A LOT of us don't do straight "work-for-hire". Look around, you've got people who work strictly by contract, others who work on a "paycheck+equity" basis, others who work on a "day job" basis, others who work as independent contractors, etc. This is not a "normal" industry, where everyone does the 9-5 bit. There's also the issue of stuff that people come up with on their own time, that their employer then tries to get his paws on when he gets a bit greedy.
I make it clear that in every case (even when I WAS doing the 9-5 stuff) that home-brew code, the librairies I developed on my time or prior to employment there, etc., was MY property. The time to discuss this is DURING the job interview. They could use it in their product, and redistribute THAT product (not any other), but that I retained ownership.
Anyone who does anything other than that is asking to be sued. You can't just "park your brains" when you leave a place, and forget everything you ever worked on and start from first principles. While you can't divulge trade secrets, you CAN make it clear where the boundary is between your code and theirs.
For one, when I work on a project, I insist on more than just a weekly paycheck. I also get part-ownership of the finished product, or I go elsewhere. Think of it as the "work-for-hire-PLUS" plan. As I point out elsewhere, I haven't done the "work for hire with no equity interest" thing in a decade. Sure, I want the paycheck. But I also want recognition that what I bring to the table is 20 years of experience, and that means a "piece of the pie". Otherwise, no pie:-)
They violate the terms, they pay the price. That includes not having the right to use or redistribute my work, which I immediately notified them by email. Scorched earth cuts both ways. Lie to me too many times and yu WILL get burned.
I don't do straight "work-for-hire". I insist on at least a chunk of equity, or part-interest/ownership of the final product, in addition to the weekly paycheck. I haven't done the "work-for-hire" without that condition in a decade. I'll never go back to it, either, unless there's either:
a theoretical or practical problem that I really feel the itch to scratch, and someone is willing to pay for me to work on the solution in return for the code
(to quote spaceballs) "a shitload of money"
So, since I am also part-owner of anything I work on, being both an employee and having a significant equity interest, what I write IS mine, subject of course to if they then want to buy out my equity portion.
So it was "buy me out" time. As long as he fulfilled his duties under the contract, there wasn't anything they could do without lawyers getting involved.
I offered to stay behind for a few weeks, to help screen suitable candidates and show them the ropes. Instead, they wanted me to show someone with absolutely no job history in the field (nepotism can be ugly) everything. I explained that I would not do that, because it would be a disaster, and they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Things quickly went downhill from there -
Of course they did it their way, they crashed the server, and it was down for the week. Aw. Is it running now? I don't know, haven't bothered to check in almost 2 months. Doesn't really matter. There was one program that has to be updated on a regular basis. Sometime next year, its going to start giving wrong data. Expensive wrong data. I would have gladly shown a proper replacement where the code issue was, and what has to be done to make sure it stays in sync with reality. But knowing them, they won't even notice until its way too late. "Time wounds all heels."
Maybe you should do some research into the 2-prisoner dilemma from game theory (no, it has nothing to do with games - its a scenario to determine the best course of action when dealing with opponents, and it was the basis of Mutually Assured Destruction).
Tret people nice, and let them reciprocate. When they start treating you like shit, give them a smack. When they start treating you nice again, reciprocate. Its a nice closed feed-back loop.
Now, down to specifics - 5 years service without taking a vacation, and not only does a certain asshole try to change my working conditions to what amounts to constructive dismissal, but also refuses to cut the check for the accumulated vacation pay. Why? Because he had lied one time too many, and I had called him to task for his repeated lies and failures to follow through.
Thats why its important to keep emails, etc. Then its no longer a case of your word against someone else's. So yeah, its working for me. But only because I kept proof. Not like dumb-as-shit cow-workers who don't see that, when the manure hits the ventilator, if they don't have proof, they may be the ones taking the fall for all kinds of unrelated crap. After all, without proof it becomes a matter of credibility.
Or are you now saying that people have to accept being lied to is acceptable in the workplace nowadays? Maybe you accept it - I don't.
Depends on the terms of the deal. Work-for-hire is not assumed in this industry. A lot of us won't work for under those terms, and we're old farts, so we don't have to work under strict "work-for-hire". Its not like we can't negotiate the terms.
