Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

For those who also read comments first...

Some of the code in Siri originated from Mr. and Mrs. Baker's company, Dragon, which they eventually sold for stock options. Those options tragically turned out to be based on cooked-books and worth nothing, after completion of the sale guided by GS.

The ensuing legal battle continues, as do the fortunes of those who bought the remaining Dragon tech (Nuance, specifically) and licensed it to Apple et al.




The article says they sold for stock, not stock options. Even so, they should have sold for part or all cash. Taking stock that's not blue chip was foolish. However, we should bear in mind the times. It was 99, and the market was roaring ahead.


>Some of the code in Siri originated from Mr. and Mrs. Baker's company, Dragon

It's not a fact : "The Bakers believe that some of their technology made its way into Siri."


Siri was developed by SRI International, basically as the commercialization of the CALO project [0]. It was initially developed as an app, and was even available in the store. The project was then spun-off into a company, and the developers were working on versions for other platforms. Apple then bought the company, making it exclusively an iOS product and integrating it into the OS.

The voice recognition technology was indeed based on Nuance technology [1]. Nuance was also a spin-off from SRI.

EDIT: This was all after ScanSoft purchased Nuance, which means it had both Nuance and Dragon technology at the time. However, due to Nuance's history with SRI, I would lean towards that being the more likely option, if they hadn't been integrated by that point.

(I worked at SRI during the Siri spin-off time period, and worked with one of the Siri developers on another project.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CALO

[1] http://techpinions.com/nuance-exec-on-iphone-4s-siri-and-the...


> The ensuing legal battle continues...

Really?


I'm calling you out for this lazy comment.

"Ensuing" in this context means after the the failed acquisition and bankruptcy (2001). "Continues" means it's still ongoing. And keep in mind the context of this article is 2012.

There is no redundancy.


I have no idea what you're talking about.

As was pointed out in another comment[1], Goldman Sachs won the ensuing court case.

Which begs the question: Does the legal battle in fact, continue, or is the matter settled (in which case the parent's author is talking crap)?

Which is why I asked "Really?"

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10994872




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: