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.
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
...I do no thinking at work, or I'd be worried by this judgment.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well if that isn't as good reason to unionize, I'm not sure what is.
We are the borg.... your technological and biological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.
There's no place like localhost
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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!
Were you under 21 when you signed it ? or Under 18 ?
Depending on the location a contract entered into by a minor wouldn't be legally binding. Even if you had attained your majority, If you had allready given them the check for your tuition the contract probably wouldn't hold up. The contract would constitute an extra condition after sale.
If however you happened to be a grad student or work study you might as well just refer to yourself as a slave and be done with it.
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
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
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 ?
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"...
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 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 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.
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!
That's why he should use encryption:
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
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.
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.
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
It doesn't pay to think at work.
Do not touch -Willie
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
... 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
Coffee is very bad for you.
========
77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
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.
Having been successful at it
If you measure success as,"I'm warm, breathing, and have a place to live" then yes, I've been successful. Aside from no longer dealing with an abusive manager I have not improved any of the other conditions which led to the gamut. In fact, the financial aspect has become hopelessly worse--to the point where I don't bother to think about it.
you then suggest he not encourage others to do it as well
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? Under the current system of employee agreements the legal system will exact a VENGEANCE fee on anyone who tries to assert their right to be treated in a fair and civil manner, guaranteeing that they cannot personally profit from their own skills.
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?
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. 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? Why should intelligent Americans be reduced to fast-food tellers if the industry is excessive in greed and opportunism?
+++ATHZ 99:5:80