If I take on a 2-year project to write a system from scratch, with the understanding that my code is my code, the guess what - that's the uderstanding. They don't "own" the code - I do.
If, in the same scenario, there is equity participation (quite common), and they later renege on the terms of the deal, well, guess what - they haven't lived up to their share of the deal. Take your code and walk. What are they going to do - sue? They're in the wrong - they won't. Look at it as a deliverable over time - they didn't give full payment (which isn't always just money) they don't get final transfer of title.
You go to buy a house. You put down earnest money (a deposit that is non-reimbursable). You make a deal to have the closing date in 6 months. You move in before the mortgage goes through. Well, 6 months later, the mortgage desn't pass - you don't get to keep title to the house. You're out, and your deposit is GONE. And guess what - you're still liable for damages.
Get real here - they want to treat code as property, treat it as property. Title vests when ALL the money and ALL the terms are met.
If you are referring to the code you write, then the same applies
Not necessarily. Depends on the understanding at the time of hiring. If its not clearly 100% "work-for-hire", then you own the code, and they have a limited license to use it. If they breech the terms, you revoke their license. I sent that notice almost 2 months ago to my last employer, who had lied one time too many. I also kept my emails, so I can (1) back up my position in court, and (2) file complaints with various gov't bodies, who are now taking a look-see. If you don't act aggresively to defend your name and actions when someone lies to you and there's a parting of the ways, there's a huge risk that their side will be the one given credence. Its a small world. You never know who the asshole who caused you grief will be talking to next.
Keep your emails. Its like having a spare tire. If you don't need it, great. No harm done. But if you do...
They have a copy, you have a copy. What is wrong with that? They're worried because there's dirt in the email? Guess they shouldn't have done the dirty deeds then. Besides, you need your own copy in case a dispute arises over what exactly was written (stuff can be altered).
while you're sitting at your desk using company equipment, you are part of the company.
In a pigs eye. There's a difference between working for someone and being owned by them. Stop being a good little prole. Its degrading just watching.
He was treated like crap. You know it. I know it. Being treated like an intruder, an outsider, a potential crook, rather than someone who had helped them get where they are.
Its the same as the "don't pirate movies" they show in theatres. You're insulting your audience. They've paid to watch the movie - you're addresing your message to the wrong audience, and insulting them to boot.
How would you feel if you walked into a store and one of the clerks was always hanging on your shoulder, looking at everything you do? Make you feel like you're being treated like a crook, right? Pleasant? Didn't think so.
Sorry, but if I wrote it, its MINE. Copyright law is clear on that. Its copyright ME the minute I write it. No notice necessary. Law trumps policy.
if someone sent it to me, it's MINE.
Don't want me to have it - don't cc me. (Don't you hate it when people cc you for no reason).
And while they're at it, how about going through all the backups and removing MY property? Unreasonable? No more unreasonable than believing that anyone else owns any mail (electronic or otherwise) addressed to me.
Regular mail sent to the company address, addressed to me, is MINE. Same with tech mag subscriptions.
They have a copy. You deserve to be similarly armed if it comes to a showdown. And, yes, I have 2 emails that are currently sitting in a file along with 2 complaints against my former employer. Without them, I'd be shit out of luck. I'm glad I've got them. The best part - there's nothing that they can legally do to challenge it. I'm clearly the intended recipient.
Besides, keeping off-site backups should be part of your job if you're in this field (or you should be making it part of your job). I've walked into places where the on-site backup was unusable (someone stored it next to a 10hp electric motor - duh). How many of your employers have their backup in the same frigging ROOM as your server? And you're worried about infringing policy by keeping your own email? Get real. Or at least cc yourself to a separate external account as a matter of course.
If you read the letter, it was delivered as well as emailed:-)
I'll be putting up a game server in 2-3 months, and yes, it will be using the term "Risk". And I fully expect to get a takedown notice. That's where the fun begins.
As I pointed out before, they have aleady lost any word mark protection from failing to act on the very blatant copies that have been around for ages. Use it or lose it. They've lost it. Even you agreed that a mark that isn't vigorously defended is forfeited. It happened to thermos, escalator, linoleum - and these weren't generic terms - they were coined. They still lost their word mark protection from not being vigorously defended.
