systems/infrastructure positions.
Once someone has a ton of experience a degree certainly doesn't limit you, especially if you do contract work where specific skill set is need for a limited amount of time, most HS graduates lack that experience and neve will get a foot in the door. Also, anecdote is not the singular of data.
A huge number of software development jobs don't require a CS degree, including many highly paid positions. In fact, having a CS degree may reduce the odds of being hired for some positions. It seems the trend of misunderstanding the term "computer science" hasn't lost any momentum.
While that may be true in some areas; not having a college degree greatly reduces your employment chances, especially in technical fields.
is basically "if a lot of people leave companies for Company A then A is a desirable place to work; what are the most prevalent schools that A's employees attended." So basically if your goal is to work at A you have a statistically better chance of landing a job if you work at one of the top schools in its list. That says nothing about the quality of the school nor that their grads do any better in terms of percent employees or starting salaries than other schools; nor does it seem to address the experience level of those hired. I also think the results are biased to companies that hire a lot of people each year so you might expect more people to go to them, thus increasing their desirability in Linkedin's model; yet a small company that hires very selectively and is a place many graduates want to work would not impact the school rankings.
As for the question of the impact of an alma mater on hiring, having a highly regarded school on a resume would at least get it a second look; as would having my alma mater on the resume. However, I'd hire the top person at a "lesser" school over someone at the bottom of a more prestigious one. The former shows they have a work ethic and keep their eyes on the prize while they are in college; the latter comes across as someone who just gets by.
As for the "person at the bottom may just be so smart they are bored to tears by their classes and thus basically ignored them while doing something really brilliant" argument; fine, but most work at many companies is routine and boring at some point but you still need it done well. If i really need someone very good at some specific then I can find them; what I don't need is someone who checks out overtime they get asked to d something they find uninteresting.
If you take any other advice here, you are an idiot. Not one person here can honestly tell you what to do unless they are part of your negotiation.
If you advance sufficiently far, you should be able to get some basic contacts for the company. I would ask the legal team there what advice they have. But if you take my advice without asking a qualified lawyer, you are an idiot.
Don't ask legal questions here, and don't follow any advice given. Especially this advice about not following advice.
This is the best advice in this thread, with one caveat. You need to have a disinterested third party, i.e your lawyer, walls you through what rights you have and the potential ramifications. You already said you are talking to your lawyer, which is a ritual step before you go further. Your lawyer can advise you on what you need too do to protect yourself. For example, can your previous contract employer claim to own your patents? I do not know the answer to that, but it is a critical question, IMHO, to know the answer to before you proceed. Your lawyer can and should review previous contracts to clarify that as well as advise you on how to proceed.
the caveat: Remember the lawyers for your prospective employer are bound to look after your prospective employer's best interest. They do not represent you, and thus anything they say may not be in your best interests. I would leave them out of the discussion unless they employer brings them in, and then would let your lawyer talk for you at that point.
Personally, I would approach prospective employee who brings patents to the table as a professional and evaluate them based on what I think they can do for me, and the patents would not be an issue unless I planed to use them. Quite frankly, if I was interested in them i would bring them up because i would not want them to become a problem after I hired you. I would be comfortable discussing how I would like to use them and work out a mutually beneficial agreement; which of course would involve my consulting with my attorneys to understand the legal steps I need to take to protect my interests and to avoid a future lawsuit. Then again, that is my personal opinion so take it for what it is worth;which is exactly what you paid for it, zero.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure the space program was not about the military getting access to rockets that could fly a warhead from Iowa to Moscow in the shortest possible time ?
Considering the early US rockets were first military ones I'd answer "No." That technology was already being developed separately; a more useful military tool would be the ability to put military astronauts into orbit for spy missions but even that was better accomplished by satellites and Blackbirds. Certainly the military had an interest in adapting technology used for spaceflight and had a large, if not visible, presence at NASA that would be useful in identifying potential military uses of technology, especially beyond missiles.
SpaceShipTwo is not going to bring the human race into a new age. It's not a craft that can be used to reach space, no matter how much you test or develop it.
True, but the Wright Flyer couldn't be used for a lot of things either nor could Goddard's rockets reach space; but they were important first steps. Aviation is built on incremental steps and who knows where SpaceShip Two will lead? I have no idea where it will go but that is no reason not to try and see.
