Slashdot Mirror
Does Your Employer Own Your Thoughts?
MJ writes "Evan Brown has finally lost his 7 year court battle over ownership of thoughts in his brain. Judge Henderson of the 219th District Court in Collin County, Texas granted DSC Communications Corporation, Inc (now Alcatel, USA) a Final Judgement granting DSC ownership of Mr. Brown's idea of a reverse compiler that Mr. Brown claims to have begun formulating twelve years before his employment at DSC and during his off-time while at DSC. Mr. Brown has received media coverage in print, televion and on the Internet: The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law, Wired, Computerworld. This rings similar to previous Slashdot articles on employer/employee IP rights."
I'd tell you what I think, but you're gonna have to ask my employer first.
...by refusing to think at work!
You can only own works that are produced. Any work that has not yet been produced is not possible to own.
I don't work. So no.
Next question, let's move on.
P.S. Full Disclosure: I work for OSDN.
but if i think about it, does that mean that slashdot owns it? or since i'm at work, does my company own it? obviously, i can never own my own thoughts now. . .i think. . .
That's what happens when you don't wear your tinfoil hat.
Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's fair. Why is it a company can own my ideas, but I can't own their software? How about leasing our ideas?
Michalangelo Progr
...well, ok, I do so anyway, but now I'll have a reason.
...I do no thinking at work, or I'd be worried by this judgment.
...votes!
Where I work (a well-known PC gaming company) employees must sign a document that basically states that any concepts and technology are developed while employed here are property of the company.
In some ways, corporate America really treats employees like slaves.
We keep getting closer to the point where who actually think just say, fuck it, and refuse to labor for the rest of the scumbags around them.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
isnt this a dream come true?
did they sue and win a judgement that is simply
vaporware?
i did not read the article. fp
all your thoughts are belong to us!
"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
Maybe it's just me, but this reporting seems so onesided. Perhaps it all boiled down to a non-compete clause that specifically forbade the guy from personally developing products similar to and based upon products sold by the company?
All Your Brain Are Belong To US Corporation
Maybe I'm missing something here, but doesn't it say he's appealing the ruling and that the appellate court said that the Judge did not meet the requirements for a final judgement and have sent the case back down to the same Judge? ???
yes, the judge made a ruling, but judge's rulings get overturned all the time. Talk to me when it gets to the Supreme Court, mkay?
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
According to the article @ wired he signed a contract:
"The company said it owned Brown's idea because of a signed employment agreement requiring him to disclose any inventions he conceived of or developed while at the company."
Sadly right/wrong doesn't matter if it's legal...
Here:
"The effect of this ruling is that employers in Texas can claim ownership of thoughts in their employees brains. Texas courts can and will uphold these employer claims. Texas courts can order an employee that has been fired to work for the former employer without compensation for time or expenses. What ever you have accomplished prior to going to work for your employer can become property of your your current employer."
Isn't Texas the state where you're not allowed to wear checked trousers and eating ice cream on Sunday is a capital offence? I hope so.
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
They refused to promote me to management.
There are plenty of employers out there with reasonable IP agreements to be had. Be sure to read the fine print, shop around for a company that's fair.
Frankly I think it's reasonable for a company to "own" my thoughts as related to the core business of that company, and any development activities that pertain to it.
However if my employer pays me for insurance database work and I'm writing a game in my spare time though, hell no, it's mine. And I won't sign on with any company that disagrees.
One large company I worked for asked me to declare any and all previous projects I wanted to claim as mine before I joined them. I just made it one long list, several existing and a dozen or two "someday" projects just in case. Cheap insurance.
Read carefully and work it to your advantage.
Without reading his contract (and also due the the fact that IANAL) I cannot tell who is correct in this case. The company seems to claim the contract gives them ownership of Mr. Brown's thoughts, but I'm sure Mr. Brown is contesting that. Also, I do not know what is allowable in an employment contract in the state of Texas.
In short: don't jump to Mr. Brown's defense until you know the facts.
I remember while at University we CS students basically signed a waiver saying anything we developed while in school, or using a computer in the lab, or using any concepts taught in class, was property of the university.
Way to encourage original thought.
Moo.
Good, then they can deal with the sexual harrasment charges for my thoughts every time the new secratary bends over. When I get home, I'm usually thinking about the same thing but with my girlfriend. They can have all the weird intoxicated thoughts I get on the weekends and sudden urges to pull the fire alarm too.
I kind of thought the same thing - if your agreement is too draconian, don't sign it or get it amended to something a little more reasonable! Especially if you are coming into a place with a viable idea.
However, it does seem like if he really had an idea before he came to the company that they should not own it, as it was created beforehand. I guess the real question is if he has any witnesses or writings that indicate when he really came up with the first version of the idea.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you sign one of these agreements that oblige you to disclose all inventions when you sign up with the company, you don't, and they come after you for disclosing stuff you freely gave them while employed, well, I guess you get what you deserve.
I signed one with one company. I'll never sign another as long as I can avoid it.
Bad judges are the reason we end up with garbage like this going on. Make sure you do your homework when voting in judicial races, and support groups that keep an eye on judges like J.A.I.L.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
If your employer controls what you think, does that mean that they also own what you think?
www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
Ok, this is new. I'm all for intellectual property (stupid patents aside), but ownership of an idea in another man's head?
You know what? I claim ownership to the word Spoon, the number 7, and any references to a Screaming Yellow Platypus (or its relatives). And if any of you mention the above, it's off to jail with you.
All funny business aside, this is just sick. Mr. Mannalow, please be advised that not only do we own any thoughts that come out of your head, now we own the ones on the inside as well. We 0wn you now.
I am John Hurt.
If your employer owns the ideas you create after work then they should pay the appropriate wage for every waking hour of your day.
subject says it all.
all your thoughts are belong to us
than citizens. I personally hope this gets appealed to SCOTUS- and then I say if they uphold corporate rights over citzenry, we take that as a sign that it's time for a new revolution.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Because I have a corporate past, some of my works must be published under a pseudonym. The honorable history of the "nom de plume" descends from this and other crazy rulings.
Does the record label own all the works of "Joe Skunk?" Fine, release your nest record as "Joseph Weasel" and they will never know.
Does your employer prohibit your publications without prior review, and rejects everything you say? Fine, publish under another name.
Does anyone remember the Ada language books by "Do While Jones?" They were published under a false name for just this sort of reason. (And, no, I am not Do While Jones.)
Moral? Say what you please, release what you will, but misdirect them as to who was saying it. Sometimes freedom comes with a strange price.
Soli Deo Gloria
The court has made its decision, now let's see them enforce it.
It's an idea in a guys head. How do they propose to get it out? What if it turns out to be stupid? Will DSC claim he didn't really give them the IP they now supposedly own? How can this be proved, anyhow?
My boss doesn't pay me to think. He pays me to do. Why, if I was allowed to think, I might actually accomplish something!
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."...Tyler Durden
I was skimming the headline, and I saw "Collin County, Texas ... Mr. Brown's idea of a ... compiler" and started freaking out.
;)
After that I read the whole headline and sighed a relief that it was about someone working on a similar project who happens to have the same last name and live in the same county as me.
If he truly wasn't working on this, I could understand. But if you read the ruling. He was working on a product with a subordinate for reverse engineering an app to high level code for the company. If he truly was working on it, he should have disclosed it when he started working there and possibly filed a patent.
It really depends on exactly what his job at DSC was. I think if his job was in any way computer-related (which it sounds like it is), he should have to turn over the idea. If he thought it was such a great idea, he should have quit and followed through with it. I don't think he can prove he thought of the idea before he started working for DSC, so it seems to me that if he hadn't been working there chances are he wouldn't have thought of it (a little chaos theory).
That would be pretty hard for them to manage that, your previous projects are owned by your previous employeer.
Personally id have taken their offer and told them where to shove it... but thats just me.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
does that mean I can get caught thinking about unrelated material during work and then notified on my pager.
Then his site loses a battle against slashdot.
which is damn generous for an IDEA.
Had he a prototype then I could see him holding out - but he had to be greedy.
The smart man would have jumped on that immediately and ran with the loot.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Hmm, if the company insists on owning his thoughts for 168 hours a week but only pays for 40, then the company can have the ideas ... but has to pay for the other 6700-odd hours a year that it allegedly owns his thoughts but for which it hasn't paid. That's a lot of back pay.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
I hereby issue the following idea under the GPL:
"My employer can kiss my ass"
Feel free to develop further on this idea as you see fit.
Think about things entirely un-work-related while at work. Even if they THINK they own your thoughts, they wouldn't have the first idea how they could benefit from them. Problem solved.
You get a good idea of mine, and I get a percentage of any profits from the use of that idea. Signing a contract where I assign all rights to all ideas for no compensation makes me more likely to give it to the entire world as an Anonymous Coward.
So you have the oportunity to avoid this when you sign up for employment with a new company that 'owns your thoughts' (or doesn't want you walking away from the company with an idea you derived as part of your job duties at the company). Whenever they have that clause it's common for them to have you identify your past inventions. Anything you think you may productize or is a work in your brain you should list here. If your item is on this list and your contract is like most your employer cannot lay claim to these 'previous inventions'.
And folks, FOLKS, don't sign anything you haven't read and don't understand. And if you don't like provisions in it, cross them out and initial it then sign it. There's nothing that says you have to accept their employment contract verbatim. Most HR folks won't bother to chase you down or make a big fuss if it's just 'fluff' wording anyway. Read your contract, sign it, and then accept the terms you have agreed to in writing.
We don't need more 'laws' to protect the 'poor workers' from their 'corporate enslavers', folks need to just not be f**kn p*****s when they accept a job somewhere. If the terms of employment are acceptable then take it, if not ask for different terms or look for a different employer. A job aint a handout, it's an arrangement with mutual benefit to BOTH employer and employee.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
No, it doesn't mean the corperation owns everything you think. It means that if you sign a contract saying so, you're bound to it. As you should be.
If you don't like it, don't sign. Better yet, get every software engineer you know to not sign these sort of agreements. And should you ever own your own company, don't use such far reaching contracts to enslave your workers.
If they own the ideas you work on in your off-time it seems to me that sounds an awful lot like unpaid overtime, and, depending what he makes, 24 * 365 * minimum wage, maybe broke the minimum wage laws too.
While sad, it's the way things are. He didn't finish it on his own, he finished it with the company, so I agree with the ruling. It's probably how he got the job in the first place..."see, I got this here reverse compiler thingy I've been working on for years now". Great for an interview, not so good for ownership down the road. That's the kind of stuff you hammer out when accepting a positon. He should have required, as a part of employment, partial ownership. He may not have gotten the job, but he'd own the thing now, if he'd finished it on his own.
So when is the Hawkeye movie coming out?
Well, if my employer has ownership over anything I do during my employment, then they are clearly also liable for everything I do during my employment -- the door swings both ways. In some ways, this is a triumph over onerous individual liability insurance. Next time I rear-end some bozo on the road, I'll just honk twice and tell them to bill my employer.
Yeah, that'll work.
Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
At a certain point the law and these "activist judges" have gone too far. At what point did it become imperative to protect the rights of companies over the rights of individuals. In this case the judge has clearly taken a literalist line leading to a severe circumscription of the rights of employers. I think that the John Marshall Journal has the right line.
In a sense it reminds me of a study on AI and Law that found, when dealing with Appeals court cases in West Virginia that the rule "The Coal Company Always Wins" led to 100% success when employed.
This is just sick.
Well if that isn't as good reason to unionize, I'm not sure what is.
Admittedly I haven't RTFA so I don't know the nitty-gritty of the situation, but I know for sure that MY employer doesn't own my thoughts. Atleast those thoughts and work that are done out of the office on my own time.
/. crowd (advertising is bad, right?), but there is a very, very specific clause in my employment terms, and has also been stressed in several notes that made their way around the office. It says, very specifically, that what I do on my own time is my personal work. Management has stressed this point and asked us to make sure we DON'T DO IT AT THE OFFICE during working hours. Everything beyond that is our own property. There were examples. Ideas that originated from work we did at the office is still our own personal ideas, so long as it doesn't use patented or copyrighted ideas, concepts and works. Fair enough.
I work for a large ad agency, probably considered one of the sleeze-balls of companies by the
It also works the other way around. We're not allowed to use our company's name for any personal work we do (such as publishing a book) unless we get prior approval. There are many rules and guidelines that show how we CAN use the company's name for PR of a book or song we write, for example, while still retaining our property rights. There are also specific clauses that say how much our company will BUY these ideas for. There is another clause, that says if we DO intend on selling out our personal works, our company would like to retain the rights to be primarily notified and allowed to bid on it. If that falls through, or if our company isn't interested, then everything's game, including competitors. Now tell me, does that sound un-fair? I thought it was pretty damn fair.
I still find it nice to know that brain-ownership by a company is still probably not the norm. To hell with companies that think they OWN YOU, rather than pay you to do your job.
I'm surprised SCO didn't try and take credit for his thoughts. After all, he worked for a company that probably once sold some hardware to another company that...
Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
I realize I am probably going against the flow of most of Slashdot here, but I just can't get worked up and sympathetic about this.
It all boils down to the signing of a "all your thoughts are belong to us" clause in an employment contract. Don't like the clause? Then don't sign it and take their money, and then get mad when they use it.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
When I was hired by my current employer, they asked me to sign the same sort of agreement - stating that they owned anything that I developed before employment (if not named), and anything I developed during my employment. I balked and they quickly produced an alternate employment agreement which granted me rights to anything I developed on my own time and without using company equipment.
I suspect that this is fairly common practice. If you don't ask, they certainly won't offer (except in California, where I believe this is the law)
I wrote email to DSC years ago complaining about their treatment of Evan Brown, and they replied that they were just enforcing his employment contract, and that they felt they were acting within the law.
That doesn't make it right.
Boycott Alcatel.
Like if you come up with a great child-porn story, does that belong to them too?
1. Sign it "John Doe" in messy cursive.
2. Never turn it in. Most professors/departments won't notice. If they place a hold on your account for it, get that hold removed by another department.
3. Tell the CS department to fuck off, and find a better university.
By creating crap for us to circumvent, they inspire original thought.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Let me get this straight... If I fix my neighbors computer, does my employer now own my neighbor?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Google encourages employees to use 1 day per week on their own hobby/project, does that mean...?
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
when starting a new job, this is how i avoid this problem:
1) find the line in your employment agreement that states this
2) cross it out, write "see attached manifest", initial it, and show it to your hr person and (future) hiring manager.
3) attach a piece of paper with all projects you're working on, have ever worked on, or might concieve working on in the future.
4) photocopy the whole damned thing.
and that's it. when legal comes calling about the compiler i dreamed about 5 years ago, i flash those copies at them..
--BlueLines "The cost of living hasn't affected it's popularity." -anonymous
From a quick read of Evan Brown's web site it appears that the "unique idea" he claims is a decompiler. That is, a program that will take compiled binary code and convert it into some kind of source code. As an idea this does not seem to be terribly unique or profound. What is difficult is implementing this idea in working software.
Evan Brown claims that the company he has been in litigation with offered him $2 million for the rights to his "idea". Apparently he turned them down. According to the web site they then sued Mr. Brown claiming to own the idea anyway.
What I find ironic is that as an "idea" a decompiler is certainly not worth much. An actual implementation, that can be easily retargeted, might be worth $2 million, but it is not clear that this is what Mr. Brown had, or that he was capable of creating this kind of software. The guy was working as tester and debugger, not a compiler developer. His skills seem to have been hacking an existing software base, not creating new, complex software.
While I am sympathetic with Mr. Brown's David vs. Goliath fight, it does seem that his difficulties lie in being difficult. It seems like there must have been a way out of this other than years of litigation.
The case also seems to turn on Texas law. While I am tempted to make nasty comments about the state that elected G.W. Bush governor, I'll resist. After all he might be "elected" president and I would not want an all expense paid trip to the US resort in Cuba.
I will note that at least in California work that you do on your own time that is not related to your employers work belongs to you. And given the history of startup companies here, it also appears that in many cases you can use related work as long as you quit first.
Oh, and by the way, I have a compiler development background. I'd be happy to deliver a decompiler for $2 million...
There's one big exception though. If you developed any of your invention rights on company time or used company resources (even if allowed), your employer has rights if you signed one of those agreements.
Just finished reading this a short while ago. Seems suddenly appropriate material.
Kinda fearful, actually.
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
Bottom line is that you should state prior claim to such intellectual property when you sign up. This way everything is clear.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
This reminds me of the credit card applications. People sign them without reading the fine print and act suprised when they get raped with various fees and high interest rate.
While I'm not condoning this type of behavior, we need to start thinking about the rights that we sign away everyday for the mighty dollar.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
This is not a new thing in the IT world. Here is an example of Mac doing exactly the same thing. Although the practice is reprehensible it is common place.
Much as I nowadays feel like thinking "oh, god, how could this guy be so daft as to trust his employer like this..." you gotta remember, this was really breaking new ground in its day, and it's been going on for 7 years. Not that this was THE ONLY case of it's sort, but it certainly got more publicity than any other before.
I for one used it's disastrous consequences to put the fear of god into a few HR people that tried to sell me on ridiculously worded contracts... and suceeded, too.
My heart goes out for this guy. Having been on the receiving end of greedy investors, and knowing full well what a pack of litigious, money-hungry morons can do, I admire his ability to stand up in the face of these people.
Sure, don't sign the contract that seems draconian, but you should at least also go back to the HR catbert drone with a professionally re-worded contract that doesn't suck... you'd be surprised how easily they give in a lot of the time. And if they don't give in, and you really do think you've got some good ideas, then you should NOT TRUST them to do the right thing by you. If it's not in a contract, then they don't have to, so they won't.
We have no protection from our employers anymore. Corporations hate their employees for their pay and free time.
I'm unemployed now. I fear being poor, but I also fear becoming a slave. I can't stand making money for people and getting nothing in return.
We live in a society where it is advantageous to do as little as possible at work. If you work as hard as you can for $10/hr, they will assume you always will. You won't get promoted or recieve raises, because they see no reason to. They got your best for next to nothing, and they are not in the business of paying more for what they already have.
If our government would enforce the laws on the books, this wouldn't happen. But why would they? What is in it for them.
I can honestly say that I fear the future. I'm 26, B.S. in Astrophysics, and I'm thinking about truck driving. Something is horribly, horribly wrong with the world.
This really sucks for hackers that want to help out with projects on their own time. I hope this doesn't come down to having to clear stuff with one's boss before you can start work on personal projects.
I, occasionally, like to fiddle around with stuff on my own time. Hell if anyone's going to own what I do on my own time. Of course, it's one thing if you use company resources to do the projects.
Well, if this was settled at a District Court of Appeals level there is still State and Federal Supreme Courts to consider. If it went up to the Federal Supreme Court I, and hopefully more affluent groups, would file an Amicus Curiae.
"Hard work never killed anyone." -- Some Dead Guy
This guy's really having a bad day. First, his company owns his thoughts. Then slashdot owns his webserver.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
or your employer will claim to own all of linux.
I'm surprised SCO didn't try this already.
I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but I have karma to burn.
Mr. Brown is an adult, I presume. As an adult, he is capable of reading and comprehending the basic language that appears in employment agreements. If he is at all familiar with the I.T. field, then he is probably also aware that many employment contracts include a clause that says all ideas and products created by employees while employed at the company become the property of the employer.
Mr. Brown willingly signed this contract, presumably because he wanted the money the company was offering in exchange for his agreement. Being a consenting adult means that he has to abide by the agreement, for better or for worse. The company presumably upheld its part of the bargain by paying Mr. Brown what was promised to him.
As much as I sympathize with his situation, he knew what he was getting into when he signed that contract. Now he needs to be responsible for his actions.
In addition, I really can't believe how little sense this guy has. When the company threatened to sue him, he should have just agreed to describe his idea but then described it wrong. When his employer pointed out that the idea couldn't possibly work, he could have just looked shocked like he suddenly realized how much time he wasted on a failed idea.
Moreso, he should have just kept his mouth shut. If the entrepeneurs in the Slashdot crowd learn anything from this, understand that loose lips sink ships. If you have a great idea from which you intend to profit in the future, keep it to yourself. How many times do people have to be told this for it to sink in?
I understand, as a developer, the desire to share strokes of brilliance with other people. As a businessman (sole proprietorship), I also understand the even greater need for discretion and personal responsibility.
Exactly how do they know if each of these people would have bought the game? I would download doom 3, but i wouldn't buy it in a million years (i dont like 3rd person shooters (i'd want to just see how good the graphics are) except for System Shock 2).
The parent poster reminded me of "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.....a good read IMHO.
There is no patch for stupidity
Visit my blog
I guess this means my employer also owns the the shotgun shells and an armor shard I just found outside Convergence Chamber 2.
This decision will undoubtably be revisited when two corporations wind up battling over the thoughts of a single ex-employee. Imagine that Mr. Brown had his idea, then worked at HP, and then moved to IBM. Both could then lay claim to the knowledge in his head and neither (based on this case) could demonstrate a greater claim.
Unfortunately, that will be unlikely to benefit Mr. Brown or anyone else that has ever been in a similar situation.
+--------------------- You idiot! I told you we were facing the wrong way!
/wiseass comment
They can own all my thoughts of putting dead fish around the office before I quit. Personally I've been thinking of tossing on top of the ceiling tiles and maybe toss a few in a few computer cases.
Most development processes tend to be continuous and interwoven. You have an idea about a problem at work while your'e about to fall asleep at home. The next day you start the implementation at the office. While your'e at the office on hold you have an idea about a pet project and you do work at home. If your'e bored on a train or a plain to a customer you may go further.
From the companies viewpoint they are gambling. Their engineers may come up with little more than microsoft style innovations, or they may come up with blockbusters. Either way the engineers are usually getting paid a decent salary with benefits while they are there.
Its very difficult to draw the line at what a brain is doing and when. If someone comes up with product directly related to the companies business and what the employee is working on, they have a certain right to be suspicious of assertions that it was done on my own time.
From a civil rights perspective, and a social perspective, this may be something that should not be legal or at least regulated. You can't sell your vote, you can't be forced into contracts under duress, you can't be forced to give away right via a shrinkwrap agreement (though alot of people have done a good job of convincing people they can). Should an employer have the right to force their employees give up the fruits of their creative endeavors as a condition of employment. Employment is a tangible need for most people and forcing employees to agree to such contracts may constitute a form of coercion or duress.
There is of course the consequences to tilting this playing field either way. Tilting it to the employer can cause people to either just give away their work or not reveal it. Tilting things to the employee could cause the employer to shift hiring to a local where things are more in their favor.
Its not a simple issue. In this case there was almost certainly a few greedy assholes in the company, but they seem to turn up everywhere.
My wife works for a movie distributor, and a big one at that.
When she went to work for them in a NON-production capacity, they asked her to sign a contract that stated that the rights to anything she produced while with the company would belong to the company. This, even thought it was a NON-production position.
Trouble was, long before accepting their employment, she already had a signed deal for an independent production that was underway -- and her new company did not ask her to sign this contract until several weeks after she accepted and began employment. She immediately disclosed her existing deal, and made it clear that she would not sign the contract unless it specifically excluded this existing deal.
It took more than two months of phone calls and letters before they acknowledged their impasse. My wife's position was, "I understand that you don't want me to walk away with any of YOUR rights, but I don't want you to walk away with any of MY rights, so I will not sign this unless it specifically excludes my existing project." The company's lawyers responded with, "Gee, we have never encountered this type of situation before, and we don't know an appropriate way to handle it, so why don't you just do what everyone else does and sign it as is?"
Needless to say, she refused to do so. As of this writing, she remains employed, and the contract remains unsigned.
Yes, but this is Slashdot. You lose.
Before you are employed, you should assign all your IP to a discretionary equitable trust of which you are the trustee. Also, sign a nondisclosure with your equitable trust. Thus, you cannot tell your current employer what is in the trust because you agreed not to and they cannot get you to break the confidence of another if they expect you to uphold their confidence.
The trust (or double use) was originally created to help women own property when it was illegal. It only seems fit to use it here when it is illegal to own your own thoughts.
IANAL - this could be wrong!
IMO the contract isn't valid. It can be nullified by a legal concept known as bilateral mistake. Both sides agreed to something that could never be delivered - a Concept cannot be delivered. It can be written down and tranferred, but that is not a concept, it is proposal, or a specification, or a screenplay, or a blueprint, or just ordinary notes. It can be spoken about at length, but that is not a concept, it's a speech, or a lecture, or a presentation.
If you think it can, I've got a big sack of joy to sell you cheap.
If you think it can, why not go down to the patent office and patent that great idea for a cheap fusion reactor you've got rolling around in your head? The patent office is a disaster, but even they will want something in writing...
The truth is concepts can't be sold. So it's bilateral mistake, case closed. Dipshit judges will be the ruin of us all.
The only case Alcatel might have is non-performance of duties (they could sue for monetary damages), but since Texas is a right-to-work state, that will never fly.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
but my previous one owned any ideas that I came up with that were related to what the company did.
There was also a clause in my contract that said that after I stopped working there, I could not work for a company that offered competing products for a period of two years.
It was a reasonable and logical contract. My former employer did not want me competing with them, nor did they want me to go and take my projects and trade secrets with me to another company.
I think the guy in the article was an idiot for either: not double-checking his contract for an ownership clause, or not figuring out a way to get around the contract by publishing under an assumed name or holding off on publishing his idea.
A book which was recommended to me during a skirmish over similar issues was Who owns what is in your head?. It brings up many issues that a talented engineer should understand before signing an employment contract.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
First, if every employer does this, you have to sign if you want to survive. You could live in your van down by the river, but is that really practical? No.
Suppose one saturday your working on something on your own time, then a flash of inspiration hits, and you create some simple device that will make you million. Why legitiment reason could the employer have to expect that own it?
If I spend company time and resourses on the matter, then sure, but not just becasue I happened to think of something.
This Judge is senile, stupid, or on the take.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot
Makes no difference where the guy worked. If your thoughts aren't free then you are nothing more than a slave.
Listen, late last night, I heard the screen door slam
And a big yellow taxi took away my old man
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone
And here I thought we abolished slavery years ago.
I don't wanna give it
Why you wanna give it
Why you wanna giving it all away
Wave by-by to your freedom to think. Next will be your freedom to have an opinion which differs from where you work. Then to vote how you want while working for someone.
Hey, hey, hey
Now you wanna give it
I should wanna give it
Now you wanna giving it all away
Hey, paved paradise to put up a parking lot
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
Has anyone bothered to find out if Evan Brown's "idea" is even patentable. I mean, from the vague description given it would appear that he's talking about a standard decompiler. There's plenty of prior art for decompilation (going back 40 years). As a researcher in this field I think this whole thing stinks. Neither party appears to want to talk about the actual "idea", it's more the princple of whether or not a company can own an employee's ideas. If either party were to actually investigate whether or not a patent could be filed for the idea and found that it could not this would terminate proceedings without actually answering that question.
How we know is more important than what we know.
So if the company claims ownership of anything you come up with, even if it's not related to your work, does that mean that they're also liable for it? Imagine John Q Public worked for FacelessCorp, and they had such an agreement. What if John's after-hours hobby included virus creation and one of them caused a big problem? Is FacelessCorp liable since they claim to "own" it?
What ahppens when every company has a contract that says they own everything you think of, even before employment? Are we all suppose to starve, because thats what it comes down to, go hungry, or let the 'Corp' own everything.
It seems to me that shouldn'e be allowed and WE do need government intervention to maitain a balance.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
thats only true if you assume that none of those 'pirates' will buy a copy of doom after release. Potential sales missed does not equal money lost.
they do own my thoughts... but they can't keep them.
storing porn on the company fileservers is not permitted.
There's something that has frusterated me for some time about Slashdot, and perhaps its due to Slashdot's unique format of reporting "news". I usually consider good "news" to give you a complete, fair, and balanced look at a situation. Still, this posting was 100% skewed in favor of the employee without really giving access to any information to the employer's story. I would love to know more about the contract signed by the employee (which was only briefly touched on by Wired, another somewhat skewed news source) that allowed the employer to legally "own" his thoughts.
But taking it to the level that companies own and control your thoughts a la 1984 without giving any solid background is pure sensationalism. Whats the point of debating when there is nothing given to debate?
In general I have found a good number of Slashdot's posts to be extremely biased, not complete, and therefore not very accurate. I agree, that this is probably due to the news being to some degree "user-driven" but I would like to hope the "Nerds" of the world could band together to create a more constructive and less biased source of information.
I thank the other users who made thoughtful and useful comments taking into account what was left out of the post, but I would like to see more broad intial information given by Slashdot.
That's all well and good, but what if every employer has such terms? Where do you turn for employment without being subjected to this garbage?
Claiming ownership of employee ideas developed in their off time is simply wrong. We are people, not "assets" or "resources." Is this legal? Probably. But I'm sure most people will agree that what is legal is not always ethical.
These slavery clauses should be banned.
In the USA you have certain rights. These are rights that you can not sigh away, you can not give them away. You can not take away a persons right to think, you can never own a persons thoughts. You can however own any work he produces on "Company" time. If he uses all his own equipment and the ideas are reasonalby removed from what it is he is doing at work then you are obligated as a human, as a US citizen (yeah you corporate C types are still only US citizens...the human part is debatable) to give this person the same rights that you had when you started your business.
what?
9-5 (or what ever time your employer expects you to work) their time. Any other time yours no questions.
How strange a company like Alcatel won't take you to court over the time you spent with your kids, family, wife or friends. Perhaps that's because they are corporate scum and US law is about as useful as a bullet in the head.
A company does NOT own you, and presidents should not be set to *prove * otherwise. Anyway in doing so employees are not going to expend the effort in *thinking*, thereby corporations in the long run are shooting themselves in the proverbial foot.
What about some, for example, really naughty p2p ones?
Wouldn't the employer then be responsible as the owner if the idea became public?
Would there not be an issue for liability then?
-b
Let's make some safe assumption shall we :
1. The majority of companies that operate in your field of work choose to apply the "I own your inventions" provision as standard in contracts.
2. But you oppose it, on the reasonable grounds that
a)being employed in one company doesn't imply that the company helped develop/conceive the
idea even if the product is sold in the same market.
b)the burden of proof of misappropriation should be on the company, there shouldn't be a burden on inventor who patented the idea, as he's potentially disclosing the idea to the world by patenting it.
3. Therefore, you find yourself out of 80-100% of your job's market and are indirectly forced to get another job, at least until you find some better company in your field (which may never happen)
I can't think of anything more chilling to innovation and invention then a provision that says "everything you haven't disclosed to us before is likely to be ours" ; who in his right mind would ever -think- about inventing something in his field of works, knowing that a previous employer may sue the hell out of him and win, only because of the amount of money they have and the amount you don't ?
Make sure that the contract specifically states that the company only owns what you do *for them* and beware of overreaching clauses which say they own "any and all inventions created by employee...".
It's a dog eat dog world out there. You also need to remember that the law is often not black and white. Without knowing the specifics of his case it's difficult to tell of alcatel really may have had a legitimate claim or not.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
It's the nature of human creativity, and it's almost impossible (and meaningless) to disentangle the two.
Clearly, blanket assignment of all "IP" (I hate that term) to the employer is not fair, but nor is it reasonable to argue that his private stuff is completely seperate.
A reasonable reward scheme for new ideas generated by employees would be the best idea - isn't that what IBM (and recently Microsoft) does? Basically you assign the patent to the company, but you are listed as the inventor and get a license income stream plus "invention bonus"...
.... and it is my conclusion that he did not come up with anything but rather this is just a way to try and establish/fabricate some legal stack of paperwork in an IP grab of something outside of the whole thing.
Apple is a company. Mac is one of their products. Get it right, you fucking idiot.
If you're going to call the company "Mac," these days you might as well call it "iPod."
Okay for one thing, I'd have to say that even if this thing goes on and a final outcome, no matter what it is, is arrived at, this idea cannot be patented. There is WAY too much prior art out there.
I cannot point to any prior art in particular, but I have thought of that idea myself and I don't consider myself to be anything close to an exceptional thinker-of-new-ideas... it seems every time I think I thought a new thought, someone else has thought of it before me. Given that, you can bet there is prior art up the wazoo.
So what is it Alcatel hopes to gain from this? If it's a patent, it's lame and will not last long even if it's awarded. If it's this guy's software if he ever codes it successfully, I can't see where they have any rights to it if he does... unless they have a patent on the idea... but it'll be overturned when prior art comes out and it will.
This is a REALLY stupid case... what am I missing?
If bosses owned the thoughts of their employees, then there would be a lot more people in mental homes right now. All suffering a combination of multiple personality disorders, pedophelia and the repeatedly wanted to harm themselves.
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
In California, there is a law which states that the employer does not own intelectual property created by the emploee if was created outside the company's paid time + without using company's resources and /or intelectual property.
The way the companies usualy try to go around is to make you to sign a promise that you would immediately disclose them any (business) activity which could potencialy create some conflict with your employment with them. And some companies have the non-competition clause for at least 1 year after you quit. The wording is intentionaly vague here so that they could later sue you for not disclosing your private work or for competing against them. Also, if the your private work is within your profession (as it usualy is), they can later claim that you were inspired by the company's technology.
Even things which end badly often have the potential for great good. An idea can be a wonderful thing (it can also be a negative one). Where it really gets judged is in the execution of said idea (which it shouldn't always).
Remember the old saying about the path paved with good intentions?
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
the wayback machine
If you read the story it really does sound like they company should own the idea. I mean he was working on this stuff for them while 'on the clock' so to speak.
I mean great so I have this idea for a really clever interface for this asset traking software I am developing for our departments use at the office. Well thats cool but I can't go code up a generic version at home and try and mass market it, The company owns the UI after all I might have had some of the more interesting ideas talking to may coworker while we were out to lunch but all the reall work was done for the corp. Its why they pay me my salary and don't hire some other person instead. I have good ideas(sometimes) and they value them. Its a resource I bring to the table the same way I bring any other skills I may have.
One intersting rub though on all this is certain ideas carry a liability. Like say I have this really clever way to disable some sorta DRM for some corporate and leagal perpose. I then go ask my manager as I sometimes do "Hey I found a way to do cool thing X can I put it out on the net so others might find it useful" Being an OSS fan himself he will say yes. Now the next DCSS or some such is an Idea I had but don't own, hmm who is responsible for the consequenses?
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Corporations have won their war against *the people*, on behalf of *some people*. Now they own your body while you're on the clock, and your mind while under contract. Only the 14th Amendment prevents them from owning your body off the clock, but drug tests carve out their niche in that protected realm, despite the 5th Amendment.
America was a political colony of an over-extended European monarch. We kicked him, and his antiquated system, out, but less than a century later, we created his corporate successor. Within a century of that evolution, we are now back where we started, but with a new, less beatable decentralized master. Where in the world are the new revolutionaries? Farthest from the centers of corporate power, most under its control, and therefore most aware of its tyranny; the most independent of those people will reach a threshold where they escape corporatism's hold, and establish a new order. Who are they?
--
make install -not war
I think if you are in that situation, you either have to publically disclose everything to protect your right to your own ideas. Or lie about them and hope they don't make you sign a non-compete clause that prevents you from ever doing anything later on.
Anyway, in this job market, it's not like there are lots of employers to choose from for the best IP agreement.
if you write up your idea as part of what you did for an annual summary of your work, it becomes likely that the company owns it! sometimes not all is as it seems on the surface.
What happens if he refuse to hand over the "documents". Will the FBI come with a warrant and seize his brain?
Will he get it back once it has been examined, albeit rather scratched and dented where the technicians have prized it open to examine the contents.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Would be a contract that says if it is:
.NET and visual studio and stuff. Lets say you, in your spare time, decide to write a compiler from to .NET MSIL.
A.done on company time
B.done with company equipment
or C.done because you were told by your boss to do it (i.e. "what you are being paid to do")
they own it
otherwise they dont.
The problem is, there is a grey area.
Lets say you are employed by Microsoft to work on
The grey area is whether your employer has any rights to it (because it is directly connected with what you do for a job)
Ok, what I am not clear on, did he develop this at the company, on the company equipment, while being paid? If so then I beleve that the company may have a stake in it, if not own it all together, BUT if he made this on his own time, and equipment then it is his, just like a metal worker, the company owns what he does in the company shop, but not a widget he comes up with on his day off.
Since you know Evan I am certainly willing to take your word for his skills. The only thing that I will note is that there is a certain amount of experience that is useful in creating a decompiler. For example, an understanding of control flow/ dataflow graph construction (from which one can rebuild source). But this is really a side issue. I'll assume that Evan has the skill and experience.
What I don't understand from looking over Evan's web page is whether Evan actually created the software. And if not, all we're dealing with is an idea and a not terribly unique idea at that. There is also another name for an unimplemented idea: a dream.
If all this litigation and, I would assume, pain on Evan's part, is simply over an idea then I think that my original comment is on the mark: This appears to be the result of a corporation and Evan becoming embroiled in litigation over something that is not worth suing over. A decompiler is simply not patentable (assuming that someone was willing to challenge the patent). It is an idea that is obvious to anyone "skilled in the art".
Now techniques for decompiling might be patentable, but if I understand this correctly, this is not about existing software or algorithmic techniques. Even if one tried to patent algorithmic techniques in this case, there is over thirty years of prior compiler "art" on algorithms. Yes one could claim that these algorithms were applied in a new way (decompiling), but it would still be an uphill battle. Finally, as far as I can tell, there is not much of a market for decompilers.
If this reading of the situation is correct, this appears to be an example of stupid management and a stubborn Texan. The stupid management thought that they owned an idea, which is more or less worthless (but being stupid/ignorant, they did not know it). The stubborn Texan insisted that he owned his ideas. The end result may be Mr. Brown being forced into bankrupcy if Alcatel ever enforces the legal fee judgement. Even if this is not the case, Mr. Brown will never get back all the time he spent on this. From my point of view, life is too short.
I just signed on with Accenture in Illinois, and the contract I had to sign specifically stated anything I make on my own time withount using company resources is mine.
Apparently it's a state law. The lesson to be learned is don't work for IT in Texas.
On the other hand, this guy turned down $2 million for his idea. This isn't joe shmoe getting shafted, this is somebody being greedy and his company is playing hardball.
Use your eyeballs and your brain and RTFP (paperwork) before you accept a job. If you don't like what it says, DON'T TAKE THE JOB. It's that simple. I turned down two job offers because they had all-encompassing IP rights clauses in their policies. I finally found a great job with a great employer whose policy is "If we pay you to do it, it's ours. If it's related to the business unit that employs you, it's ours. Otherwise, we could give a flip."
We're even allowed to use company resources (computers, labs, etc) for personal projects so long as we ask our manager beforehand and get approval. I guess there are some good things about working for a huge company that has bigger things to worry about than the little widget you're coming up with in your dreams.
If you plan to work on anything related to your career outside of the company, create a corporation and work through it!! Companies don't write subcontract agreements that encroach on the sub's intellectual property, which is what you have! They write employment agreements that do.
If you plan on doing something with your ideas, then commit! Start an S-Corp, get some liability insurance, and have your "employer" pay you by invoice instead, and sub out your own payroll. You will NEVER be asked to give up your company's intellectual property by any business you truly want to work with.
Sure the opportunities are more slim, but hey, you're coming up with stuff on your own time, so put your money where your mouth is.
I did this and my client started with a subcontractor agreement that explicitly stated that my IP was my IP and their IP was theirs. It was refreshing.
Yes, Virginia, the laws are made to benefit the corporation. So Incorporate!
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
In my opinion:
A company should only have claim to all, or even a portion of what would otherwise be an (ex) employee's intellectual property if it meets the following criteria.
1. The employee used company time and/or resources to implement their idea.
2. The idea has a reasonable relation to business the company is/was involved in at the time the person was employed.
By reasonable here, I mean similar to the following: An employee thinks of a new way to detect viruses and works for a company that makes antivirus software.
It does not mean: The employee thinks of something "high tech" and works for a "high tech company."
Furthermore, the burden of proof should be placed entirely on the company if they believe an employee's work rightfully belongs to them.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
When I changed jobs recently, this was one of the top things on my mind. So I negotiated with the company to get the following clause into my contract (translated from Japanese):
Admittedly, I had the advantage that the company I work for now called me instead of me applying for a job, which gave me a fairly good bargaining position. But at least for smaller companies, where the company isn't too strangled in rules and standard procedures, something like the above shouldn't be too hard to work out--if you try.
I always cross out the unfair statements in any work agreement. Stop being sheep and do what you know is right. Your employer knows it's right too.
IANAL, but I'd really like to see how this would work with employees who don't fully understand what they're signing who work on open source projects in their spare time.
Has SCO found a way to claim IP?
Nothing personal, your advice is great, but this drives me nuts. Why are corps so much better off then people? Kill a few dozen people, you get the death penalty. Lie about your product and kill a huge number of people, no problem keep selling tobacco.
The whole thing seems like a shell game rich people can play that people who can't afford lawyers can get burn if they try.
Sorry. Rant off.
District Court Judges are elected in Texas. As such, they are beholden not by justice, but by their contributors. SURPRISE!! I'll just bet that this judge got more than his share of contributions from various members of the DSC/Alcatel cabal. As a lawyer from Texas, I know from personal experience that this happens all the time. Just ask Tom DeLay....
As for his prospects on appeal, the Texas Supreme Court has shown a consistent trend over the past 15+ years in favor of business and against consumer/employee rights. So don't expect any reversals here in Texas. If you have any thoughts in your head, KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF!
be someone else's employee again.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
When I was at Microsoft, I loved being hourly because of course MS had such a clause in their contracts....
My reaction was "I'm hourly. They can own my thoughts, but only if they pay me overtime!"
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
That's why he should use encryption:
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
I wonder what this companies attitude would be to a situation, such as an employee that commtted a crime.
A henious crime.
Hatched over 1 year.
The detail worked out at work during the quiet periods 9am-5pm.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
When I worked for companies I had a non-compete agreement that only lasted for the duration of the employment. My employers limited what tools I had, what resources I had, and how I should program (for example no OOP, follow their style and guidelines). I was very limited in what I could do, and they accused me of not meeting my potential. I argued that if they let me program my way and laid off the stress that was causing illnesses that made it harder for me to work, that I could meet my potential. Instead more stress was heaped on me, as well as verbal abuse, emotional abuse, and psychological abuse. I was given the despair treatment, to get rid of me.
I learned from them how not to write programs, and what not to do. I feel that I can now safely develop my own programs, from scratch, to solve problems differently than their half-arsed solutions, and maybe use a different programming language or platform, that I can do better on my own than in the box they placed me in with major limits on what I could and could not do.
I did not develop any programs or code during my off-time or break time, and I did not release any programs and this fact can be verified. I had a paper notebook I wrote ideas on while I was riding a train to and from work, but I lost it before I was let go from one company. One of my ideas, they had implemented as a Human Resource Information System. Without that notebook, I cannot prove that I had thought of it or invented it. I was let go in 2001, and from ex-coworkers I find that the IT department is still struggling because of the poor management placing limitations on staff. That the programs I wrote, they attempted to re-write to DotNet in 2001/2002 and that they are still having problems converting them.
I feel, that after I finish college, I can safely work on programs of my own, and no past employer can own them.
So can they try to own my thoughts after I've been let go for 2 or 3 years? I think not.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Corporations are more important because they have more money.
There is a problem....
The question is what exactly constitutes "work for hire." If I develop something for my employer, that is work for hire, pure and simple. If I am hourly and I bill my employer for time spent, say, hiking in the woods, they would probably reply that I wasn't spending my time working for them.
On the other hand, when I was an hourly worker at Microsoft, I began to work on some programs outside of work. Most of these were eventually published on Sourceforge, initially under a moonlighting agreement which superceded these portions of my employment contract. However, when they refused to renew the moonlighting agreement, I continued development on these projects sometimes with the knowledge that Microsoft could conceivably ask me to sign over the code to them. In order to protect my self, I tracked all the time I spent thinking about the projects and these added up to several thousand hours (some time periods were estimated).
My defence strategy was to sign them over and then file for overtime. After hearing various concerns from HR about another employee, I decided that this was a very safe strategy.
If MS had wanted all my PHP and Perl programs, it would have cost them $200,000 to $250,000 USD. That would have been nice seed money for a startup. But it did not come to that.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I live/work in Canada so the laws might be different, but when I was given the "IP Contract" I simple wrote in bold print: UNDER DURESS next to my signature.
That was 3 years ago and the HR scumm have not ever brought it up.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
I used to brag about my little inventions to my boss. One time, pre-DMCA, when I worked for a medical orthopedic robotics company, I spent a few evenings of off-time trying to duplicate a software dongles functionality. I used a work digital oscillioscope to study the data patterns transpiring over the paralell port.
Turns out the dongle had 4 distinct data patterns in it. The protected software would address the dongle with two bits to select one of those 4 patterns, and the dongle then sent the requested code out through one of the paralell port lines in serial bit by bit fashion.
So first I used some extra 8051 micro-controllers (belonging to work) and just tried to emulate the behavior, but the 8051 was by far too slow to shift the bits in on time.
Then I used a EPROM (again belonging to work) and some boolean logic gates, bingo.. easily fast enough to address the ROM and shift the code in on schedule. This is probably exactly what is inside the dongle. It worked perfect. I could copy a dongle.
I was pretty excited and shared my creation with the CEO. He got excited and asked me if I could make a version of it that just accepted the original dongle and watched it for a bit, and then could emulate it, allowing the user to "back up" their dongles in case they lost theirs or what not. Sure, no problem.
He called the company lawyer right there to ask the legality of such a device, and all the lawyer wanted to know was "so whose DSO did you use? whose ROM chips? whose EPROM burners? whose computer programmed them? Oh, sounds like a cool toy, we own it of course since you used all work hardware to make it."
All I really wanted was to make a single copy of the dongle anyway for myself, but they had to go and be dicks about it so I just dropped it completely. Doubt it could have been a product anyway like the CEO thought.
While I agree in prinicple (I did this myself), there is one not-so-minor problem. If the idea is in any way related to the work you do at your day job, moonlighting for your own corporation will run afoul with the non-compete clause of your employment contract, which could cause your termination. So sure, if you work for Quicken from 9-5 and want to write games at night, go ahead. However, if you want to write bookkeeping software, make sure you have enough money in the bank to live without your paycheck as they might not have grounds to sue you, but they can certainly fire you.
The ideas I am presentign (public disclosure) are intended to undermine the patentability of an idea. However, may not be appropriate where patents are desirable.
Also IANAL.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The company I work for should only own my thoughts if they want to move from software into porn.
Here in MN the scenario described is not allowed by state law. In short what you do on your time and equipment is yours. This does not apply to NY or CA... A friend of mine got to cross that option out of his work contract (hired in MN, but contract written by people in CA) with out an issue.
/. before, be aware of your local laws and act accrodingly, this is not a federal issue, yet....
So... as mentioned in
Never ever ever ever talk about what you do at home while at work. Duh.
Never talk about your own projects at work. Keep them seperate, and hopefully significantly different from what you're doing at work.
And above all, never work on your own projects at work (unless you work at Google...)
What the hell is this obsession you people have with Texas? Don't you realize how silly you sound holding forth about "Texans"? You probably think he wears a cowboy hat to work.
Well in regards to a percentage of one's thoughts
Employees should register their own companies & officially employ themselves as freelancers during their freetime (the same way the self employed dodge tax by listing their spouse 'n kids as employess & then on paper spread the income to cover their 'wages').
So both their real employer & their own company has equal claim to their thoughts.
Enron is on line one.
IANAL, but contempt of court and some free room and board come to mind.
- Adam
No, of course not. What an absurd. My employer is so great that I coudn't even think of-- wait a minute!
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Cry me a river. Anyone who was so stupid as to not know that tobacco causes cancer, heart disease and many other things that will kill you deserves what they get. I don't buy that anyone with 1/2 a brain actually didn't know tobacco is bad for you. And if they knew and used it anyway, then too bad. The only thing that sucks is when the rest of us taxpayers get stuck paying both subsidies to tobacco farmers and healthcare for stupid smokers. I say we do away with both. No health care for smoking related illnesses and no subsidies for tobacco farmers.
...but what if, before you got a job at such a company, you incorporated yourself and signed a contract that basically says that all of your inventions belong to *your* company? Wouldn't your company have a prior claim? There's gotta be some way to wiggle out of a contract once you're in it... maybe if you, again, incorporated yourself and made a clause that states that any agreement with your company supercedes any prior & similar agreements?
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
It's a nice idea, but it depends on your employer being willing to do any of that. You almost certainly wouldn't be able to form your own corporation if the services/products it offers are related to your job. Your company's lawyers would scream "conflict of interest."
The poster is too much of a fucking pussy to say whay he means.
Even more than bad judges, I vote against judges who don't even attempt to campaign for their election. I try to be reasonably informed, but half the time I go to a ballot, I haven't even heard of half the judges running for their seat.
If they don't make the effort to get elected, I simply will not vote for them. I'll bet judges like the one who made the parent topic decision does the same thing...
Actually, true knowlege of what tobacco can do to you is rather recent (education of the gen public started sometime in the 80s) and many people were addicted before this. Now, teenagers, sure, they know, but the older people are already hooked.
Not a sentence!
When I was signing all the initial paperwork, I was handed a dollar bill and told that was my payment for all my thoughts while I worked there. I think they have to exchange money to make it a legal contract, or something.
Here's a question that actually came up during one of our "new employee contract" sessions.
They changes some terms, someone asked "If I don't sign this, than do I not have to abide by these?". The response: "You've already agreed to abide by any terms that we want to change, this is pretty much just acknowledging them.".
Employers already built in a loop hole that was ment for minor changes (ie: dress code), but suitable for major ones.
In the land of the lawyer, if you're not one, you lost.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
Well, they had the last laugh as it were. Soon after our sale, Alcatel came and bought DSC and shut the Austin site down.
And then there was the Alcatel stock scandal shortly after that, but that's a story for another day.
DT
Is this thing on? Hello?
"the 219th District Court in Collin County, Texas granted DSC Communications Corporation, Inc"
Am I right to assume that Texas, like most states, has democratically-elected judges and associated campaign costs? If so, can we find out who contribted to the judge's campaign?
He was ordered by the judge at one point to create a working model of the idea for DSC/Alcatel.
My understanding is that the idea was over a better method of how to proceed. But most of what I know about this was from his web site and the rest from a mutual friend of ours who I used to see from time to time.
In 1976 or so, I wrote an IBM 360/370 disassembler for fun. I thought it was a novel idea, but it was Evan who told me that the name for it was a disassembler and that I wasn't the first. Considering that, I'm sure he knew about decompilers as well.
As for his stubborness, Evan is very stubborn or he would have abandoned the lawsuit long ago.
He was quite stubborn when I knew him back in the 70s (I haven't talked to him since 1979 or 1980). For example, he figured that if he took the final and made an A, he should make an A in the course even if the final was the first time he showed up to class. His profs generally didn't see things that way, but he was stubborn enough that it was nearly impossible to convince him otherwise.
However, the difference between success and failure is often nothing other than one's refusal to surrender to the inevitible. There are, of course, some exceptions to that such as the imposition of the legal system.
It doesn't pay to think at work.
Do not touch -Willie
Yeah... I wrote it. Go me!
Guns, though. Lots of ammo... Come on over, WM.....
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
RTFC (Read The Fucking Contract).
He signed the contract... he shouldn't have done that. Sorry.
In the future, all property will be owned by corporations, as their rights, and freedom from liability, dwarf that of humans. So everyone should have at least one corporation. Preferably multinational.
--
make install -not war
I've kept a dated notebook since 1994. All of my creative output and most of my sketch and development work spans the volumes- timed and dated. The first four and a half years are sealed in storage. The rest of it I'm still occasionally pulling out as reference.
:D
The project I've been spending most of my free time predates my entire professional career, and by its very nature, it's excruciatingly well documented.
In reading the actual appellate decision, at least half of the issues raised on appeal were not raised at the trial level. With extremely limited exceptions, an appeals court will not hear issues raised for the first time in the appellate proceeding and will dismiss them out of hand. And that's what happened to what might have been some of the strongest claims in his case: he lost them by default because of failure to raise at trial. This is the "you snooze, you lose" rule. And I'm not even a lawyer and I know this.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
That makes no sense. You're saying that there's a generation that, well aware of the harm caused by cigarettes, chooses to smoke them anyway. At the same time, you claim that the previous generation only smoked due to a lack of knowledge of the ill effects.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Smokers brought it upon themselves.
Looks like they could have given him a bonus, a partial royalty, on his idea. It took him a lifetime to get to where his idea was ready to spawn. An employer doesn't own your lifetime. Uh, Do they?