You don't have the option, as the owner of a word mark, to pick and shoose which cases of infringement you go after. You can't voluntarily turn a blind eye to some and act on others. If you wish to "turn a blind eye", what you have to do is grant limited approval. This preserves the word mark.
It doesn't have to be over the course of decades - a few years is enough. Look what happened to the term "linux" in Australia.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/16/ 0537233
daria42 writes "Linus Torvalds' bid to have the word 'Linux' trademarked in Australia has failed, with the local intellectual property regulator sending his lawyer a vitriolic letter deriding efforts to provide evidence the trademark application was legitimate. In the letter, the regulator points out that information from Wikipedia and Google used by the lawyer to support the trademark application is simply not effective in making the case for a trademark to be registered."
I had previously said that trying to get protection for "linux" in Oz was going to fail, and that the lawyer in the case was a complete idiot. Everyone said I was wrong. The regulator obviously agreed with my take on it. Remember, as I said, words have a different meaning in courtrooms.
For example - generic. In the "real world", it means a plain-jane no-name brand. Not so in a court hearing about trademarks. There it means any word that was in existence prior to the device or thing being created.
An analogy would be between real property and ordinary property. In the "real world", real property is anything you can touch - that's read - as opposed to imaginary, fictitious, or virtual. In the courtroom, real property refers only to land and the buildings and structures thereon. Nothing else qualifies as real property. Not the car sitting in the driveway, not the dog digging up the roses, not the tv in the living room (unless its built into the wall or permanently bolted down, or the place where it is currently located was designed specifically to hold that tv - the rules get a bit weird when you look at the details). Hence the term real estate.
I'm not worried. I can show they've been ignoring other public "infringing" uses over a sufficient period of time. Also, I can show that risk is a generic term that was in use well before the board game, that it also describes the chances or odds of a certain action, and that the name "risk" is descriptive of the gameplay, not suggestive as required.
The same would apply to a lot of their other titles, such as Concentration and Monopoly, which actually describe a central feature of gameplay.
This is why I fully expect them to answer when I write to know what specific features they are making claims to. Because if they don't, after being informed of exactly what's going on, the courts will take that into consideration, and they know it. Remember, either defend it or lose it. Refusing to even answer in such a case IS a refusal to defend it. So, yes, perhaps now you can see why they WILL answer. They have no other option, except to ignore me and hope I go away. They started this by pissing off a loyal customer, and I'm not the only one they pissed off. Slashdotters like their risk games.
The law is quite clear - you cannot suddenly isolate an employee from his/her coworkers. That's a change of employment conditions, and as such, its constructive dismissal. Extra severance pay, fines, etc., as well as the hassle of a workplace audit. And since you're actually supposed to be working there for the 2 weeks, telling you NOT to come in is also isolating you from your coworkers.
Cheaper for them to work out a gentlemen's agreement to give you 2 months in return for leaving now.
You should try to see someone who actually finished their PhD or made it all the way through medical school....;^)
Hold in... (takes out business card)... yep, she's a PhD, and also comes highly recommended by a doctor who's an international expert in the field. Lucky me:-)
After a certain period, severance pay is worth more than you'll get for your 2-week notice.
If you can get 2 months, why not? If they're treating you stupidly (locking you out of systems, etc., when you clearly could have done any nasty shit well in advance) rather than professionally, return the "favour". They have it coming.
The way they handled it might be SOP, but it doesn't mean its right or ethical. Nobody should be treated like a crook or a pariah. If they want to do that, let them PAY EXTRA for the privilege. Or should peoples dignity be made available at a deep discount Wally-word price, or in this case thrown in free because they have to pay the 2 weeks anyway?
If you're smart, you already have backups. You need them to protect yourself so nobody can make you take the blame for something that "happened" after you left. Same with your email. Same with personal effects. Remove everything the day before you hand in your resignation. You're an idiot if you don't.
Act professionally until they act stupid. Then let the games begin, because you're leaving anyways. And if they don't act stupid, they get 2 more weeks of loyal, professional, courteous service, and the possibility of calling you up if they ever need anything. If they don't - well, they get what they deserve, and know better than to even think of calling you later. You don't need the ag.
