Is it morally any different than harassing someone in private?
Consider: If these two fellas had cornered the lawyer in an elevator, pushed stop, and hit him up with lawyer jokes, could he still go running to the officer's skirts when the elevator door eventually opened?
If that happens the bar should revoke his license and I'll be entitled to a new attorney. Seriously, that's what a good portion of graduate studies are: learning how to take crap from people who don't matter to you. If this particular attorney managed to skate through on easy street with a pampered butt then he's getting what's coming to him.
they were arrested for 'being abusive and disturbing the peace'
You're just like that guy at the pub. The guy with the really obnoxious cigar. It smells like morning butt-cake. He's well within his rights to smoke it at the pub, though. What can I do? If I walk up to him and ask him politely to put out the cigar, and he does, he's going to nurture resentment for me. If I walk up to him and politely ask him to put out the cigar, and he defends his right to smoke it, then I've just wasted my time. If I walk up to him and politely ask him to put out the cigar, and he tells me to get bent, then the situation is going to get ugly. If I walk up to him and tell him to stuff his cigar in his hind end then it's going to get ugly real quick.
So... direct confrontation is ruled out because it will either be resentful, ineffective, or ugly.
I could sit across the bar and heckle the concept of a cigar while chatting with my drinking pals. That could be construed as "abusive and disturbing the peace", depending upon how clear I make it that his cigar smells like morning butt-cake. I could move to a different section of the bar where I won't smell his cigar, but then he's going to be resentful because it will be a public action which indicates that his cigar smells like butt.
So drop the "abusive and disturbing the peace" bit. Tell the lawyer to suck it up. Everyone has crap to deal with in life, and he's no different.
where I am sure you had to be there to know really what happened
Two things happened: 1) Two guys went on the same obnoxious crusade to heckle lawyers. 2) Some lawyer was humiliated when his opposition caught him crying in the bathroom.
The freedom of speech is not a freedom to be a shithead
If some hoidy-toidy lawyer down at the courthouse can't take it then tell him to close his ears. For crying out loud, what is this, kindergarten? Did he really have to go running to the teacher,"Make them stop! Make them stop!"
public nuisance
My butt. What's the legal definition for that? "Anything we want when we feel like it"?
They'll make it easy and assign full responsibility to the one guy they caught. That's why they only charged him with three movies. If the defense tries to balk at full responsibility, they'll drag out the list of the other 6000 mp3s and movies he's been connected to.
The best solution for your backup problems is to learn to prioritize. No, you don't need to save your pr0n collection. No, you don't need to save every.jpg anyone's ever sent to you. No, you don't need to save every bad joke e-mail you've ever received. No, you don't need to save... you don't need to save... don't save... don't need.
When I was young (early 20s) I saved everything. Then I had an HD crash. I started over and, several years later, my new HD inherited an unrecoverable problem. I started over and then went through a run of about 4 Western Digital Caviar drives which each lasted about one year.
So... what do I save now? As little as possible. Believe me, when you're going through your tree and say to yourself,"well... I might want to save that just in case..." do yourself a favor and hit DELETE. Anytime the word "I might" or "just in case" comes to mind, hit DELETE.
After you've reprogrammed yourself to have a sane set of backup priorities, you'll find that rsync and tar are more than adequate.
For corporate solutions... well, that's a whole different story. Then you're getting paid to feed someone else's legal paranoia. Just buy more drives.
You'd be a little bit frightened if you studied the history of FDA approved birth control treatments. Basically, when dealing with birth control treatments, pharma companies have carte blanche as long as it works and not too many women complain.
Take a cancer treatment. If a cancer treatment were like a birth control regimen, and the patient started complaining of side effects, the doctor would say,"Quit taking it."
I guess it's because it's considered a voluntary medication. Being "female" hasn't been marked as a medical ailment... at least not yet.
I guess the idea is that there are certain biochemical signaling pathways which depend on the frequency pattern of a messenger molecule interacting with a target, rather than a simple off/on response
That's why this isn't a surprise. Once people are past introductory courses in biology and biochemistry they shouldn't think it's an on/off response. If they do, they should have failed.
That's no different than saying that more light will cause a plant to grow faster. Or more sugar will raise the glycolytic cycle.