Or at least Marvel comics, back in the day- which is why Image exists now. If you worked for Marvel, they owned everything that came out of your brain. Doodle on a napkin at a bar? Theirs. Sketch on a piece of toilet paper in a Greyhound bus bathroom? Theirs. Any artistic output that you're not doing for them specifically while you're employed by them (including the pr0n you draw)? Theirs.
:)
McFarlane, Leifeld (ick), Lee, etceteras weren't happy about this and founded Image- a publishing label for creator-owned works, which was an instant success with the crowd that's into Marvel books.
In context, it makes sense. From a business standpoint, Marvel's always looking for another franchise to flog into the ground and ride the shareholders into more green. From a genre standpoint, the superhero scene is so oversaturated that they need anything that smells halfway original.
Of course, the independant comics publishers (Dark Horse, Antarctic Press, Slave Labor, others) have Known Better for years... and their books aren't recycled rehash.
I dunno if Marvel's lightened up since the Image thing, but that's how it used to be. The fact that IT has similar catches written into contracts isn't much of a surprise.
Don't get me wrong, it makes my ass hair smoulder.
...is adding three little words to it that we are all so familiar with:
"ON THE INTERNET".
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
No, baka, All your brain are belong to us. Jesus, can't even troll...
Straight from the opinion background:
"After Brown conceived the Solution, he sent a memorandum to his immediate supervisor on April 19, 1996 . . . Brown sent this memorandum in an effort to secure a release of the Solution from Alcatel, as required by the employee agreement See Footnote1. In response, Alcatel demanded Brown provide full disclosure of the Solution as required by the employment agreement. When Brown failed to cooperate, he was terminated. Alcatel filed suit soon thereafter."
There are interesting legal issues here, but we cannot begin to discuss them without some honesty. Let's not turn this place into Kuro5hin!
It sounds like Evan Brown's defense argued this case poorly. If the facts I've read are correct, this isn't about property rights, it's about slavery.
Though I haven't read it, Evan's employment contract stated something to the effect that the company owned all his ideas, and that he was required to disclose his ideas, etc.
Well he definitely disclosed his idea. I imagine that's what started this fiasco. The question is, does the company own his idea? The question is moot, whether they own it or not. It's in his brain. Can they force him to explain it? The answer is no, unless he is their indentured servant.
If I had gotten a stupid 21-year old to sign a contract stating that he had give me one of his kidney's if Tampa Bay won the Stanley Cup, would that be enforceable in a court of law?
Of course not. It would be considered unconscionable, even though it wouldn't kill him.
It's exactly the same. He should have just been fired for insubordination. I hope he appeals to the Supreme Court.
Personally I am in favor of the death penalty for corporations convicted of murder.
It is possible to incorporate without a lawyer. All you need to do is fill out some paperwork and file it with the government. Whether or not you use a lawyer I would still recommend doing your homework so you know what you are getting into.
Coding Blog
This all arose because he opened his big mouth. He should have kept it to himself and none of this would have ever happened.
Or he can do like I did with my last contract, which was conveniently delivered as a Microsoft Word document...
I should probably shut up now.
where an employee's personal inventions are
ALWAYS owned by the employee, NEVER by the
employer.
In the USA, the employer basically OWNS the
employee (and any useful employee thoughts.)
If I weren't such a dummy with the German
language (written & spoken), I might have
emigrated there long ago. Personal freedom
in the USA is rapidly slipping away, especially
with the "corporate national socialist" regime
in power today.
I think he is saying that instead of working directly for his current employer, he should start a company and then get a contract to do work for his current employer through the company he starts.
It had to be said...
Rather than suggest that other people should take a stand on the issue and risk their careers, perhaps you should try it first and report on the benefits of unemployment.
Ah, grasshopper, you are hasty and have much to learn about trolling.
Firstly, I already did. I do work for an ethical employer, indeed a company that deliberately sacrifices a substantial amount of profit so they can better serve the community. (I recently learned how much under priveliged circumstances, and it's staggering.) I could not be more proud of the owners.
Secondly, what risk? The risk of failing to get a job with a company reserving the right to screw one over? The risk of being refused enslavement at the last moment because one stood up for one's basic human dignity? (How would that hurt one's career? It's not like all the employers will get together and make a blacklist.) Yeah, I'll take that risk next time I'm looking for a job. You damn betcha I will.
Thirdly: "Cynicism is the most supine moral position. If nothing can be done, then you're not some kind of shit for not trying to do anything about it." -Miles Vokisigan, hittng the nail bang on the head in "Borders of Infinity" by Lois McMaster Bujold.
Quit sniping at me, and stand up for yourself. No one else is gonna do it. Get some pride.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:50:50 -0500
;)
:)
:)). A little credit would be nice, possibly something saying it
:(
From: Ernie Miller
To: neomail-users en lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: neomail-announce en lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Neomail-announce] Important announcement about future NeoMail
development
Hi all,
Well, it's been fun. Around 2 years of development sucking up most
of my free time early on, particularly, a few code forks, near miss
lawsuit, many heated arguments over everything from licensing to design
choices. Seriously, though, it HAS been fun, even if it doesn't sound
like it.
Today, I received a copy of my company's new handbook. In it,
there is a clause that states that anything developed while under their
employ that may be of interest to them becomes their property. Because
of this, no further development will be done to NeoMail. I will
continue to accept any patches, posting these at the homepage, but just
won't risk working on the software given the information in the latest
handbook, especially since I'm a salaried employee without set hours.
This should not be held against my employer in any way, as it's
becoming almost standard in employee agreements, and is solely my
decision -- no direct threat has been made against me, I'm just playing
it safe, fair, and legal. Any nastygrams sent in their direction will
likely just cause me trouble, so unless you hate me, please don't do
that.
I apologize in advance to the thousands of NeoMail users, hundreds
of which have mailed me over the past two years. I'll truly miss
working on the software.
I actively encourage you guys to fork as many branches of the
software as you want at this point (don't call them NeoMail of
course
was based on NeoMail, would give me warm fuzzies, but not necessary.
Again, I'm sorry.
-Ernie
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
I disagree. In fact, what your company does is the exact reason a company hires you to provide services to them.
It's like this. You are a software developer. You write communication and telephone equipment software. You are hired by AT&T as a subcontractor to, what? Write telephone equipment software. You are not obligated to have them as your only client. You are also not obligated to give them everything your company creates.
Agreed that it's a different landscape of companies and services which you work with and perform. But then my response assumed the parent poster wasn't bs'ing about wanting to do something with stuff he created on the side.
At some point, if you have original ideas, you must create a company to sell them, if they are to go anywhere.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
Look at the article:
In addition, in 1993, Brown managed the employee charged with investigating the low-level to high-level automated code conversion process and received a status report on his research on October 18, 1993.
In other words, the ideas weren't all Brown's. And the ideas he did have were clearly stimulated by work done by his subordinate at Alcatel. Which he read and discussed as part of his job. The judgment looks a lot less unreasonable now, doesn't it?
Isn't a decompiler a copyright violation or at least an INDUCEment? Alcatel wanting to have HACKING TOOLs? Possible prosecuted for DMCA violation/hacking?
etc, various ironies...
dunno bout elsewhere but over here (UK) the tag "coffin nails" is about 80 years old
In the end, It's all bovine dung you know
So what if you are working on a volunteer basis on an Open Source Project in your off time, while you are working for a company. Does that whole open source project belong to the company you work for? What if everyone on the project has the same agreement with their company? Who would actually own it? hmmm.
My name is Evan Brown and I was sued by DSC for thoughts that only existed in my brain. DSC was in the business of manufacturing telecommunications equipment. My idea related to software reverse engineering and was not along the lines of DSC's business. In an attempt to avoid litigation, I requested a release before I spent any additional time developing my idea. I thought that my idea had significant value in 1996 because of the Y2K code conversions that were already in process at that time. The IP agreement I signed stated in effect that DSC had rights to (All inventions made or conceived along DSC's line of business...) My idea was not an invention and was not related to DSC's business. Judge Henderson of the 219th State District Court of Texas granted DSC a Temporary Injunction against me requiring me to be at DSC's facilities from 9am until 5pm every business day until I made a full and complete disclosure. I disclose my idea twice, once in the form of descriptions of the processes and methods, and the second time in the form of computer programs written in C. It took me 3 months to write the programs to implement my idea which it turned out, did not work as I had originally thought. I was not compensated for my time (3 months labor) or my expenses (mileage, lodging, etc) as I live 160 miles one way from DSC facilities. The US Constitution abolished slavery and servitude with the 13 amendment but the news hasn't reached Judge Henderson's court yet. Even though I fully and completely disclosed my idea including where and why my idea failed to work properly, DSC claimed that I was withholding information. DSC's technical experts couldn't figure out how to fix the bug either. Judge Henderson granted DSC's motion for summary judgment on breach of contract and again in the final judgment, ruling that DSC owned my idea. By granting the MSJ and final judgment, Judge Henderson has ruled that my idea (mere thoughts that did not work) was an invention and it was along the lines of DSC's business even though DSC never produced any evidence of business plans, customers, project plans, or any other evidence supporting their claim that my idea was along their line of business. DSC lied to the court when they stated the I was in charge of the group responsible for the development of automated code conversion software tools. I challenged DSC's many erroneous statements but the court ignored all my challenges. DSC hired outside counsel at up to $350/hr to represent DSC against me as I represented myself in court. The court granted DSC's Motion for Declaratory Judgment against me for attorneys fees in the amount of $332,000 even though I filed for Ch 13 bankruptcy in Jan 2000 and DSC was listed as a creditor. The Temporary Injunction entered by the court rendered me unemployable. I was unable to find a company that would offer me a job in my field until the DSC lawsuit issues were settled. None of the companies I interviewed with wanted to take the risk of being enjoined in the lawsuit and then having to spend thousands of dollars to fight DSC's litigation. I feel that I was railroaded by Judge Henderson and denied my rights to equal justice. In Texas, a businesses such as DSC contribute thousands of dollars to the re-election campaigns of judges even though many run for office unopposed. When a judge decides to retire, I understand that they just pocket their campaign funds. The details of the lawsuit are on the internet at http://www.unixguru.com/ and of particular interest are the briefs and Motion for Rehearing filed with the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas at Dallas.
MOST (not all but most) employers are willing to be reasonable, the "we own everything you do" clause it there because it's the easiest and quickest way for them to cover their ass. As many other posters have said, if you are salaried, then anything you invent duing your job tenure that is reasonably related to your job desciption should be the company's property. Most employers are perfectly willing to give exemptions for unrelated stuff, they just would prefer not to get screwed, and a blanket clause in the contract is the fastest way to prevent that.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
The warnings went on the pack in the mid 60s in the US. And it was well known before then smoking wasn't good for you. If you don't believe that, ask any WWII aged vet. Even then they knew cigs weren't particularly healthy, but when you might be about to die in a war zone, they were a small comfort.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
American corporates should own and feed my kids too :-)
your ideas own YOU!
"/Dread"
He could always threaten to destroy the data storage facility (shoot himself in the head). :-)
Let's see them handle that one...!
Skaag
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...
Anything coded and done using EMployer's machines and resources belong to the employer.
Chris ,
Php Programmers.
and who'd be the one getting the chair, their laywer? would be kind of a win-win situation there ;-)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
If you don't have the guts to negotiate your contracts and ask for a new helping when you are screwed that is your problem not ours.
I do negotiate my contracts, I make sure onerous clauses are removed and if that is not possible then I find work elsewhere.
I don't understand why are there so many people out there unwilling to stand and defend what in all logic is theirs.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If your nym can't be economically traced back to you, the lawyers can't reach you. You can always "join and take over" the project when the situation becomes favorable for that.
The same approach should be possible for DMCA-related or cryptography-related code - anything where a corporation or a government claims you can't work on $SOMETHING.
I am not so sure about that, it is not uncommon to have clauses on supply contracts limiting what you can and can't do with the competition. If you are small and need the contract to pay you mortgage you either take it (and sell your soul) or leave it and go and flip burgers.
What I protested against was them owning my own creations for the time employed AND after I was employed. So I got a line added to the contract that exempted any code I write in my own time for wich I did not write in relation to work (the wording was legalize but basically that unless they told me to write it OR I wrote it for them it was mine).
The funniest thing? The lawyer of the company who amended it for me wasn't suprised or anything. Was more suprised that I was the first to ask him to do it. As a lawyer he found the clause very reasonable. So did the company, just that when the contract was signed up they went for the max expecting people to negotiate.
So it can really be that they put it in there just to cover themselves. If that is so they got no problem clarifying it for you. If they don't want to do that they are planning on using it. Be afraid, be very very afraid.
So that job is not much of a loss IF you are working on your own stuff.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
... and be prepared to negotiate.
When changing jobs recently, I was offered an onerous IP agreement. I manage to get it amended without too much hassle - and not just for me, but (I'm told) for all future employees. Having been through this a couple of times before, it seems to me that the authors of such agreements grab everything they can by default, and will just fall over at the least sign of resistance.
You do have to be prepared to walk away. If you're not able to decline (for financial reasons, for example) and sign the thing anyway you really have no right to complain later. At the very least you should be aware of what you're agreeing to, so at least then you can choose not to develop particularly valuable IP in your own time and with your own resources. I was amazed by the number of people working for my new employer that didn't even know what they had signed.
Evan turned down a million dollar bonus, trashed a $100k/yr career and lost everything to legal fees (his and theirs) in a hold out for what he thought the idea was worth. DSC was more than generous to Evan. I was amazed to see that having lost $435k in summary judgement several years ago, he compounded the error by appealing.