We already know how to reach space. This is not how. This is just for thrills.
So? Many early flights were for thrills (and money) as well. By your logic, Lindbergh's flight was just for thrills since we already knew how to reach France by boat.
Well, 5 mod points and a dozen donuts for anyone with a solution. It's bad situation considering that U.S. and China depend on each other for business and economic reasons yet we treat each other like adversaries. The Chinese government hasn't given much historical respect to the concerns of intellectual property. When it comes to bringing hard consequences to malicious hackers in their borders they offer us zero cooperation in cases like this. So WTF do we do?
Use it to supplied bad information. Bogus code, code that fails at critical times, misinformation about deals, bargaining positions, etc. Use it as a vector to infect computers with destructive viruses that destroy data, open up their machines for penetration, or cause control systems to fail.. In short, turn the malware into a double agent.
Not because anyone disagrees with him, but because they all are thinking the same thing: "Oh, deal Lord, he's going to get crazy old Mrs. Doddard stated again on fossils again. How can I get out of here politely?"
Which means you are de-facto agreeing with "crazy old Mrs. Doddard" because you are remaining silent and accepting her viewpoint. I understand not wanting to get involved with an argument with a crazy person but quietly allowing her viewpoint to remain dogma because confrontation makes you uncomfortable is rather pathetic. Crazy Mrs. Doddard is permitted to inflict her nonsense on everyone else because it is allowed.
Hardly. It's more like " I won't bring this up here because old Mrs. Doddard will then start on her rant. So, by keeping quiet the rest of us can continue our discussion and not get sidetracked by a nutcase. Nowhere did the OP say they wouldn't bring it up if someone else started the conversation or if OMD did, just that there is no reason to start a discussion you know will only end in one person ranting and everyone else looking for an exit.
who is responsible for fraudulent charges? Or if a retailer accidentally charges me twice? Takes days to redeposit a refund? When a data breach occurs and now they have my bank info? Sorry, but I like having a credit card company on my side; and I have never ever had a problem charging something back or fixing an error with them. Merchants and my bank, however...
Car thieves in any country have been expressing their opinions on the security of keyed car entry and/or control systems. The thieves are happy to steal them (often using equipment intended for dealer maintenance of the vehicles *OR SIMPLY USING A COAT HANGAR/SLIM-JIM, A PAIR OF WIRE CLIPPERS/STRIPPERS/THEIR TEETH AND THEIR HAND AND FINGERS*)
Too slow. A body pull tool pops the key mechanism out of the dash/column and exposes the wires.
Microsoft is not in the business of giving away Windows. Are you thick?
They are not charging the end user, they're charging the OEM. What the end user pays is never going to be less than the OEM price, and Microsoft is going to charge less than $1 for Windows when Hell freezes over. They invented the idea of charging for an OS. It is their raison d'etre, and if they ever stopped doing that, they would be out of business in a heartbeat.
As Apple has demonstrated, when you're selling both the hardware and the software, you can price each as you wish. That is not what this discussion is about.
No one is saying they will license the OS for less. The OEM can still charge full price for the PC and add in a small additional price for the OS; that way if someone wants a rebate they get only a fraction of the total costs to the OEM so they recoup their license fee and make a refund not much of a value.
That only works if Microsoft sells the computer. Somehow, Microsoft wants to get paid for providing the operating system. I don't think that's unreasonable.
What's unreasonable is charging you for a computer that has Windows on it. If the same computer (or a better one) is offered with no OS at a price that's lower than the Windows machine by at least the OEM price of Windows, that's reasonable.
You could charge for the computer and separately for the OS, say 1 Euro. You could have the license in as pirate envelope and if you don't want it simply mail it back or return it to the seller, get your Euro, and don't activate any of the installed software.
Can I get a refund for my Mac OS too?
Sure, for it's purchase price; which is zero.
To way too many people "critical thinking" seems to just mean criticizing the establishment just because it's the establishment.
or "You're wrong because your way doesn't use the new shiny I use but some old thing ..."
And - as discussed elsewhere in this thread - reputable manufacturers have means of holding their suppliers accountable, both in terms of QCing products they source, and in terms of indemnification for defective merchandise.
Agreed, but all of that doesn't prevent it from happening. Your argument seems to be that a component manufacturer who bricks counterfeit parts is more desirable; I would question the decision making process of a company that did such a thing and be worried about the stupid decision's potential impact on my company.
