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.
...until there are a flood of posters who mistakenly assume that the headline refers to Apple trying to claim ownership of the shareware concept? Perhaps "Apple Claims Ownership of Netflix" would have been better.
I hate to say it, but that's how it works. Companies do this all the time and I'm sure apple will make it right.
Let's take the Stickies application written by Jens Alfke for example:
You can read the whole story about how Jens wrote the stickies program as an Apple employee and had it claimed as Apple's while they made sure it was dealt with at the same time here.
-davidu
# Hack the planet, it's important.
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
This was discussed a while ago on MacSlash. The author directly wrote in apparently.
Here's the link: Employer Grabs Netflix Fanatic Software From Creator
And I'll say it again:
.... to the employer's business.
:(
Section 2870 does *NOT* protect you if you're a software developer. Check out sub section 1. It includes an exemption for the company if your invention relates at the time of conception
The company's case against you is pretty straighforward: "We're in the business of making and selling software. Your invention is software. Hand it over."
And they don't even have to pat you on the head for writing it.
I hope homeboy has more luck trying to exert his rights under the CLC than other people who've fallen for it have had.
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...
Because the boilerplate agreements that employees sign these days almost always have something in them to that effect. It's evil; it's also, in most cases, a condition of getting (or keeping) a job, and with the tech economy the way it is, most programmers will sign away the rights to their firstborn if it means getting paid enough.
... Does it suck? Hell yeah. Is there anything I can do about it? Not if I want a job and a degree.
I have to worry about this kind of thing all the time. I work in biotech, and am a grad student in comp. bio.; although the applications I develop for school are in a somewhat different field than those I develop for work, it's conceivable that my employer could lay claim to some of my academic work -- and, of course, that my school could lay claim to just about anything I do. By and large, I trust both my boss and my professors, but
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
Anyone else click this article thinking Apple was claiming a patent on shareware? Maybe I've been reading /. too long. Maybe I'm still not used to the editors deliberately allowing sensational headlines.
Nosce te Ipsum
Hell...I had one company offer me a job with the conditions that 1) anything I code, at any time, belongs to them, 2) any ideas I have, at any time, belongs to them, 3) in the event the I leave the company, I would not work in any field that competes with them for at least 2 years. The theory behind the "any time" clause was that I *might* be influenced by my work and create something using that influence, therefore it was in their best interest to claim everything. The non-competition clause is standard, but if I had taken the job then I wouldn't have been able to take any programming job for 2 years considering their software *could possibly* be used in many fields. The entire contract was written to make sure they owned you. Someone could fight a lot of it in court, but considering you wouldn't have a job it would be hard to pay for a lawyer. I pity the poor bastards that work at that place...the entire thing was family-owned and run, and they worked 12 hour days. And they expected you to keep up with them when needed, which was pretty much all the time. Some jobs just aren't worth taking, no matter how desparate you are.
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
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
As it has been pointed out there are exceptions to that clause.
The rest of the clause is
"
and (a) which does not relate (1) to the business of the employer or (2) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) which does not result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this state and is to that extent, void and unenforceable."
I mod down any one who says "I'm sure I will get modded down for this"
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.
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
" Can you guarantee that anything you write has not benefitted from knowledge gained while working for you current employer. "
No, and I can't guarantee anything I produce hasn't benefitted from knowledge gained anywhere.
Does this mean my 3rd grade math teacher's name goes on my Ph.D. instead of mine?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.