For all the talk of rights there's only one thing true at the end of the day: If you're an at-will employee then you are completely at the mercy of the employ
Let me rephrase that: For all the talk of rights there's only one thing true at the end of the day: backups and dirt beats the odds all the time. I've got 3 complaints going through the system against my former employer, and if I hadn't snagged a copy of everything, time-and-date-stamped files, emails, etc., I wouldn't have a hope in hell. Got 2 more calls from one of the investgators today. So, instead of me being at some asshats mercy, he's probably looking at an audit. No amount of vaseline will make that comfortable.
Backups. Backups. Backups. It's not just because hard drives fail. So do people.
Back up everything. You never know what you might need if the next person screws up and tries to blame it on you. And it also comes i handy in cases of constructive dismissal.
Erase all your personal stuff.
Change all your passwords to something even you don't know (this way, if someone has gotten your old password and decides to set you up, they're screwed).
Say a nice goodbye to everyone you liked.
Be ready to give a big "fuck you" to the boss, who will inevitably say something to merit it. You KNOW you want to. You've earned it. You'll never have this chance again - indulge. Its the best money you never spent! And its also tax-free, lowers your blood pressure, and is cheaper than $100-an-hour therapists.
Kept pointing you back to the source document. Quoted where you made your mistake. Kept on. How many times did you have to read it before you finally clued in, honestly?
Now, think of how many times you should read the judge's words in the Windows vs Lindows case.
Or sit in a courtroom for a few months and pick up how, while the words may be the same, they don't have the same meaning... Microsoft has never allowed a trademark case on Windows to go to judgment in the States. There's a reason why. Now Lindows was quite happy to take the money and change their name. For $20,000,000, wouldn't you change your name? They had made their point, gotten a load of swag, and a ton of free publicity to boot. Obviously it works for them.
Silly me, I was looking at the content of the letter.
The sig is the most important part of the content. Without a signature, the letter has zero legal value. Even you know that.
You can see how nobody can resist bait like that, especially yesterday, Troll Tuesday [tt] (gotta keep an eye on the calendar:-)
Well, its been fun, and you're certainly welcome to play along next week. You do have talent, and slashdot certainly needs a swift kick in the butt to help avoid the echo chamber effect (someone has to play devils' advocate - and besides, OpenRisk isn't a bad idea.
I was thinking of doing it a while ago and offering it to Hasbro, because I really like the game, but if they can screw up a marketing opportunity like they had with risk on Google, they can screw up anything, and are not to be trusted without a long, hard look, and I don't feel like squinting that long.
You kept calling the lawyer "he". I pointed out the sentence where you made the mistake, and you just kept right on.
Geez, took you long enough.
Now you get a colouring book so you can colour between the lines.
Seriously, how credible would you look, say, addressing a woman as "Dear Sir"? That you went on and on, after I went out of my way to quote the exact sentence you screwed up in, and repeated the mistake, was quite amusing.
The interpretation of a legal argument sometimes comes down to the meaning of a single word. You either haven't read the lawyer's letter, or your previous posts demonstrate an uncanny ability to miss the obvious.
So, now we go from "Whoosh" over your head... to "Whoosh Whoosh! Is this thing on?"
Read the lawyer's letter. Review your previous comments about it. You really did miss the obvious. And if you can miss the obvious in such a short letter, how is anyone to credit you with being adroit in more complicated situations?
I'm still waiting for any sign you even read the god-damn letter! If you have, read it again, because you've missed a point that really reflects badly on your whole ability to argue any issue with any sort of credibility.
If you've been here long enough, you know what that means - you've missed the obvious.
How that's possible in this case, when I made it quite plain that it was obvious from your response that you either didn't read the letter, or didn't grok it, is beyond me. I am astounded. Flabbergasted (well, actualy, I'm laughing my pants off:-)
The possibilities that come to mind are either:
you need to have your hand held every step of the way in putting 2 and 2 together, in which case why would any bother giving credence to your opinions;
you don't understand the significance of what you read, in which case, again, why would anyone bother to credit your opinions when you miss the obvious;
you STILL haven't read the lawyers' letter, in which case, as I said before, why should anyone bother listening to someone who can't be bothered to take a half-minute to read a letter?
Any one of these (or all three in combination) really discredits any argument you may try to advance. Read the lawyers' letter. And please, don't say you have if you haven't. While you're at it, you might want to advance an argument as to why a lawyer (or better yet, the company CEO) would ignore a query about their legal stand from someone who's prepared to act on their silence, and use it (their silence) as evidence that they are NOT willing to defend their word mark. They opened this can of worms, not me.
If they gpl it, the competitors can't incorporate it into their chips and SELL the chips unless they give away their modified source as well, which will reveal a LOT about the inner workings of their chips. Sure, they could use it for chips used in-house, but that's not much of a market when a fab costs billions. Unless Intel and AMD are going to do the same thing - which I doubt.
Also, it takes more than a cpu to make a computer (look at all the different buses we've got now as one example).
Plus, the competition isn't willing to just put out a chip that'll cannibalize an existing line (hence the delay in switching from the Itanic).
Slashdot Mirror
I make it clear that in every case (even when I WAS doing the 9-5 stuff) that home-brew code, the librairies I developed on my time or prior to employment there, etc., was MY property. The time to discuss this is DURING the job interview. They could use it in their product, and redistribute THAT product (not any other), but that I retained ownership.
Anyone who does anything other than that is asking to be sued. You can't just "park your brains" when you leave a place, and forget everything you ever worked on and start from first principles. While you can't divulge trade secrets, you CAN make it clear where the boundary is between your code and theirs.
SOP doesn't work with me.
For one, when I work on a project, I insist on more than just a weekly paycheck. I also get part-ownership of the finished product, or I go elsewhere. Think of it as the "work-for-hire-PLUS" plan. As I point out elsewhere, I haven't done the "work for hire with no equity interest" thing in a decade. Sure, I want the paycheck. But I also want recognition that what I bring to the table is 20 years of experience, and that means a "piece of the pie". Otherwise, no pie :-)
They violate the terms, they pay the price. That includes not having the right to use or redistribute my work, which I immediately notified them by email. Scorched earth cuts both ways. Lie to me too many times and yu WILL get burned.
Depends on the terms of employment.
I don't do straight "work-for-hire". I insist on at least a chunk of equity, or part-interest/ownership of the final product, in addition to the weekly paycheck. I haven't done the "work-for-hire" without that condition in a decade. I'll never go back to it, either, unless there's either:
So, since I am also part-owner of anything I work on, being both an employee and having a significant equity interest, what I write IS mine, subject of course to if they then want to buy out my equity portion.
- Get it in writing
- Get it in writing
- Get it in writing
So it was "buy me out" time. As long as he fulfilled his duties under the contract, there wasn't anything they could do without lawyers getting involved.Unfortunately, sometimes they don't "get" it.
I offered to stay behind for a few weeks, to help screen suitable candidates and show them the ropes. Instead, they wanted me to show someone with absolutely no job history in the field (nepotism can be ugly) everything. I explained that I would not do that, because it would be a disaster, and they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Things quickly went downhill from there -
Of course they did it their way, they crashed the server, and it was down for the week. Aw. Is it running now? I don't know, haven't bothered to check in almost 2 months. Doesn't really matter. There was one program that has to be updated on a regular basis. Sometime next year, its going to start giving wrong data. Expensive wrong data. I would have gladly shown a proper replacement where the code issue was, and what has to be done to make sure it stays in sync with reality. But knowing them, they won't even notice until its way too late. "Time wounds all heels."
Tret people nice, and let them reciprocate. When they start treating you like shit, give them a smack. When they start treating you nice again, reciprocate. Its a nice closed feed-back loop.
Now, down to specifics - 5 years service without taking a vacation, and not only does a certain asshole try to change my working conditions to what amounts to constructive dismissal, but also refuses to cut the check for the accumulated vacation pay. Why? Because he had lied one time too many, and I had called him to task for his repeated lies and failures to follow through.
Thats why its important to keep emails, etc. Then its no longer a case of your word against someone else's. So yeah, its working for me. But only because I kept proof. Not like dumb-as-shit cow-workers who don't see that, when the manure hits the ventilator, if they don't have proof, they may be the ones taking the fall for all kinds of unrelated crap. After all, without proof it becomes a matter of credibility.
Or are you now saying that people have to accept being lied to is acceptable in the workplace nowadays? Maybe you accept it - I don't.
Oh, and you're really off on the age thing, too.
If I take on a 2-year project to write a system from scratch, with the understanding that my code is my code, the guess what - that's the uderstanding. They don't "own" the code - I do.
If, in the same scenario, there is equity participation (quite common), and they later renege on the terms of the deal, well, guess what - they haven't lived up to their share of the deal. Take your code and walk. What are they going to do - sue? They're in the wrong - they won't. Look at it as a deliverable over time - they didn't give full payment (which isn't always just money) they don't get final transfer of title.
You go to buy a house. You put down earnest money (a deposit that is non-reimbursable). You make a deal to have the closing date in 6 months. You move in before the mortgage goes through. Well, 6 months later, the mortgage desn't pass - you don't get to keep title to the house. You're out, and your deposit is GONE. And guess what - you're still liable for damages.
Get real here - they want to treat code as property, treat it as property. Title vests when ALL the money and ALL the terms are met.
Keep your emails. Its like having a spare tire. If you don't need it, great. No harm done. But if you do ...
They have a copy, you have a copy. What is wrong with that? They're worried because there's dirt in the email? Guess they shouldn't have done the dirty deeds then. Besides, you need your own copy in case a dispute arises over what exactly was written (stuff can be altered).
In a pigs eye. There's a difference between working for someone and being owned by them. Stop being a good little prole. Its degrading just watching.Its the same as the "don't pirate movies" they show in theatres. You're insulting your audience. They've paid to watch the movie - you're addresing your message to the wrong audience, and insulting them to boot.
How would you feel if you walked into a store and one of the clerks was always hanging on your shoulder, looking at everything you do? Make you feel like you're being treated like a crook, right? Pleasant? Didn't think so.
if someone sent it to me, it's MINE.
Don't want me to have it - don't cc me. (Don't you hate it when people cc you for no reason).
And while they're at it, how about going through all the backups and removing MY property? Unreasonable? No more unreasonable than believing that anyone else owns any mail (electronic or otherwise) addressed to me.
Regular mail sent to the company address, addressed to me, is MINE. Same with tech mag subscriptions.
They have a copy. You deserve to be similarly armed if it comes to a showdown. And, yes, I have 2 emails that are currently sitting in a file along with 2 complaints against my former employer. Without them, I'd be shit out of luck. I'm glad I've got them. The best part - there's nothing that they can legally do to challenge it. I'm clearly the intended recipient.
Besides, keeping off-site backups should be part of your job if you're in this field (or you should be making it part of your job). I've walked into places where the on-site backup was unusable (someone stored it next to a 10hp electric motor - duh). How many of your employers have their backup in the same frigging ROOM as your server? And you're worried about infringing policy by keeping your own email? Get real. Or at least cc yourself to a separate external account as a matter of course.
If you read the letter, it was delivered as well as emailed :-)
I'll be putting up a game server in 2-3 months, and yes, it will be using the term "Risk". And I fully expect to get a takedown notice. That's where the fun begins.
As I pointed out before, they have aleady lost any word mark protection from failing to act on the very blatant copies that have been around for ages. Use it or lose it. They've lost it. Even you agreed that a mark that isn't vigorously defended is forfeited. It happened to thermos, escalator, linoleum - and these weren't generic terms - they were coined. They still lost their word mark protection from not being vigorously defended.
You don't have the option, as the owner of a word mark, to pick and shoose which cases of infringement you go after. You can't voluntarily turn a blind eye to some and act on others. If you wish to "turn a blind eye", what you have to do is grant limited approval. This preserves the word mark.
It doesn't have to be over the course of decades - a few years is enough. Look what happened to the term "linux" in Australia. http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/16/ 0537233 daria42 writes "Linus Torvalds' bid to have the word 'Linux' trademarked in Australia has failed, with the local intellectual property regulator sending his lawyer a vitriolic letter deriding efforts to provide evidence the trademark application was legitimate. In the letter, the regulator points out that information from Wikipedia and Google used by the lawyer to support the trademark application is simply not effective in making the case for a trademark to be registered." I had previously said that trying to get protection for "linux" in Oz was going to fail, and that the lawyer in the case was a complete idiot. Everyone said I was wrong. The regulator obviously agreed with my take on it. Remember, as I said, words have a different meaning in courtrooms.
