Look out for broad contract clauses like his
on
1984, today.
·
· Score: 1
What follows is an excerpt from Brown's contract:
"I will communicate to an officer of the Company promptly and fully all inventions (including but not limited to all matters subject to patent, i.e., processes, machines, computer programs, etc.) made or conceived by me (whether made solely by me or jointly with others) from the time of entering the Company's employ until I leave, (1) which are along the lines of the business, work or investigations of the Company or of companies which it owns or controls at the time of such inventions, or (2) which result from or are suggested by any work which I may do for or on behalf of the Company." as quoted in Brown v. DSC Communications Corporation, Inc., Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, January 6th, 1998.
The thing to remember in this kind of case is that the "basic" right that the courts are going to uphold is not any sort of right regarding what's in Evan Brown's head. What they are going to judge to be more important is the power of Brown and DSC to enter into a binding contract. Contracts give individuals and corporations of individuals the power to make "little laws" which the courts will then treat as binding. Unless there is a specific piece of legislation in Texas forbidding contracts of this nature, or there is some sort of rule of law already invalidating this (there seems to be neither), the contract is valid. It also seems to apply under clause (1).
You have the power, under contract law, to promise your ideas to someone else before you even complete them, and to make that promise legally enforceable in court. Evan Brown did it, maybe without even paying close attention to what he was doing. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of case law or legislative legal background which is going to give him a way out. We can say that a company shouldn't be able to have any say over one's ideas -- I'm inclined to agree. However, we still have the power and freedom to make them, and unless we pass laws taking away that freedom (which in turn could conceivably be struck down by courts), contracts like these are going to continue to hold up in court. The law doesn't do much, if anything, to protect someone for failing to read his contract carefully.
If you're involved in any sort of software engineering or development and working for a company which does any of that sort of thing at all, you should probably check your contracts over. Brown's contract didn't distinguish between what he did on company time and what he did on private time, so the contract reads on its face as implying "everything," and I expect that's how it will continue to be interpreted. I think that the way the courts will look at this is that Brown's ability to commit himself in this way is one of his personal freedoms or powers.
Slashdot Mirror
"I will communicate to an officer of the Company promptly and fully all inventions (including but not limited to all matters subject to patent, i.e., processes, machines, computer programs, etc.) made or conceived by me (whether made solely by me or jointly with others) from the time of entering the Company's employ until I leave, (1) which are along the lines of the business, work or investigations of the Company or of companies which it owns or controls at the time of such inventions, or (2) which result from or are suggested by any work which I may do for or on behalf of the Company." as quoted in Brown v. DSC Communications Corporation, Inc., Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, January 6th, 1998.
The thing to remember in this kind of case is that the "basic" right that the courts are going to uphold is not any sort of right regarding what's in Evan Brown's head. What they are going to judge to be more important is the power of Brown and DSC to enter into a binding contract. Contracts give individuals and corporations of individuals the power to make "little laws" which the courts will then treat as binding. Unless there is a specific piece of legislation in Texas forbidding contracts of this nature, or there is some sort of rule of law already invalidating this (there seems to be neither), the contract is valid. It also seems to apply under clause (1).
You have the power, under contract law, to promise your ideas to someone else before you even complete them, and to make that promise legally enforceable in court. Evan Brown did it, maybe without even paying close attention to what he was doing. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of case law or legislative legal background which is going to give him a way out. We can say that a company shouldn't be able to have any say over one's ideas -- I'm inclined to agree. However, we still have the power and freedom to make them, and unless we pass laws taking away that freedom (which in turn could conceivably be struck down by courts), contracts like these are going to continue to hold up in court. The law doesn't do much, if anything, to protect someone for failing to read his contract carefully.
If you're involved in any sort of software engineering or development and working for a company which does any of that sort of thing at all, you should probably check your contracts over. Brown's contract didn't distinguish between what he did on company time and what he did on private time, so the contract reads on its face as implying "everything," and I expect that's how it will continue to be interpreted. I think that the way the courts will look at this is that Brown's ability to commit himself in this way is one of his personal freedoms or powers.