Evan's a sys admin, not a programmer. As a programmer responsible for supporting a few million lines of other people's code, I know that Evan's idea was not worth $100k much less the million dollar figure he turned down. A reverse compiler cannot recreate meaningful variable names or comments. What Evan's reverse compiler would create would be equivalent to the output of a code obfuscator.
Sadly, when all this began many years ago, it was obvious that Evan wouldn't listen to reason. It's very painful to watch a nice guy you've known for years destroy himself.
So pay heed and make sure it doesn't happen to you! If you ever convince a pointy haired boss to offer you large sums of money for an idea, smile and take the money!
I created my own S-Corp by doing this. Was pretty harmless and after a few fees later, I have my own company, and extra Tax ID. Granted, just like a regular person, I have to file taxes for the corp, but I'm legally protected off of anything that comes out of it.
Got promoted to mgmt. almost immediately. :-)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Great suggestion. But, before you decide which legal entity to form, discuss the tax implications with an accountant.
Ask me about my vow of silence!
On the lack of noble manners. - Soldiers and leaders still have far better relationships with each other than workers and employers. So far at least, culture that rests on a military basis still towers above all so-called industrial culture: the latter in its present shape is altogether the most vulgar form of existence that has yet exisxted. Here one is at the mercy of brute need; one wants to live and has to sell oneself, but one despises those who exploit this need and buy the worker. Oddly, suibmission to powerful, frightening, even terrible persons, like tyrants and generals, is not experienced as nearly so painful as is the submission to unknown and uninteresting persons, which is what all the luminaries of industry are. What the workers see in the employer is usualy only a cunning, bloodsucking dog of a man who speculates on all misery; and the employer's name, shape, manner, and reputation are a mater of complete indifference to them. The manufacterers and entrepreneuers of business probably have been too deficient so far in all those forms and signs of a higher race that alone makes a person interesting. If the nobility of birth showed in their eyes and gestures, there might not be any socialism of the masses. For at bottom, the masses are wiling to submit to slavery of any kind, if only the higherups constantly legitimize themselves as higher, as born to commad - by having noble manners. The most common man feels that nobility cannot be improvised and that one has to honor in it the fruit of long periods of time. But the lack of higher manners and the notorious vulgarity of the manufacturers with their ruddy, fat hands give him the idea that it is only accident and luck that has elevated one person above another. Well then, he reasons: let us try accident and luck! Let us throw the dice! And thus socialism is born.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Let me write that again: You're inhaling smoke.
Most people's reaction to their first cigarette is to cough. Maybe they didn't understand the exact medical nature of smoking dangers 50 years ago, but there's no way it wasn't self-evident that smoking is bad for your body.
...I don't think that's what he was implying, not least because it is highly unlikely that such an agreement could be met, but regardless, that would still involve the exact same non-compete, non-disclosure, i.p. rights issues as under a W-2 agreement. Yeah, there is nuance here, but the suggested remedy doesn't really eliminate that much of the conflict of interest.
How did the saying go?
Anyone who represents themselves in court has a fool for a client.
His only hope of winning the case would have been to hire a lawyer at $351/hr. The facts DO NOT speak for themselves. Spin is everything. Never go to court without a SPINMASTER!
We all know your idea anyway:
"Give the disassambly code to some cheap chinese students, who will try to prodcue some C code out of it."
After you revealed your marvelous idea, you can go on to think of a technical better solution.
In short tell them crap and if they recognize it just say: Doh, looks like I was wrong. Then you can go back and fix your idea without an nasty contract....
Like not having a boss that claims your eternal soul.
Some of my brothers here have suggested, in many cases eloquently, that the law should not permit someone to divest their inventions as part of an employment agreement, or even to propertize their inventions at all in order to protect employees from overreaching employers.
This cuts both ways. Many of us would love to have jobs where we are hired to do nothing, but think, dream and invent. Such a law precludes the job from existing? Who would pay to have you think, dream and invent, if they weren't entitled to the benefit of that bargain?
Some have observed that for those of us who invent, we need merely refuse to sign these agreements and refrain from taking the jobs. Others responded that this is nice, in theory, but a practical impossibility for those who want to work -- You have to sign to get the jobs. . And of course, there is always the entrepreneurial route of inventing, finding investors and trying to make it on your own. The truth, of course, is somewhere inbetween.
But if we legislate against alienation of invention, then those of us who invent won't even have the option to refuse to sign the agreements -- the only thing we can do is to go the entrepreneurial route, and then only if we permit the inventor to assign the rights to his invention to the company (how else to raise capital?)
So, at the end of the day, it may well be that maintaining the right to assign the invention GIVES MORE OPTIONS, at least in theory, than laws that preclude it. For those of us who prefer not to take risks and to work for invention mills, the inability to alienate deprives us from exchanging large upside of our inventions for a regular paycheck and the ability to work in fun labs with smart people. For those of us who want to be risk-takers and innovators, we are free under both regimes, unless you go all the way and deprive me of a property right to my inventions and the ability to assign it.
In fact, markets shift. Sometime, smart people are in great demand -- as we were during the bubble. Other times, anybody with technical chops will do. We can call our shots when in demand, and not when we are not. Those of us who are not as good have fewer options. But I am not sure how employment law gives any of us any more options.
That said, I think statutory protections assuring retention of demonstrable previous inventions not previously assigned and perhaps demonstrable previous inventions not related to the business --except for people who are hired to be pure R&D types-- and not made using company resources is not a bad idea. But taking it any further than that is very dangerous, and ultimately bad for us in my view.
I am currently in a similar position, my contact says my employer owns everything. Glad this the contract ends in 7 weeks time because I'm on an industrial placement (for university). I will be throwing a huge party when this contract is over.
psst byoLinux it's me
That would be evil. Google's mission statement has a clause that specifically says "do not be evil."
What he's saying is that cigarettes are so compelling that lots of people still smoke them despite being aware of the health risks. However, that does not excuse the cigarette companies from the lowly behavior of knowing their product killed people and not informing them about it. An informed consumer smoking is just making a choice, and uninformed consumer smoking is being assassinated.
It's like giving someone a drink with poison in it. If you inform them of the poison, it's their choice to drink it, if you don't, and they drink it, it's murder.
So if you are an inventor and that gives you joy, protect your ability to invent.
If you enjoy golf. Golf...and leave your cell phone at home.
If you value your family, and your job demands you unduly shortchange them, find a new job or resist the temptation to be consumed by the one you are in.
In a nutshell, look out for whatever is important to you. Your employer, boss, government certainly won't.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
but you could be right.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
In other words, because the company owns his thoughts...
he is working 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and only getting paid for 40 hours (or less) per week...
Sounds like legalized slave labor of the 21st century. Will we ever be rid of slavery over another human?
If companies want to own the thoughts too, pay for that time!
The paperwork for an s-corp is pretty signifcant compared to an LLC, which offers much the same protection in most states (YMMV consult your lawyer for specifics of course). You can do the the same thing with straight 1099 if you can get them to go along with it. Professional liability insurance in IT is pretty reasonable. I'd suggest at least a million, maybe five if you work on big projects. You'll also have to start filing quarterly tax returns, which is annoying but not terribly difficult.
A lot of companies don't or won't because they want that control but it does put your relationship on different footing when you can arrange it.
And you're right, in most states you have more bargaining power as a corp (technically an atrificial person) than you do as an individual. The biggie for a lot of people is health insurance. Blue Cross/Blue Shield sells high deductible policies for individuals, but the benefit of being your own corp is being able to figure your charge rate to include overhead. Wo-ho!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Why are corps so much better off then people?
Many reasons.
The first reason is because they can't die. Even bankrupcy doesn't necessarily mean death to the corporation, and certainly doesn't mean death to its assets.
Corporations can outwait humans. If a human has something a corporations wants, all they have to do is wait a few decades. It's like with getting themselves declared a person. The very idea is ridiculous, but by asking for it decade after decade eventually the new humans got so used to hearing the demand their entire lives that they thought it was a reasonable one to make.
Also, corporations can more easily merge their assets. If you can do good woodwork, and a friend knows how to market woodworking products, you can't merge with that friend and become one person who knows how to market the woodwork products he made. A corporation can.
And another reason is that corporations are not slowed down by a conscience, a soul or any kind of morality. A corporation is an amoral godless soulless psychopath, and because it does not care about anything but maximizing profit it can be radically effective at what it does. Individual humans within the corporation who obstruct the aim of maximizing profit because of morality or some other silly human reason get weeded out over time. The list of CEO's who have explained that they have to make evil decisions or they get fired is long. Shareholders are generally the only ones who could enforce morality, but corporations own most of the shares, and when you trace them back to humans the humans tend to not be involved with the running of the business much, and instead just want return on investment.
In essence, the way corporations operate naturally makes them more powerful than humans. The task of government is to compensate for this and give preference to humans over corporations. But government has done the reverse, which is why the world is owned and operated by corporations.
We did it to ourselves. We designed corporations so that they would rule us. Ofcourse, we can, and will, undo this. But it will require more people to become aware of the need to radically redefine what a corporation is and does.
If my company owns all of my ideas, then they get whatever I come up with, as long as I'm employed by them.
What if I came up with a really *bad* idea, one that got me into a lot of legal trouble? [a tivo reverse-engineered, some DMCA-style 'evil'] Would the company own the IP on that?
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
Thoughts occur all day, every day, asleep or awake. Has the company paid for this time? Assuming the person is on a salary, divide the salary by (365*24). Is the salary less then the $5.15 per hour FEDERAL Minimum Wage?
365 days * 24 hours * $5.15 minimum wage = $45,114
This means any salary less than $45,114 that even remotely attemts to claim outside of work-time activies is VIOLATING the Federal Minimum Wage.
Simply put, one cannot own what has not been paid for.
Dear Doc Ruby:
I am a representative of a corporation headquartered in Nigeria that requires an overseas partner...
Did the poster actually read the ruling!? (Oh, I forgot, this is /.)
Mr. Brown worked on manual conversion of low-level code to high-level code at Alcatel. Alcatel researched automated versions of this several times, and at least one of the researchers reported to him! Then he announced to Alcatel that he had an idea to automate the process, but he wanted it all on his own.
Is it reasonable to expect that an employee who works at a job and comes up with a new idea based on direct experience funded by the company should be required to share the idea with the company? I think so. Sure, they should be rewarded by the company. But walking out the door with IP that they paid for is pretty unconscionable in and of itself (read the finding for my feeble attempt at irony).
Xesdeeni
Tobacco is sold not because of the evil of corporations, but because of the evil of government.
In this particular case, the tobacco tax revenues are so large that none of the governments involved want to lose them by making tobacco a controlled substance. Which they could do quite easily. Pass a law giving the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco, and wait for the FDA to ban it (which they would pretty much have to do, since it is addictive and a carcinogen).
Course, we'd probably get a thriving black-market in tobacco if we did that. But we won't. Check out how much tobacco taxes your state/national government gets, and decide for yourself if they'll ever kill the goose...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I see what you're saying, but a better analogy would be, say, a heroin seller who sold despite seeing some of his (or her) customers die of overdoses, then claiming "I didn't know heroin was a Bad Thing". (Substitute in a different drug, if you feel that heroin is a bad example; I used it because it's a "hard" drug, not a "gateway" one).
No.
Remember the main idea: buy legislation so that corporations get all the rights with none of the responsibilities.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)
The substance of this case (a tax dispute) is of little significance, but several resources linked above detail how this fateful case subsequently was cited as precedent for granting corporations constitutional rights.
Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Company (1893)
A corporation first successfully claims Bill of Rights protection (5th Amendment)
"Corporate Personhood"
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
A small rejoinder, though I get the sense of the point you are trying to make. People's initial reaction to coffee is to spew the bitter fluid from their mouths. The natural rejection reaction, while suggestive of potential harm to the body, does not automatically imply that the product is truly dangerous.
Because they, legally ARE people. Immortal, and completely unaccountable virtual people.
The term 'shell game' is completely accurate, perhaps the best term that could be used to describe the way corporations use the government to subsidize their investments and insulate them from risk at our expense.
Yes, the Santa Clara 'decision' was a huge mistake, based on a legal 'opinion' after a justice's death by a court clerk on the interpretation of the 14th amendment that was never debated and which may not have been a decision at all, but it's currently the law in the US and almost everywhere else.
It's led to a situation exactly like the one that many of the founders of this country feared.
There is a huge need for more accountability by corporations for the entire lifespan-impact of their actions, and for innovative structures that would make the average profit-centered corporation more of a responsible citizen instead of a freeloader.
Any ideas?
I have no problem with the idea that your employer owns all your work products. If you were foolish enough to write a killer game or something on company time, they own it, too bad.
What goes on in the brain however is not, at least by my definition, a work product. It is part of the process but it is not yet produced, so the company can't own it.
So if you have a killer idea and you think about it on company time, it's your idea. (although the company may not be happy you aren't doing what you are supposed to do, and could of course fire/sue/etc you for that)
If you write that idea down or convey it to others, it becomes something you produced, and if you did that on company time, I think you can successfully argue it belongs to the company.
Many centuries ago employee agreements were not a problem. There was a natural feedback loop in the freedom of man to live indigenously. There were abundant natural resources which could be acquired through work and devotion.