It is true that pharmacologists haven't done much experimenting with "take this pill once a day, this one once every other day, and this one once a week" but that's not because no one's thought about it. It's mostly because running the FDA trials to get approval for a multicomponent regimen are nearly impossible in terms of resources. Even pharmaceutical cocktails typically start with one drug that was approved 20 years ago, and another which was tested with it 5 years ago, and some new additive.
There is a rudimentary form of this going on. It's testing at different dosage levels. 5 mg, 10 mg, 100 mg, 500 mg. Pharmacology, specifically in ADME research, focuses quite closely on the cyclical rise and fall of the active ingredient's concentration in and around the cellular tissue of interest.
If so, you should know that amazingly little details have been worked out about why those drugs work
It's actually a little bit more hazy than that. We work out the details when developing the individual molecules, but we really stop back-checking validity once we get to whole animal models.
For example, in angiogenesis, we're targeting (typically) VEGF receptors or the proteins which interact with the VEGF receptor on the inside of the cell wall. We demonstrate a molecule which effectively inhibits the targeted enzyme in a petri dish assay, then we demonstrate that a particular cell line is inhibited in producing the proteins necessary to form endothelial lining...
Then we put the molecule in rats and, if the tumor goes down, we win. If the tumor doesn't go down, we lose. If the tumor goes down, however, we don't really bother checking if it was really a result of inhibited angiogenesis or if the overall mechanism turned out to be targeted apoptosis.
I made my group leader REAL angry one time by pointing that out. He told me to go back to school.
I think they're attempting to formalize, in the media, the concept that there are cyclical patterns in upregulation and downregulation of particular processes. This isn't really surprising. Cells go through life cycles and they function as steady state machines, just like computers do. It's not a surprise that there are some basic pathways which get up and downregulated on a regular basis.
Where do I see this going? Currently biochemistry maps all sorts of cellular pathways based on pharmacological application: apoptosis, necrosis, endothelial growth, or a particular process in cells such as the liver for diabetes treatments. Perhaps this is a forefront article that some researchers are beginning to put enough of those pathways together to the point where they can start to mine the database and find out which pathways are truly "key interactions" and which pathways only looked good.
Vague analogy: like mapping root-servers as opposed to studying the BIND cache of a mid-sized ISP nameserver.
You want the income that a company can give you, but you don't want the company to be able to look out for itself and its people
A company is not an author or inventor. It knows that. There's no secret here. Companies should be more attentive to their employees need to prevent a problem from getting to the point where they may lose out.
Life sucks. Why should a company have it all in the bag?
Is there any room in your view of the workplace for the possibility that some employees are bad, and deliberately steal things?
I've never met an employee who was out to hurt the company. If they exist it's up to the company to figure it out. IP law was not created as a crutch for the hiring process.
how it's just as important for the employees to live up to their obligations on the job
Is there room for the possibility that many managers place unreal obligations on their subordinates in order to make themselves look good through the effort of an expendable underling?
Look. The door swings both ways. Both parties have many things to consider. The company, however, cannot expect to use IP rights as its bludgeoning stick. It'll just have to figure out a better way of solving workplace problems.
Oh, and:
Spare me the dictionary.
You're suggesting that the new guy you're trying to get to pay you a living is somehow in cahoots with the guy you're leaving?
Perhaps the computer industry simply hasn't matured to this level. Every other industry has. There's a certain amount of protectionism for the managerial staff. It has nothing to do with being in cahoots. It's a general principle: the management is never at fault in any situation which results in the loss of an employee. While this isn't (in reality) true, it is carefully guarded to protect companies from lawsuits. But if companies are so iron fisted that they don't budge an inch whne there's something obviously wrong, to the point where they may lose IP and employees, why should they be immune to a wake up call?
you don't think they should be able to look into whether or not you're a risk
Do a better job of keeping your coworkers happy. Don't ask me how unless you're going to pay me consulting fees. If you can't keep your group in a cooperative mood that's your problem. If that means that someone's decided to outright leave then the company should take a more placating role. They should not assume they can receive government backing.
When this involves millions of dollars
Deja vu. I see... I see... something about,"If it involves millions of dollars then a $250k bonus will very easily hold back someone's temper until you can work it out."
Personally, if I can't get a letter of recommendation that actually jives with a human I can talk to, I've got to wonder what someone is hiding
Indeed. So why didn't the former manager send one? Oh well. Better not hire this guy.
