Slashdot Mirror
Apple Claims Ownership of Shareware
(54)T-Dub writes "Cricket Media recently released 'Netflix Fanatic', an OSX based shareware app that lets you manage your rental queue without logging on to Netflix. An article on Think Secret reveals the reason behind it's mysterious disappearance. Apparently the developer's employer, Apple, has claimed ownership over the application's name and source code. The developer claims that under Section 2870 of the California Labor Code this is illegal. The law states that if a company has an employment agreement with provisions saying employees must assign the rights of their inventions to their employer, those sections do not apply if the employee developed it on his or her own time, without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information. Within Apple, there's unsubstantiated speculation that Apple wants to include the Netflix Fanatic code in a new version of Sherlock." Also, they're presumably not too worried with employee morale.
Besides, I don't think they said "Please?"
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Yet another slashdot story filled with rampant speculation and innuendo.
So, let's all rant and rave for 500 messages. Then, in 3 days, the real story will come out and be the complete opposite. And it won't ever be mentioned again on slashdot.
Knee-jerk-pot-smoking hippies! The whole bunch of you!
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
I felt like I was being a little paranoid when I demanded that my last contract - which stated that my "full productive capacity" belonged to my employer - be modified to make it clear that work I did on my time was my own.
Heh. I'll never silly about making such demands again.
Read your contracts, folks. Point out absurdities ("all your thoughts are belong to us") and refuse to sign until they're fixed. If they say "well, we don't mean that..." - get it in writing.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You mean, Apple has pulled back software after it has been released to the Internet? That's rich! Did that work for the DeCSS code? Or the Adobe eBook decrypter?
The one foolproof way of ensuring a particular bit of information is forever available on the net is to declare it illegal...
Expect the source code to show up any minute now...
Sherlock never really impressed me- until I tried the latest version; they've included a fair bit of stuff, and at least at work and at home on cable, it's pretty zippy compared to getting the same info via the web. The dictionary search has been pretty handy.
What amazes me is the near vacuum of useful sherlock modules- there's a website here or there that has maybe a dozen or two, of which only a few are actually interesting. There's a fedex module, but no UPS module.
What is MUCH worse is the distribution model for sherlock modules- you don't actually get the module, you get a LINK to the module, and if that website goes down, the module essentially stops working after a while even if you've added it to Sherlock; it only caches them, doesn't download them(which is why it takes a while to access a module if you haven't used sherlock in a while). Stupid, stupid, stupid, STUPID! Not only is it unreliable and a waste of bandwidth, but it has great exploit potential- breaking into one account and an author's module could deliver all sorts of goodies right to an attacker's doorstep, and nobody would be the wiser. Not to mention, maybe Fedex decides they don't like Joe Blo's module and DMCA him- everyone looses their Fedex module.
Please help metamoderate.
The idea behind shareware is that users will pay you for it. "if you like this program, leave an unmarked $10 bill under the garbage can by the northeast park entrance" isn't a viable business model.
From a legal point of view, that is. Section 2870 disallows claiming of rights over software written entirely in the employee's own time
Surely this is covered by the first of those provisions - and possibly the second, depending on what the guy's job at Apple is...++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
I believe there's a fine line between personal time and company time when you're a software developer, especially these days with so much telecommuting going on. Lots of dev's I know work from home, and their hours aren't necessarily in-sync with everyone else's -- some work from 2PM-1AM, some work sporadically throughout the day/night. So who defines "company time" when you're a telecommuter?
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
Buying you flowers and candy after they've ravaged your ass, does not "make it right".
If you or I so much as copy a song, it's a crime; if a large corporation claims to own your creation, it's buiness as usual. Welcome to modern corporate capitalism.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Apple develop software for Windows too.
If this guy was designing racing cars as a profitable sideline, I think he'd probably have a case, but as he seems to be designing useful utilities for MacOSX, he's just putting in overtime as far as Apple is concerned. Apple should give him a bonus and then take the software as stipulated in their contract.
People who don't read the small print are the bane of modern life.
That was classic intercourse!
Does anyone else find this funny since Apple basically got started because HP waivered their right to Woz's personal computer idea.
It's interesting how many people I see 'soft pedaling' this because it's Apple Computer doing it.
If this was Microsoft doing this, there would already by 700 comments and the Slashdot site would be bogged down and unresponsive because of the fury.
This is dangerous stuff, folks. If this is a precedent, then all the employers of people who have contributed to the Linux kernal, and to various GPL's and BSD licensed products can step forward and claim their chunk of code, too.
It's dismaying that so many 'Apple Loyalists' have joined in on the Slashdot 'Anything Microsoft Does is Eeeevile but any other company is okay' choir. We don't need a 'new master, same as the old master' ascending to power, but some here seem to think it would be okay.
A Good Intro to NetBS
People who don't read the small print are the bane of modern life.
People who WRITE small print are the bane of modern life. People who are victimized by it are just lemmings going over the cliff.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Apple 'brutally crushed' Apple clones going way back into the Apple II days. There were a number of Apple II clones, all run out of business by the Apple legal team.
Also note the Apple Look-n-feel lawsuit. If Apple had won that one, Microsoft wouldn't have been allowed to produce Windows, nor would the X Window System be allowed to exist without paying heavy royalties to Apple. Apple essentially claimed they owned the GUI and claimed it in it's entirety as their own. It's ironic that Microsoft's legal dollars paid for the right for us all to use common GUI elements that otherwise would be Apple Computer property.
There is a LONG history of Free Software folks being strongly against Apple during the look-n-feel suit that seems to have been airbrushed away in recent years.
A Good Intro to NetBS
Do you think he should have been PLANNING on Apple trying to steal his work?
Yes, he should have. He was naive. He probably won't make this mistake in the future.