Microsoft are quite entitled to refuse to activate illegal copies of Windows, but they aren't entitled to take it upon themselves to format your hard drives when they find them.
Certainly. They only do that with legitimate window's licenses...
If I was a hardware manufacturer, this would make me MORE likely to use FTDI chips. It means I have greater confidence that what I'm getting is "real", because I know that they are actively trying to make counterfeiting their product more difficult.
True, and legitimate hardware manufacturers are probably already doing that. However, problems arise when either a component supplier decides to use cheaper chips to make a little extra profit or counterfeit chips find unknowingly their way into a legitimate supply chain and so some percent of your product now is problematic.
What could their liability be if the bricked a device and as a result someone suffered real damages when the resultant device failed to work as expected? It would seem to me to be OK to make your driver not work with fakes, but even if the driver's license agreement said you agreed to let them brick devices they could still be liable. In addition, the person plunging in the device may not be the owner of the computer and never agreed to the license that came with the driver. Or, what if it accidentally bricks a real chip due to some unforeseen bug in the driver.
I can understand their desire to stop counterfeits but it seems to me that the solution was not very well though out
Frankly, when I here "we have unique demands" I ask for clarification an detain gently guid ether to the determination they are not a unique as they think.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Speaking of unfinished jobs...?
Hey, that's authentic spell checker gibberish. At least $10 worth at current rates.
Ok, to your question. Point out that they volunteers who write their signup may not be available when they want to make changes; and as volunteers if their demands get too high they may simply drop out of the project. If they are problems with the site they have none to turn to to fix it unless the volunteers decide to put in more time; and they may expect you to take care of any problems that arise. Finally, software development takes at least 2x as long as expected and you need to test thoroughly to be sure it works. What would happen if the large event all of a sudden lost the registration of may participants? Or messed up scheduling, etc. do to an unforeseen bug? Do they have the time to sort that out and still pull of the event? Frankly, when I here "we have unique demands" I ask for clarification an detain gently guid ether to the determination they are not a unique as they think. Perhaps you could build a sample in SurveyMonkey or some other tool based on their old site and show them it meets their needs? I use SurveyMonkey because surveys are easy to create and modify and it takes away all the development and backend hassle for you.
I've used it to handle large event signups. You can add drop downs, free text fields, etc and pretty much setup any kind of information you need. You can then export the results to a spreadsheet to create name badges, sort by requests, etc as well. They have a free version but it may not allow you as many signups as you need. You can, however, buy a month to month subscription and then drop back to the free one when you don't need it.
I have an idea. Spend 1 million training kids to not wander randomly into the street. I love how there's this magic assumption that at 25 MPG you won't hit some idiot in the street but at 32 you would. You're probably going to hit the stupid kid at any speed. They should just not be in the damn street!
Or teach them to put covers on speed camera lenses...
Doesn't "Due Process" ensure that the accused can say, "That's faked, Photoshop. The network and servers are hacked, and PROVE THEY ARE SECURE."
Ever seen a municipal vendor who could certify under penalty of perjury complete compliance with all applicable law, regulation and policy?
It depends on how the fine is handled if you get to go to court. Some municipalities make it an administrative fine rather than a traffic violation so no traffic court for you, and no points on the license unlike a cop issued ticket, rather you get an administrative hearing. I guess you could sue but then again the fine is usually low enough that suing is not really cost effective.
At the other end of the spectrum, for $10,000 you can buy a heavy duty safe made of steel and concrete. For $32, I can rent a demolition saw designed to cut through concrete and steel. Since physical security costs about 300 times as much as breaking it costs, perhaps the primary goal is to not be low-hanging fruit. I've watched a car burglar go from car to car, stealing stuff from the ones that were unlocked. He skipped the locked ones, which all had very breakable windows.
Exactly. The goal of any security measure is to make it easier for someone to break into someone else's property; thus securing yours. I have a dog, and most burgers will move on before confronting it even though a steak tossed into the porch would distract it long enough to lock it out. However, it's simpler to move on to the next house. If a determined criminal wants something you have they will find a way to get it.
While that may be true in some areas; not having a college degree greatly reduces your employment chances, especially in technical fields.