That's racketeering. In the absence of information, information is passed, and it's all bad about the guy who needs a job.
There's too much at stake
A single year's salary? Oh no!
Do you know how many hours that takes?
Set up a flawed system and complain it doesn't work? It's not my problem that the hiring process is completely out of order.
then the hiring process cost us several thousand dollars
So why didn't the former manager send any letter of recommendation? Man that's gotta tick that interviewee off to know that he's missing out job offers just because his old manager won't even send a letter.
You turn to the governemt (state, etc) to back you up when someone turns out to have been lying about their agreement
You can't use your government as your enforcer. The government is limited in its power. It can't enforce your artificial contract powers for you. It does not have that power.
"I own it all" IP
I'm sorry, I didn't realize your ailment. Fortunately I do not suffer from the same ailment. I treat my employer like I treat my landlord. I wouldn't do anything to violate anything unless they first had crossed the line. I give a real generous line. If they crossed it then you'd better believe they have no business coming at me. My government should be protecting me from that.
The hiring process? With letters of recommendation and reviews and corporate progress reports? That should be racketeering. The companies are free to do it, but don't be surprised if the government is standing there to enforce the citizen's right to bust up someone's social clique.
If millions of dollars were at stake, perhaps they should've tried to buy off the pissed off employee. I'm certain that something like a $250k bonus would've shut him up quick. It wouldn't have taken his rights away, but I bet a $250k bonus is enough to keep anyone happy long enough to work out whatever the problem is.
Besides. Then we'd have more "frivolous" lawsuits of all the middle-aged laborers who've gotten their butts kicked in non-union or small union shops. We'll get more guys starting bowling alleys, and hot dog stands, and pubs with good beer and decent tables... and less of these lame-o's driving around in big SUVs always thinking about the next golf course.
I'd rather have an open air pool hall than a golf course any day.
There's no way that the states can or should think through (let along legislate
At least you recognize it's not their responsibility.
IP suddenly becomes quite limited and a lot more friendly (to individual employees... maybe not above a certain level but certainly to the numerical majority of employees) when the government quits backing the corps in every decision. That's the way that it should be.
You're completely out of context. If you'd even been reading the Constitution you'd recognize the language straight out of the document.
The feds set legal precedent. Many, many years ago a federal court should've said,"Sorry. We can't rule in favor of the company because we have no jurisdiction outside the realm of protecting the original inventor, author, or creator. Case dismissed."
Just google for it... "employee agreement" "federal court" "supreme court". Mix and match the first one with the other two. Just read across all the judgements which uphold employee agreements contested by companies. Every one of those is used as precedent in cases being heard at the local and state levels. Every one of those is contributing to unfair business practices by enforcing a power that the Federal Government doesn't even have.
I treat my rental agreement like I treat my employee agreement. So far my landlords and I haven't had problems so it's never been an issue. I'll never make it an issue because I'm fair and logical and would never do wrong to my landlord unless he did something which was far beyond wrong first. Then it becomes a matter for the courts. But he has more money than I do so I'm automatically at a disadvantage unless I've been completely obsessed with keeping telephone records on every call with my landlord or visit to their office. I work for a living. Even if my landlord started screwing me over, I wouldn't waste the time compiling evidence against him. I'd get the heck out of Dodge. If he comes after me well, life sucks. He's never going to be that important to me.
Except
There is no except. I pay federal politicians to rule this land in the manner empowered to them by the Constitution. The moment they step outside of that legally empowered realm they have no further authority.
It's defining additional rights.
There are additional rights, but you cannot redefine a function without first clearing it. The states would have the power to individually encode, through their State Constitutions, amendments, and laws, additional rights retained by employers. I was speaking of the feds. Most states don't address these issues in their state charters. The individual localities (counties and cities and villages) are free to further redefine those rights within their political borders.
It's a multi-tiered government... or did everyone forget about that after the North took a big club to the Southern states?
we're talking about the nature of contract law, IP, non-disclosure agreements, and how the constitution does or doesn't apply
Please. Think for a moment. The Federal Government derives its legitimacy from the Constitution. Anything not in the Constitution, or forbidden by the Constitution to the feds, is "offtopic". Contract law and IP law, passed by the federal government, cannot violate Amendment 9. Contract law and IP law cannot enumerate the Constitution such as to grant the feds additional rights. Their rights (and responsibilities) are limited to securing to authors and inventors. Those rights cannot be transferred, sold, given up, or otherwise dictated by anyone by the original author or inventor.