It's fairly common for companies to let employees develop things on their own time. If nothing comes of it, it's ignored. If the employee starts making money from it, the company claims it. Employees who object to this (perhaps by citing the law) are laid off.
It's a win-win situation from the company's viewpoint. No-risk, no-cost software development, and if it works, the company gets the profit.
Of course, treating employees this way is disastrous policy in the long run. It really kills morale, and usually loses you your most inventive employees. But how many American corporations are capable of looking past the current quarter's revenues?
You folks really oughta learn more about how the world really works.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
My employment contract says that everything I write either at work or at home technically belongs to my employer. I can understand that to some extent. While working at an employer you are learning. Can you guarantee that anything you write has not benefitted from knowledge gained while working for you current employer. So such clauses are covering this benefit.
I don't know about the application in question but if there's the possibility it could not have been written by someone other than an employee of Apple even though the author did not use Apple tools or time then Apple does have some rights over it.
It strikes me the guy should have checked his rights first. I discussed this when I joined my company and was told that provided I haven't written anything which is simliar to, or competes with, company products then I should still get approval for open source releases and the like but they would probably be let through on the nod.
Let's say instead of a shareware app (which sounds pretty useful to me) the guy wrote a destructive email worm that only works on Mac platorms. He writes this on his own time on his own equipment in another country, then releases it to tear up a bunch of marketing companies (who have a high saturation of Mac platforms).
He "owns" that code (and maybe some computers too).
Did he commit the crime? Or did Apple Corp. commit the crime? After all, they own his ass and everything he does or creates, they have the right to financially exploit his artwork, code, writings or anything else. That means he should not get in trouble and Apple Corp. should.
Sorry, but no company owns anything not directly related to the job without prior written contractual agreement (and additional financial compenstation). Anything less is slavery, and as my example above should prove it's also obsurd.
Apple is a big company, so I suppose they have their fair share of clueless lawyers and PHBs so moronic attempts to trample on people's individual rights can be expected.
That doesn't mean they are any less a bunch of assholes for the attempt though. The assholes.
What functionality? They fixed a bug that people were exploiting and was never emant to be a feature.
What hesitation? They never said they weren't going to update it. I fact, there very first announcement on the matter was to confirm that they were after people had leapt to the wrong conclusion.
A computer that's 5 or 6 years old and likely has hardware that isn't really up to the job any more. I'm curious, does Windows XP run on a PII?
That's a rather misleading way of putting it as it suggests that Apple's problem is with OSS, when the truth is very different.
And if you read the law BEYOND the part that was quoted, you'll see that the mandatory exclusion of transfer of rights DOESN'T cover this situation.
This work would appear to "relate at the time [...] to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer". Apple does consumer multi-media software apps for their own platform. An app to "manage rented media queues" would seem to most reasonable people to be clearly "related" to that business.
The inventor can protest all he wants that it was done on his own time with his own tools and it doesn't matter. Unless he can convince a judge or jury otherwise, 2870. (a) 1 says that 2870. (a) doesn't apply. So his contract to assign his inventions to Apple is valid.
Apple's view is that they already PAID him for this program. If they let him give it away when they could be selling it (or sitting on it for their own business reasons), they're not just letting him take something that they paid him for. They're also jepoardizing their ownership of EVERYTHING ELSE they paid their employees to do. So why are they paying all these people all this money?
Sounds to me like the situation is this:
1) Guy builds a neat software app and, misunderstanding the situation or thinking that Apple is not interested, thinks it's allright to release and/or sell it on his own.
2) Apple says "Wait a minute! We paid you to give stuff like that to US!"
3) Guy says "Oops! You're right!" and pulls the app.
4) Media finds this out and mentions it.
5) Slashdot reader doesn't recognize that the exception in 2870 (a) 1 applies, so he thinks that it's an assault on open source and composes a post saying so.
6) Slashdot editor posts the new item essentially verbatim.
and the flap is on.
2870. is the engine of California's hi-tek booms. By letting inventors keep and develop inventions that are outside their employers' interests and non-competing, it promotes an explosion of inventiveness and startups. But it falls short of giving workers the right to develop potentially competing works that their employer didn't explicitly assign them to create or doesn't wish to pursue at the moment, and didn't give them PERMISSION to take back. Some would even argue that this is deliberate, a necesary provision to avoid killing the succeeding generations of geese just as they start laying the golden eggs.
So let's not misconstrue the law. If the developer decides to press his claim and can show in court that the exception applies, it's his. If he doesn't or can't, it's Apple's. And if you don't like it, get the law changed.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So let's ask some simple questions.
If Apple can't demonstrate either of these things, it's hard to argue that they already paid him for the work, in which case the guy appears to have a legitimate grievance.
Legally speaking, the phrase "the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer" seems to place the burden of proof firmly on Apple: they have to show that they were doing, or definitely going to do, something along the same lines.
At this point, it's up to the legal system to interpret the relevant law given the specifics of the case. Of course, whether one man can hope to fight a legion of Apple lawyers within the current legal climate of the US is a different question, but the theory is sound.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Yes, well, that's why we want fair competition between all of the computer OS and system manufacturers, and not just one company strong-arming the rest. When there are a number of players, then if one of them tries to strong-arm the rest, the rest squash them.
People didn't like IBM in the past because they were the dominant player and the rest of the industry couldn't stop them if IBM tried strong-arm tactics. In the mainframe biz this is still true, but now there are alternatives to mainframes (PC farms). People don't like Microsoft now because they are so powerful that they can strong-arm basically at will. Linux is changing that.
Most corporations do some good things and some bad things. Very few are basically evil. And a few are basically good.
Apple is like any other corporation. Not all corporations are evil faceless satans. I realize that to a great many people that what I have just said here is heretical...