Society has evolved long past that. There is almost no free land anywhere. There are almost no free resources. Even if there were there is no free transportation to get there from here. In today's world a person must prove their usefulness to a company in order to earn the commonly accepted form of currency which they trade for the basic necessities of life.
At the time of the industrial revolution there was little need for an employee agreement. The common shop workers weren't paid enough to have the opportunity to strike out on their own and set up a competing business. Shop managers were typically compensated fairly enough but still had little possibility of putting together the type of funding that it would take to make use of their knowledge to create a competing business. Those who were wealthy enough to be able to make use of their knowledge were also compensated well enough to keep them from having any desire to compete. In many cases this simple business approach still applies today.
Why, then, has there been an evolution of employee agreements. As industry has become more powerful politically it has grown less efficient. In some instances the business bloat was so great that an enterprising employee was able to use what they learned on the job, working within an oppressive and stagnant atmosphere, and set up a company built on a "better way". Enter the need for an employee agreement.
Still, though, there are still environments where the _goal_ is to create employees who can use what they've learned and strike out on their own. These are most commonly seen in skilled trades: the path from apprentice, to journeyman, to master craftsman. The very existence of skilled trades exemplifies that an industry can function, often fruitfully, without the need for employee agreements.
What then is the real need for an employee agreement? It is greed and preservations of social divisions. Many trolls will abuse posters with,"If you don't like it then leave and start your own business." In truth many people in society have. But what of those of us who cannot start our own business because we're not financially priveleged? For the most part we're ridiculed and dismissed. Now what of those of us who cannot start our own business because it would be a contractual violation of a former employee agreement? Certainly this hasn't stopped people from leaving a bad employer to start their own business. What the employee agreement does is ensure that anyone who does start their own business does so with the blessing of the established players in the field. It is a system of nepotism that preserves power in the hands of those who already hold it. Any real competitors would be sued out of existence by a former employer long before they could get any real business started.
Apparently Evan Brown tried to start his own business without the blessing of his employer. The real question here is: why wasn't the employer able to retain Mr. Brown? Could they not give him a raise or enough vacation to make him happy or is it that his management was composed of such intolerable selfishness that Mr. Brown did what any sane human would do?
Employee agreements are a company's way of taking away the last chip that we, as intellectual workers, have: the ability to pack up and leave if the system has become intolerable. Anyone who is a proponent of these agreements is A) naive, B) pampered, C) blind. If the court had sided with Mr. Brown it would have sent a clear message to corporations: treat your employees fairly.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
I have no problem with the idea that your employer owns all your work products. If you were foolish enough to write a killer game or something on company time, they own it, too bad
/. trolls always come up with,"If you don't like it, leave."? How can we leave if the company owns every product of our labor?
At first glance I would agree but experience has taught me to think deeper. Should not the right to pack up, leave, and start your own business be retained as the last defense against an abusive employer? Isn't that what the
The decision should've gone the other way so as to tell the corporations: your employees have every right to take the product of their labor elsewhere. Treat them fairly.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
That reminds me of a Dennis Leary comedy routine.
It was about the cigarrette companies being forced by law to increase the size of the warnings. And he said something along the lines of this.
Someone looking at the warning and saying Holy Shit I thought they were good for me. I thought they had vitamins in them. Then he went on to say he quite enjoyed smoking and said there are smokers out there who would continue to smoke if all brands were outlawed but one that came in a black box with the name Tumors.
This case looks harsh, but if you look at the judgment, he brought up what look to me like the key points - that the employment contract was unfair - too late in the appeal process. I wouldn't panic (unlikely, I know with the general level of hysteria on /. these days about IP), because it is not clear if this sets any real precedent.
- These are small, *those* are _far away_
Tobacco is sold not because of the evil of corporations, but because of the evil of government.
Tobacco is sold because people want to buy it despite being told how dangerous it is.
I agree with you about the government being evil though.
If you are small and need the contract to pay you mortgage you either take it (and sell your soul) or leave it and go and flip burgers....
Or better stated...
If you are small and need the contract you can join the Party or leave it and become a prole.
Jesus look out the Thought Police are coming and are going to take you to the Ministry of Love.
Well after reading the court's judgement the following paragraph seems to say a lot.
So it seems he did create something related to work and not just a game or php code during his off-time.
No, an employer does not own your thoughts, but they do own any product of those thoughts (i.e., invention) if you've signed an agreement to that effect. It seems that the main piece of evidence that worked against Mr. Brown was a memo he wrote that stated " I have developed a method of converting machine executable binary code into high level source code form using logic and data abstractions. The purpose of this idea is to take existing executable programs and "reverse engineer" the intelligence from the programs and "re-code" the intelligence into a portable high level language." Also, it seems that Mr.Brown was working on projects like this while at DSC (Alcatel). So it would seem that Evan Brown is being disingenuous. I feel that if you don't want your inventions to become your employers', then don't sign these kind of agreements. The reason people do sign these type of agreements is that they want the security of a job, otherwise they would start their own businesses using their "great ideas". It's a tradeoff -- security or freedom?? You always give up rights in order to obtain more security. Of course the loss of those rights is very painful (see "The Patriot Act"). I think John Gardner once wrote " We don't deceive ourselves about the consequences of our actions, we deceive ourselves about the ease with which we can live with those consequences...".
Firstly, I already did. I do work for an ethical employer
This does not prove that ethical employers abound. Nor does it prove that people who quit their jobs to escape an abusive employer will be able to find an ethical employer.
Secondly, what risk?
If you're coming from an abusive employer, the risk is joblessness, homelessness, foodlessness. I get the strong impression that you have never experienced these.
Thirdly: "Cynicism is the most supine moral position
No one's being cynical. We have, in front of us, a REAL (not cynical) case where an employee was genuinely dissatisfied with his employer, left to market his own product, and was clipped by the enforcement of a contract which, while legal by letter, is an obvious political extension of corporate power. An employee SHOULD have the right to leave if they feel they are being treated unfairly and MIND/THOUGHT CONTROL is not part of the values of any patriotic American.
Quit sniping at me, and stand up for yourself. No one else is gonna do it. Get some pride
Unless you've actually had to go through the gamut then you have no room to talk.
The gamut?
Here's the video game description:
You are a human with no available financial resources and mounting debt. You are employed by a large and powerful multinational corporation. You make just enough money to pay your minimum debt balances every month but have not been able to save a dime in three years. Over the last year your manager has become increasingly abusive and pedantically critical of your work. You have no resources to start your own company. If you quit you will be hard pressed to find _ANY_ job as you work in an industry which relies nearly exclusively on references from the previous manager. If you do find a job you will most certainly not increase your salary.
The video game begins the day you handed in your notice of resignation. You have enough funds to hold out with rent and bills for three months. The economy is in a slump which means that all low level jobs (fast food, convenience store staffing, department store staffing, restaraunts) are already filled by humans who are willing to trade sex with the greasy managers in those industries for the privelege of having a job. You have no family or friends with available housing room. The game is written such that it will be at least eight months until an employer gives you an opportunity for an interview.
Good luck.
I've been there and made it back. I still sweat profusely in my sleep from anxiety.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
I would have less problems with this as long as corporations are the only one paying taxes. Somehow I don't foresee that happening.
I agree with your premise. I've detailed how that would work, in "my" America, in other Slashdot posts (now lost in the sands of post History). How would you work it? The first step in materializing change is visualizing it.
--
make install -not war
cant leave it like that
This all sounds like a great idea... except for the fact that I really, really, need health insurance for my family. The other employee benefits (stock purchase plan, life/disability insurance, etc.), even though they're nice to have, I could do without. Health insurance, though, is a kicker.
How do you get around this? Do you pay the exorbitant prices for self-insured health insurance, or do you go with the health plan I had in-between college and grad. school? (live very carefully, and pray that you never get sick)
The cost of medical care will keep me tied to the corporate teat for the foreseeable future.
No. A lot of things that people want aren't sold (legally, at least). Some things aren't sold at all (weapon-grade U-235, as an example). The fact that people want something does not, in and of itself, imply that it will be available, legally or otherwise.
Wasn't saying the government was evil. Saying that government in general has characteristic evils. There are things that are as natural to government as breathing is to humans.
Collecting taxes is one.
Adding laws without ever subtracting laws is another.
Some of these inherent behaviours are good things. Some aren't. The tax one qualifies under "some aren't". Governments will, in general, not give up a source of tax revenue if they can possibly help it. Which is why most people rightly distrust "tax reform"....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
"Shareholders are generally the only ones who could enforce morality, but corporations own most of the shares, and when you trace them back to humans the humans tend to not be involved with the running of the business much, and instead just want return on investment."
Even worse, the vast majority of shares in the vast majority of corporations are held in the portfolios of pension funds. If you have a pension fund you own the stock only you can't vote. The people managing the pension funds are ONLY concerned with their bottom line and won't push corporations around.
This fact is ludicrous. No one is at the wheel in this scenario and one of the simplest things we could do to reign in corporate power is to give people their vote. In the business world we have a feudal system -- what we need is a democracy.
______________________
move to Russia and stop worrying. Free there now,
although that could change
When you need to prove that you had an idea first, you have quite a solid proof. Musicians do this all the time, some authors too.
In practice it was a hollow victory because I worked there at my salaried job every waking moment for the next two years and didn't have the chance to pursue any stray ideas that fleetingly passed through my gray matter while I drove to and from work in a semi-comatose state.
I've been self employed for the last five years. I'm Starvin' Marvin, but it's better than working for The Man. (YMMV)
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
> Unless you've actually had to go through the gamut then you have no room to talk. The gamut? Here's the video game description...The game is written such that it will be at least eight months until an employer gives you an opportunity for an interview.
When I couple this with your previous statement of, "Rather than suggest that other people should take a stand on the issue and risk their careers, perhaps you should try it first and report on the benefits of unemployment" you come out as extremely cynical. I point out that even under the dire circumstances you suffered, you came out of it on the other side. Having been successful at it, you then suggest he not encourage others to do it as well. How do you define that if not as cynicism? Sure, it's tough to stand up for yourself. If it was easy, it wouldn't be an issue. Still, since he and you both made it through joblessness, it stands to reason that it's not universally worse than any alternative.
Virg
I was going to try to make my point tactfully, but bluntness seems to be necessary in this case. Your entire statement is hyperpessimistic crap. Sentence by sentence:
> Unfortunately, pride and "doing the right thing" don't put food on the table or clothes on the kids' backs.
Your implication is to have pride and do the right thing, or get the job. These things aren't mutually exclusive. Edit the contract. Pick another employer. Sorry, but saying (or implying) that signing such an agreement is necessary to get a job is wrong.
> Employees need employers MUCH more than employers need employees.
Again, entirely wrong. The need is mutual. Saying "I need a job more than company X needs a worker" is simply ignoring that there are lots of other employers (including doing contract work or working for yourself). Call me idealistic if you care to, but I've worked for a bank, a publishing company and a small tech company, and ended up doing computer work at all of them, because that's where my skill set leads me. Can't get a tech job? Get a non-tech job, and soon your employer will see your tech skill and move you to the tech jobs, because they benefit more putting you there. Employer won't move you to the tech jobs? Maybe you're not in the right industry after all.
> And the fact that everyone does this kind of contract means you will have to leave the field of technology completely to stand up for your rights.
Yet again, crap. Not everybody does these contracts, and I've found that many employers will allow changes with no complaint at all. Some won't, but I'd want to avoid such companies anyway.
> I doubt we can get enough people to give up their jobs at nice tech companies to go flip burgers and pump gas just to make a point to all the employers of the world.
Last one, and it's a doozy. I like your idea that the tech world is "tech job" or "flip burgers" with nothing in between. It sounds like you just have a severe lack of imagination, or little idea how many "tech jobs" there are out there. My gateway to a tech job was in one case "bank teller" and in the next, "editor". Both paid pretty well for the work, and neither is what you'd think for entry level into a tech job, eh? Show a little more initiative, or at least some spine. Perhaps the reason your experience leads you to believe that "everyone does this kind of contract" is because you've never changed it and handed it back.
Virg
Unfortunately, we have sold our sacred God-given HUMAN rights to the highest bidder. When congress talks about individual rights, they are referring to corporate rights and investor rights.
When I first started to get into politics, I looked at the Libertarian party and said "That's what I'm all about. Complete and total freedom." The more I looked into it however, I realized they were referring to corporate rights.
It's a very sad thing to realize that we have sold our soul. But, I think more and more people are starting to wake up, and I think if enough of us do that we can bring awareness to the rest and change the laws and redeem our American values based on individual human rights.
See the following links to learn more about this and find out what you can do to help change it.
POCLAD: Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy
http://www.poclad.org/
Taking Care of Business: Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation.
This is a history of corporate law in America.
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/TCoB.html
Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation +2
100% Funny
Extra 'Funny' Modifier 0 (Edit)
Karma-Bonus Modifier +1 (Edit)
Total Score: 4
"It's funny because it's true." - Homer Simpson
--
make install -not war
Who modded up this whiner? ;-)
Linux: Free if your time is worthless.
Maybe the electric sofa can be invented so an entire board can be executed in the comfort they've come to expect.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Publish your work anonymously, and use public key cryptography (signature) methods to mark the work as yours in a way that does not allow it to be traced to you until you decide to voluntarily claim ownership (say, after The Revolution (tm) and laws to protect freedom of thought.) So, people will know Some Day who it was that made the great invention.
Not true in California. I have my own corporation as you describe.