For example - generic. In the "real world", it means a plain-jane no-name brand. Not so in a court hearing about trademarks. There it means any word that was in existence prior to the device or thing being created.
An analogy would be between real property and ordinary property. In the "real world", real property is anything you can touch - that's read - as opposed to imaginary, fictitious, or virtual. In the courtroom, real property refers only to land and the buildings and structures thereon. Nothing else qualifies as real property. Not the car sitting in the driveway, not the dog digging up the roses, not the tv in the living room (unless its built into the wall or permanently bolted down, or the place where it is currently located was designed specifically to hold that tv - the rules get a bit weird when you look at the details). Hence the term real estate.
I'm not worried. I can show they've been ignoring other public "infringing" uses over a sufficient period of time. Also, I can show that risk is a generic term that was in use well before the board game, that it also describes the chances or odds of a certain action, and that the name "risk" is descriptive of the gameplay, not suggestive as required.
The same would apply to a lot of their other titles, such as Concentration and Monopoly, which actually describe a central feature of gameplay.
This is why I fully expect them to answer when I write to know what specific features they are making claims to. Because if they don't, after being informed of exactly what's going on, the courts will take that into consideration, and they know it. Remember, either defend it or lose it. Refusing to even answer in such a case IS a refusal to defend it. So, yes, perhaps now you can see why they WILL answer. They have no other option, except to ignore me and hope I go away. They started this by pissing off a loyal customer, and I'm not the only one they pissed off. Slashdotters like their risk games.
If they wer
The law is quite clear - you cannot suddenly isolate an employee from his/her coworkers. That's a change of employment conditions, and as such, its constructive dismissal. Extra severance pay, fines, etc., as well as the hassle of a workplace audit. And since you're actually supposed to be working there for the 2 weeks, telling you NOT to come in is also isolating you from your coworkers.
Cheaper for them to work out a gentlemen's agreement to give you 2 months in return for leaving now.
After a certain period, severance pay is worth more than you'll get for your 2-week notice.
If you can get 2 months, why not? If they're treating you stupidly (locking you out of systems, etc., when you clearly could have done any nasty shit well in advance) rather than professionally, return the "favour". They have it coming.
The way they handled it might be SOP, but it doesn't mean its right or ethical. Nobody should be treated like a crook or a pariah. If they want to do that, let them PAY EXTRA for the privilege. Or should peoples dignity be made available at a deep discount Wally-word price, or in this case thrown in free because they have to pay the 2 weeks anyway?
If you're smart, you already have backups. You need them to protect yourself so nobody can make you take the blame for something that "happened" after you left. Same with your email. Same with personal effects. Remove everything the day before you hand in your resignation. You're an idiot if you don't.
Act professionally until they act stupid. Then let the games begin, because you're leaving anyways. And if they don't act stupid, they get 2 more weeks of loyal, professional, courteous service, and the possibility of calling you up if they ever need anything. If they don't - well, they get what they deserve, and know better than to even think of calling you later. You don't need the ag.
Let me rephrase that: For all the talk of rights there's only one thing true at the end of the day: backups and dirt beats the odds all the time. I've got 3 complaints going through the system against my former employer, and if I hadn't snagged a copy of everything, time-and-date-stamped files, emails, etc., I wouldn't have a hope in hell. Got 2 more calls from one of the investgators today. So, instead of me being at some asshats mercy, he's probably looking at an audit. No amount of vaseline will make that comfortable.
Backups. Backups. Backups. It's not just because hard drives fail. So do people.
You should have been celebrating at each of those meetings. Gladhanding everyone who comes in, saying "Hi, I'm leving in 2 weeks. Isn't that GREAT?"
What are they going to do - fire you?
They can't shunt you off to a corner and isolate you - that's grounds for constructive dismissal, with extra severance, law suits, etc.
Be obnoxiously happy and upbeat, and they'll double your severence for you to "just get the fuck out and stay out."
