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."
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
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.
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
I wonder if all these documents and provisions of the companies are overall economically efficient....
For the particular company, it's a plus to extort it's employees in such a way. But now, with such a known case of lawful "mind-owning", maybe some people will be more careful about what ideas they'll give to their employer... thus hampering the free flow of ideas which mainly drives the economy.
The same happens IMHO with quick hiring and firing of people. Noone thinks that it is wortwhile to work more than is neccessary for not getting fired. And noone gives more of his/her ideas than what is neccessary to keep the job.
Maybe someone with knowledge of both economy and social sciences can defeat or confirm this argument?
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!
In some ways, corporate America really treats employees like slaves.
Or do American employees let corporations treat them like slaves? Nobody forced you to sign that document and work for that company. You could have refused and looked for another employer. I've done exactly that a few times: I was presented with employment "contracts" that had abusive clauses in them, I said no thanks and went looking for better companies. In a couple of cases, I refused the contract even when I was unemployed at that time.
The only reason companies make you sign these documents is because most engineers will sign anything (NOTE: this is not related directly to the present article). If most of us refused to sign abusive contracts, or better yet we presented the employers with a standard fair contract and said "take it or leave it," then companies would stop trying to make us slaves.
The root of the problem is that most computer-related colleges and universities forget to teach their students about employment and contract laws, business, patents, copyrights, etc.
According to the court's ruling, the guy was hired in 1987 and signed a perfectly ordinary waiver requiring that he disclose any inventions relevant to the subject of his work. He disclosed this reverse compiler idea in 1996. In my experience, when you sign those IP waivers you have the opportunity to decalre any existing work and it's extremely worth your while to give your brain a good wracking to make sure you get anything worthwhile on that paper.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
You know, I always took that aspect of Ayn Rand's books (esp. Atlas Shrugged) to be great in theory, but not directly applicable to the real world.
Then I was fighting someone at work who had put us into a really awkward and inappropriate situation, not by mistake or sheer incompetence, but because he knew we'd make it work no matter what.
When I pointed out what he'd done, and that while we COULD fix it, we SHOULDN'T, he said "You're being theoretical. You need to deal in practical reality."
That phrase is a common one in those books, and one I always felt was over-the-top and would never be uttered in the real world. Surprise!
This is only relevant because so many of her characters did just what the previous poster suggests -- stop thinking and working for those who would make it harder to work and think, even while profiting from the fruits of that thought and labor.
Or, as Scott Adams said in one of his books (paraphrasing) -- what if a coworker jumped out a high window, not because he was suicidal, but because he thought it was a great shortcut to the parking lot. Do you catch him, thus affirming his decision (and thus ensuring he will repeat it), or do you let him drop and suffer the consequences of your inaction?
So quit.
No, seriously, leave. Get out. If you feel like you are being treated like a slave, get out while you can. We are citizens, not serfs, and we don't have to put up with that crap. Your dignity is worth a great deal of money. Find a way to leave.
For the rest of you, read the pre-employment contracts that your prospective employers ask you to sign. If you don't like something in it, cross it out and initial it, then point out the struck section for the hiring manager to initial as well before you sign. If they initial it, keep a copy forever. If they refuse to initial it, refuse to sign the contract. Sure, that may mean you don't get the job... is that really so bad?
(IANAL, of course, so my method may be insufficient. If you're really worried about it, then by all means seek proper legal advice.)
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
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.
Obviously, sometimes it is that bad. I strongly suspected I'd get at least one reply like yours. I really do empathize with your plight.
;-)
But not everyone is in that position. Some people are in a much stronger position to negotiate, and accept unreasonable terms of employment simply because they are careless. This hurts us all.
This trend you note came to be when unscrupulous managers discovered that employees just signed whatever was put in front of them. Why not ask to own them? We have only two ways to stop it: legislate against it, or incite all of us to stop meekly complying with employers' unfair demands.
I can't legislate, but I sure can try to incite disobedience.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Bottom line...once you sign that contract, they own your ass.
I entirely agree. So don't sign the contract!!
A contract is an enforceable agreement between two parties. A contract proposal is nothing but a piece of paper with some ink on it. There's nothing magical or mysterious about a proposed contract that should prevent you from altering it to suit you better. (Think of it as legal source code.) If you don't like what it says or don't understand it, for heaven's sake don't sign until you do!
If you are presented with a pre-employment contract, you have nothing to lose by striking out sections you don't like and asking them to initial it. If they really don't like your proposed changes, I'm sure they'll be able to dig up a fresh copy while you re-consider the seriousness of your objections. (If they're willing to show you the door over one set of photocopies, after all the expense of interviewing you, I'm thinking it's not such a good place to work anyway.)
Maybe you need the job so bad you're willing to bear the burdens the contract imposes. Maybe they were just trying to see what they could get, and won't object to an altered agreement. There's only one way to find out... try it.
What have you got to lose, besides your freedom?
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Whatever. I had similar wording in my employment contract. I asked to have it reworded and it was reworded. The contract that I ended up signing stated specifically that I owned everything that I developed on my own time that wasn't related to the development I did at work. I even got permission to contribute to Free Software projects that I *did* use at work.
Caveat Emptor, let the buyer beware. If you don't read your employment contract you can't expect someone else to do it for you.
As someone who has been both an employer (with my own business) and an employee I can tell you that this has far less to do with "corporate rights" and far more to do with employment contracts. Employment contracts specify what the employer expects in return for a wage. You can't hardly blame your employer for trying to get the best of the bargain. After all, you are trying to get the best deal you can get from your employer as well.
You may be joking, but it's not far fetched. Because of a contract that I had to sign in order to get my current job (such are required for just about any technical job), I have put off any further development of my prior ideas, and leave all new ones dormant except for those that are actually within the function of my job, and trivial hobby stuff. Perhaps in some better future time, when either I am no longer dependent on an employer, or if someday the citizenry can gain some kind of legal protection against this kind of robbery and oppression, I'll be free to create again.
"As the founder of a software company...Investors are where the paychecks come from."
Is this company still in business? I mean, I thought CUSTOMERS were where the paychecks were supposed to ultimately come from...or are there still some lessons of the internet bubble that haven't sunk in?
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.
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.
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.
You give up too much without a fight. My contract has a clause in it specifically stating that the company has no claim on anything I do that doesn't use any company time or company resources. I made them show me the full text of the contract they were going to ask me to sign on day one, not just the quick summary they sent when they offered the job, precisely to check that such a clause was there, and to request one otherwise.
In fact, I gather than in quite a few jurisdictions, such contractual terms are likely to be unenforceable anyway. And even if not, don't sell yourself short; look at the contract before signing up for a job, question the absence of such a clause (or why there's a "we own everything" clause) by presenting something that's clearly your own work and asking whether the employer feels they have a right to it, and embarrass them into changing the contract.
Morally they don't have a leg to stand on, and as long as you politely but firmly require them to acknowledge this before you start working for them, they won't have one legally either. No sane employer is going to go all the way through a recruitment process, pick someone they like, offer them the job, and then retract the offer in the face of a clearly reasonable request regarding the contractual terms. If a potential employer of yours does, just walk away; you now know exactly what kind of attitude they have towards their staff, and you can certainly do better elsewhere.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Corporations are more important because they have more money.
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.
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.