I was about to sign a contract as corporation-to-corporation and not only did the company want rights to anything I developed while working there, they rejected my list of "prior inventions" saying, "well, these are not really inventions, they are just copyrights". (they were all computer programs).
They also had a "non-competitive" clause that said I couldn't work on "any inventions related to the internet" for one year after working for them!
Totally ridiculous. I passed on that.
One thing I do agree with is, if I use one of my prior inventions in my work for them, they gain non-exclusive, world-wide rights to use it. That would only be fair since they are hiring me for my expertise and possibly past inventions.
I don't know how someone could prove you thought of something while you worked for them, UNLESS, you had put your thoughts out in tangible form, in which case, they have an invention/copyright claim on what you did as work for hire.
I would say, best to just shut up about new ideas you have. Keep them to yourself until you bail. I'd have to examine the details of this case to be sure the claim wasn't that he came up with the ideas "while he was working for us" vs. "immediately after he quit working for us".
He signed an agreement, worked in the field, worked on equivilant products, bragged about it and hired a lousy lawyer. What do you expect.
I tried this and UPS still would not budge. I told them I wanted to be treated the same way they did IBM or Microsoft. UPS said no. I said this is important to me, please change this or I will quit. They still said NO. I quit and now I am still unemployed after 4 months, but I still beleive in standing up to my principles.
The primary falicy in ALL of this is, that ideas can be owned. They cannot. Copyright and Patent law do not allow this. The ip in question must be patented or copyrighted as a tangible form. Why Alcatel cannot own his ideas? What would happen if someone else came up with the same idea independently (more often the case than not). Could Alcatel go to the patent office and say "We thought of that first". Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You cannot own an idea, only a tangible expression of that idea. The crux of this case was not so much ownership of ideas, as, Evan's obligation to divulge his ideas. "We have ways of making you talk". And the last question is, "aren't you entitled to a jury in civil lawsuits?". Why was a judge alone ruling on this?
> If you measure success as,"I'm warm, breathing, and have a place to live" then yes, I've been successful.
I measure success as "left a bad job because it was a bad job, and got a different job." Your comment was that he has no room to comment on quitting unless he's quit and had a bad experience of it. Well, you did just that, and so did he. So why are you telling him not to comment?
> The issue is with employee agreements. If a programmer works on writing decompilers for an unethical employer and takes a stand to leave, should that programmer not be able to write decompilers for his own profit?
Nice try, but that's not the crux of the case. The crux of the case is that he provided no reasonable evidence that he had come up with the idea for a decompiler before he worked for Alcatel, that Alcatel had hired him to do decompiling work, and that therefore they owned the decompiler he invented. Note that this does not preclude him from writing a different decompiler, so your examples following aren't good analogies. They simply laid claim to the decompiler he wrote because they claimed he wrote it while employed for that purpose by them, and the only thing he presented in his defense was his say-so that it predated his employ at Alcatel.
> Can you legally tell a carpenter that he cannot work with wood? Can you tell a trucker they cannot drive? Can we tell a salesman that it is now illegal to sell a product? Why is it that the people who devote effort to refining a highly technical skill can be legally forced to remain in a state of unhappiness with an unfair employer?
These examples are not useful, because they aren't good analogies for the case at hand. I can't forbid a carpenter to work with wood, but if I hire a carpenter to build a better truss frame, and then he designs a better truss frame, and he agreed that any designs he came up with were the company's, then I would be well within my rights to forbid him to use that truss frame design if he left for another construction company. If he argued that he invented it on his own time before coming to work for me, then the burden of proof is on him to show something to that effect. If he's good enough to design an even better frame after he leaves, he can use that one instead.
> I work in the scientific industry and one of my biggest peeves is that my employers always demand that I sign away my property rights to any patents that I procure while employed with them.
Then you need to leave your current job (leaving behind any patents you already have), get a new job, and when you get that job, be sure to avoid such contract stipulations.
> The trolls say,"If you don't like it, then leave." But what good does it do me to leave if my employee agreement forbids me from using that knowledge for myself?
Oh, I get it. You want out of your employment contract after you already signed it. Well, tough. If you can get patents working for companies that don't require such contracts, then go to those companies. If you can't earn a patent on anything without the help of companies that demand such contracts, then you don't have room to complain that they're getting the benefit. You're certainly welcome to use your knowledge to your own benefit. The first step, however, is to get out from under any current contracts that prevent that. If you find that impossible because you painted yourself into a financial corner, then that's a problem you need to solve first. If you're so good that you could make a living off of inventing and patenting stuff, getting investment capital is your ticket out of debt. If not, then again you don't have room to complain.
Virg
Exactly, to which I might add, being part of the "body" shields you from being singled out as the perpetrator of some evil. Being in a corporation lets you act selfishly, and evily, and yet not be seen as the one responsible, note, the ONE responsible.
No ONE was responsible, it was the collective we are know as, the corporation.
If becomes too easy to point the finger internally which clouds the ability of anyone seeking to get an indictment.
I corporation is supposed to have a soul, or a conscience, it's created at the startup of the business and it's usually called a mission statement or something to that degree, which comes directly from the person who created it. The idea is that the business will take on the soul/emotions/id/conscience of the creator. The only problem is the business usually outlives the creator, and when that happens it either dies, is taken over by somebody else who, in the long run, redefines these values, or it goes public (if it hasn't done any of these already).
Let's say Mr. Joe starts up Mr. Joe's coffee shop. His mission statement is that, "Every customer deserves a delicious, hot cup of coffee in their hand and a nice warm smile on their face." So he forms his business, everything goes all fine and dandy and business booms. Everybody loves it because Mr. Joe takes everything personal and handles all problems personally, feeling that it is his responsability to live up to his mission.
Suddenly all that changes when his business goes public, people buy up his shares, probably even remove him as ceo/president, and redifine his business in their own view.
Let's say, just for argument, that this didn't even happen. Let's say that all the investors decided he was actually doing everything perfectly (which is rare) and let him keep his job, keep his rules and his dreams, and everything goes on just fine.
One day the board has to vote on whether or not they should do anything within their power to keep the customer happy (even though that mission statement says they have to) or start taking loses and it's their fault, they know it. Well if they take the loss, they'll all feel it, they have to cut salaries. But if they turn down customers, now they get to keep their profits and it's nobody's fault! The customer doesn't know if it's just a mean employee, or just the wrong chain. Even if it did come all the way back to haunt them and let's say a lawsuit was filed due to this decision.
Suppose the company lost. Who takes a hit? Everybody including the employee of the month. But those board members still kept their salaries! And the best part is they didn't even go to court. Nobody blamed them, they blamed the entire business.
It's like that freak-show man who lays on a bed of nails, the more there are, the less pressure each nail has to push through you. The more people that share responsability, the harder it is to assign blame, and you get enough and the blame sort of disolves into thin air, it's rather amazing!
U say:
"We keep getting closer to the point where who actually think just say, fuck it, and refuse to labor for the rest of the scumbags around them."
I'm already there.
Remember that song "...think of a plan,Stan,... don't be coy Roy...just get yourself FREE..."
Read up on "disability benefits".
Society pissed on me once too often.
Some people DIED in Vietnam; others SHOT off their own big toe.
Life is about choices. Some are hard choices.
Federal judges have the power to put you in jail over contempt for as long as it takes for you to follow their rules. You hold the key to your own release. It's bullshit for sure, but that's how it works.
Employer: You have to sign this.
You: I cannot. This gives away rights to everything i imagine and think of.
Employer: Then we cannot hire you.
You: Well, I guess you'll have to find someone who isn't a fount of creativity. Maybe you'll get more for your money out of a code walloper. But I'll tell you what, the kind of person who would sign that agreement is never going to have any big ideas, at least with me, you've got the shot at owning them outright (if you treat me right) or get first shot at owning them if I want to personally profit.
Read the history on trusts (the double use). You cannot assign thoughts that you don't own. If you assign the rights to your trust, the trust owns the legal title on behalf of the descretionary beneficiaries. Thus, the current employer cannot demand you give them something that does not belong to you. They may as well demand you give them the sydney harbour bridge - they don't have a legal leg to stand on.
The company would not be in the class of people allowed in the trust and you are not allowed to give it to them.
IANAL and probably am wrong - so maybe BULL it is.
1. Texas law protects employers' rights massively over those of employees (Shock! Horror!) in more respects than just those described in the DSC/Alcatel case. The law is VERY different in other states; check it out; your mileage may differ. ... getting waivers for specific purposes isn't that tricky. If you work for an ASIC firm, for example, but write poetry or tune engines in your spare time ... the ASIC firm has negative interest in those activities.
... when your personal interests overlap the legitimate professional needs of the corp. Lookout, here come the attorneys.
2. In MOST cases (perhaps even in Texas, but I wouldn't bet on it) the standard form from the employer does declare that it owns your inventions, etc. HOWEVER
The grey area is
...in the code you write for the company.
Then keep a heavily encrypted 'diary' of all your 'breakthrough' software developed on a secure, non-work, non-home computer on removable media and keep it in a safe place (not a bank safety deposit box that can be subpoena'ed) until you need to benefit from it by selling it to a third party under a non-disclosure agreement.
What the company doesn't know, they don't own.
If they somehow find out and get the removable media in question, just plead your Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination (unless some post '9/11' legislation got passed that 'trumps' the 5th or you live in England with its 'give the courts your decryption keys' law) -- thus not having to divulge the decryption key.
Of course, bear in mind, what can you do if the threat of death or torture is used to try to coerce the decryption key from you? The (now defunct?) website http://www.rubberhose.org/ has (had?) more information on this security conundrum.
Wake up people! To most companies, the employees are ultimately treated like the annoying drain on their corporate bottom line they (likely) are no matter how hard, efficiently, or conscientiously they work. In some cases, companies are paid to hire someone to work for them via some form of (corporate) welfare!
The only true way out of this mess is self-employment. Find a real need and come up with an effective, irresistable solution to that need and then the sales of the solution should follow and garner the solution creator their financial reward....
Of course the chances of success are (likely) slim to almost none but with success, the sky's the limit!
If they offer the job tell them you will only work for them under the following conditions:
All generic, non-proprietary source code you come up with or find elsewhere for future use before, during, and after employment with the company is yours (i.e. a simple file copy routine). The proprietary code will have a interval of 'non-competition' attached to it before it can be considered 'generic and non-proprietary' and thus 'yours'. Out of professional courtesy to past employers, such 'proprietary code' will be treated like secrets and only appear in compiled or assembled binary form in the final programs for your prospective new employer.
All software you wrote before you went to work for the company is yours or 'work for hire' for another company--the new company has NO tangible interest in your past achievments.
All software you code while working there that is not germane to the companies product line is yours (i.e. writing a mass-market game in your spare time at a database programming shop).
If they say no to any of this, walk and find another prospective employer.
If they say yes have them add the above material formally to your contract before you read and sign it.
Chances are, no employer is going to agree to these (reasonable) demands in today's hypercompetitive software market so the only other alternateve is for the programmer to become their own software company....
But pr0n is logged in a separate notebook and hard drive. :P
The Big Wad O Notebooks isn't cross-referenced or even really indexed- I pull 90% of what I need from memory. The majority of it's there as a record of the evolution of the project.
This is an example of bad reasoning. You can certainly have your cake and eat it too!
Let's say that I've been eating cake for 25 years, thinking it's good for me (as the company who sold it to me put in their marketing literature). I enjoy it, and never suspect that it's actually killing me.
Then I find out one morning on the news that cake is bad for me. Really bad. So bad that every bite is reducing my life expectency by five minutes. I'm outraged, then depressed, then finally resigned. By this time I figure I'm already fucked, so I might as well keep doing it.
So my kid comes into the world and sees me, every day, eating my cake - sometimes two or three times or more a day, especially when I'm stressed! He gets used to the smell, the crumbs, the chocolate that sometimes ends up in his clothes... For years - his most formative - before he understands the full import of the words "don't do what daddy does, it's bad for you", he sees that I'm - at least on the surface - no worse for the wear.
By the time he's 12 he's fully aware of the risks associated, but I've always got cake in the house, and some of his friends have tried it and liked it... And he figures his old man does it, so it can't be too bad, 'cause I'm not a complete idiot in his eyes and he hasn't gotten to the "dad doesn't know anything" years yet... So he tries it. And hey, he likes it! (After he manages to get a few bites down without choking, anyway.) But he discovers how addictive it is, and how much it's been ingrained into his psyche, since it's been around all his life.
And so the cycle continues. Even though he knows it's bad for him, he still starts, and can't seem to stop. So he figures he's already fucked, might as well enjoy it. Then _his_ kid grows up and...
So do the smokers bring it on themselves? Yeah, by resigning themselves (and perhaps unwittingly, their children) to their "fate". But I think there's more than an equal share of the tobacco companies in this.
Death penalty? Death of whom--the corporation or the CEO? What about the CEO's personal assistant? Ok, so a tobacco company is found to be killing off people, and a court says so. Do you just dissolve the company and put 60,000 people out of work?
As long as the economy of our country is the ruler by which we measure ourselves, then the corporations will still win. Period. When the bottom line becomes less about money and more about something more profound or worthwhile than money, then the accountability you're talking about would be reasonable. Until that day comes however (which it shan't, because the people in power are insecure, greedy, selfish motherfuckers) we're at the mercy of the corporations.
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
Do americans ever take responsibility for there own actions?