Show up every day, talk cheerfully to all the people who still have to give it their all, be obnoxiously upbeat.
They'll double your severance if you agree to leave the building PDQ. Just stay there while they cut you the check.
I've got one friend who did that and was paid to stay home for 2 months, we was so demoralizing to the "survivors".
Yep, got you fair and square.
Kept pointing you back to the source document. Quoted where you made your mistake. Kept on. How many times did you have to read it before you finally clued in, honestly?
Now, think of how many times you should read the judge's words in the Windows vs Lindows case.
Or sit in a courtroom for a few months and pick up how, while the words may be the same, they don't have the same meaning ... Microsoft has never allowed a trademark case on Windows to go to judgment in the States. There's a reason why. Now Lindows was quite happy to take the money and change their name. For $20,000,000, wouldn't you change your name? They had made their point, gotten a load of swag, and a ton of free publicity to boot. Obviously it works for them.
The sig is the most important part of the content. Without a signature, the letter has zero legal value. Even you know that.
You can see how nobody can resist bait like that, especially yesterday, Troll Tuesday [tt] (gotta keep an eye on the calendar :-)
Well, its been fun, and you're certainly welcome to play along next week. You do have talent, and slashdot certainly needs a swift kick in the butt to help avoid the echo chamber effect (someone has to play devils' advocate - and besides, OpenRisk isn't a bad idea.
I was thinking of doing it a while ago and offering it to Hasbro, because I really like the game, but if they can screw up a marketing opportunity like they had with risk on Google, they can screw up anything, and are not to be trusted without a long, hard look, and I don't feel like squinting that long.
So, are you in, or out?
You kept calling the lawyer "he". I pointed out the sentence where you made the mistake, and you just kept right on.
Geez, took you long enough.
Now you get a colouring book so you can colour between the lines.
Seriously, how credible would you look, say, addressing a woman as "Dear Sir"? That you went on and on, after I went out of my way to quote the exact sentence you screwed up in, and repeated the mistake, was quite amusing.
The interpretation of a legal argument sometimes comes down to the meaning of a single word. You either haven't read the lawyer's letter, or your previous posts demonstrate an uncanny ability to miss the obvious.
So, now we go from "Whoosh" over your head ... to "Whoosh Whoosh! Is this thing on?"
Read the lawyer's letter. Review your previous comments about it. You really did miss the obvious. And if you can miss the obvious in such a short letter, how is anyone to credit you with being adroit in more complicated situations?
I'm still waiting for any sign you even read the god-damn letter! If you have, read it again, because you've missed a point that really reflects badly on your whole ability to argue any issue with any sort of credibility.
Whooosh!
If you've been here long enough, you know what that means - you've missed the obvious.
How that's possible in this case, when I made it quite plain that it was obvious from your response that you either didn't read the letter, or didn't grok it, is beyond me. I am astounded. Flabbergasted (well, actualy, I'm laughing my pants off :-)
The possibilities that come to mind are either:
Any one of these (or all three in combination) really discredits any argument you may try to advance. Read the lawyers' letter. And please, don't say you have if you haven't. While you're at it, you might want to advance an argument as to why a lawyer (or better yet, the company CEO) would ignore a query about their legal stand from someone who's prepared to act on their silence, and use it (their silence) as evidence that they are NOT willing to defend their word mark. They opened this can of worms, not me.
If they gpl it, the competitors can't incorporate it into their chips and SELL the chips unless they give away their modified source as well, which will reveal a LOT about the inner workings of their chips. Sure, they could use it for chips used in-house, but that's not much of a market when a fab costs billions. Unless Intel and AMD are going to do the same thing - which I doubt.
Also, it takes more than a cpu to make a computer (look at all the different buses we've got now as one example).
Plus, the competition isn't willing to just put out a chip that'll cannibalize an existing line (hence the delay in switching from the Itanic).
If you can't get in and award yourself the clearances you need, you're obviously not qualified.
If ethical concerns keep you from doing this, you're not qualified.
If you can't make the system issue YOU a purchase order, you're not qualified.
How do you expect your congresscritter to push your name when he or she won't have confidence that you'll be competent enough to hide their payoffs.