In the field of software development, which is the topic at hand, it only matters for your first job (unless you work for the government). Getting that first job is a bitch, however.
True, and TFA was about recent grads and jobs; to which your comment about a first job is relevant and demonstrates the importance of a degree.
This is entirely false. I've never had any difficulty whatsoever obtaining employment related to software development or systems/infrastructure roles, and neither have most of my peers who hold similar credentials. Perhaps this trend has been partially related to our ability to demonstrate skills on demand, i.e. "get the job done, and done properly" rather than an appeal to a piece of paper that essentially says "trust this guy; he passed some exams that may or may not actually bear any relation whatsoever to the work your business needs done right now."
I am perpetually amazed by the volume of collective myth parroting that persists on this topic. To be perfectly clear: lack of a college degree may indeed greatly reduce your chances of employment in many fields, but it matters a hell of a lot less than you've been led to believe for software development and systems/infrastructure positions.
Once someone has a ton of experience a degree certainly doesn't limit you, especially if you do contract work where specific skill set is need for a limited amount of time, most HS graduates lack that experience and neve will get a foot in the door. Also, anecdote is not the singular of data.
A huge number of software development jobs don't require a CS degree, including many highly paid positions. In fact, having a CS degree may reduce the odds of being hired for some positions. It seems the trend of misunderstanding the term "computer science" hasn't lost any momentum.
While that may be true in some areas; not having a college degree greatly reduces your employment chances, especially in technical fields.
is basically "if a lot of people leave companies for Company A then A is a desirable place to work; what are the most prevalent schools that A's employees attended." So basically if your goal is to work at A you have a statistically better chance of landing a job if you work at one of the top schools in its list. That says nothing about the quality of the school nor that their grads do any better in terms of percent employees or starting salaries than other schools; nor does it seem to address the experience level of those hired. I also think the results are biased to companies that hire a lot of people each year so you might expect more people to go to them, thus increasing their desirability in Linkedin's model; yet a small company that hires very selectively and is a place many graduates want to work would not impact the school rankings.
As for the question of the impact of an alma mater on hiring, having a highly regarded school on a resume would at least get it a second look; as would having my alma mater on the resume. However, I'd hire the top person at a "lesser" school over someone at the bottom of a more prestigious one. The former shows they have a work ethic and keep their eyes on the prize while they are in college; the latter comes across as someone who just gets by.
As for the "person at the bottom may just be so smart they are bored to tears by their classes and thus basically ignored them while doing something really brilliant" argument; fine, but most work at many companies is routine and boring at some point but you still need it done well. If i really need someone very good at some specific then I can find them; what I don't need is someone who checks out overtime they get asked to d something they find uninteresting.
If you take any other advice here, you are an idiot. Not one person here can honestly tell you what to do unless they are part of your negotiation.
If you advance sufficiently far, you should be able to get some basic contacts for the company. I would ask the legal team there what advice they have. But if you take my advice without asking a qualified lawyer, you are an idiot.
Don't ask legal questions here, and don't follow any advice given. Especially this advice about not following advice.
This is the best advice in this thread, with one caveat. You need to have a disinterested third party, i.e your lawyer, walls you through what rights you have and the potential ramifications. You already said you are talking to your lawyer, which is a ritual step before you go further. Your lawyer can advise you on what you need too do to protect yourself. For example, can your previous contract employer claim to own your patents? I do not know the answer to that, but it is a critical question, IMHO, to know the answer to before you proceed. Your lawyer can and should review previous contracts to clarify that as well as advise you on how to proceed.
the caveat: Remember the lawyers for your prospective employer are bound to look after your prospective employer's best interest. They do not represent you, and thus anything they say may not be in your best interests. I would leave them out of the discussion unless they employer brings them in, and then would let your lawyer talk for you at that point.
Personally, I would approach prospective employee who brings patents to the table as a professional and evaluate them based on what I think they can do for me, and the patents would not be an issue unless I planed to use them. Quite frankly, if I was interested in them i would bring them up because i would not want them to become a problem after I hired you. I would be comfortable discussing how I would like to use them and work out a mutually beneficial agreement; which of course would involve my consulting with my attorneys to understand the legal steps I need to take to protect my interests and to avoid a future lawsuit. Then again, that is my personal opinion so take it for what it is worth;which is exactly what you paid for it, zero.