And, when I get up and leave, the Constitution guarantees me the right to retain, for limited time, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. Any employment agreement which attempts to dictate what I can or can't do with my respective discoveries (such as present them in a subsequent interview) is in clear violation of the Constitution.
even as you expect other people to do what you want, or you will get "pissed off."
You didn't read the conditions. Which of those conditions listed is out of line? Why don't we talk about this until we can reach a mutually beneficial agreement?
On the one side is the innocent corporation which would never think to hold back service until the people are willing to pay through their teeth for it.
On the other side is the innocent government which would never think to render everyone's communications legally monitorable.
In the middle are all the people who don't know what the heck is going on but just want to amuse themselves on the network.
Slashdot Mirror
How much am I allowed to harass you in public?
Is it morally any different than harassing someone in private?
Consider: If these two fellas had cornered the lawyer in an elevator, pushed stop, and hit him up with lawyer jokes, could he still go running to the officer's skirts when the elevator door eventually opened?
I'll humiliate him until he goes home crying
If that happens the bar should revoke his license and I'll be entitled to a new attorney. Seriously, that's what a good portion of graduate studies are: learning how to take crap from people who don't matter to you. If this particular attorney managed to skate through on easy street with a pampered butt then he's getting what's coming to him.
you cant just stand there and insult somebody to their face and expect them not to take action
My boss did it for 4 years. Who's standing up for my rights?
they were arrested for 'being abusive and disturbing the peace'
You're just like that guy at the pub. The guy with the really obnoxious cigar. It smells like morning butt-cake. He's well within his rights to smoke it at the pub, though. What can I do? If I walk up to him and ask him politely to put out the cigar, and he does, he's going to nurture resentment for me. If I walk up to him and politely ask him to put out the cigar, and he defends his right to smoke it, then I've just wasted my time. If I walk up to him and politely ask him to put out the cigar, and he tells me to get bent, then the situation is going to get ugly. If I walk up to him and tell him to stuff his cigar in his hind end then it's going to get ugly real quick.
So... direct confrontation is ruled out because it will either be resentful, ineffective, or ugly.
I could sit across the bar and heckle the concept of a cigar while chatting with my drinking pals. That could be construed as "abusive and disturbing the peace", depending upon how clear I make it that his cigar smells like morning butt-cake. I could move to a different section of the bar where I won't smell his cigar, but then he's going to be resentful because it will be a public action which indicates that his cigar smells like butt.
So drop the "abusive and disturbing the peace" bit. Tell the lawyer to suck it up. Everyone has crap to deal with in life, and he's no different.
where I am sure you had to be there to know really what happened
Two things happened:
1) Two guys went on the same obnoxious crusade to heckle lawyers.
2) Some lawyer was humiliated when his opposition caught him crying in the bathroom.
The freedom of speech is not a freedom to be a shithead
If some hoidy-toidy lawyer down at the courthouse can't take it then tell him to close his ears. For crying out loud, what is this, kindergarten? Did he really have to go running to the teacher,"Make them stop! Make them stop!"
public nuisance
My butt. What's the legal definition for that? "Anything we want when we feel like it"?
They'll make it easy and assign full responsibility to the one guy they caught. That's why they only charged him with three movies. If the defense tries to balk at full responsibility, they'll drag out the list of the other 6000 mp3s and movies he's been connected to.
The best solution for your backup problems is to learn to prioritize. No, you don't need to save your pr0n collection. No, you don't need to save every .jpg anyone's ever sent to you. No, you don't need to save every bad joke e-mail you've ever received. No, you don't need to save... you don't need to save... don't save... don't need.
When I was young (early 20s) I saved everything. Then I had an HD crash. I started over and, several years later, my new HD inherited an unrecoverable problem. I started over and then went through a run of about 4 Western Digital Caviar drives which each lasted about one year.
So... what do I save now? As little as possible. Believe me, when you're going through your tree and say to yourself,"well... I might want to save that just in case..." do yourself a favor and hit DELETE. Anytime the word "I might" or "just in case" comes to mind, hit DELETE.
After you've reprogrammed yourself to have a sane set of backup priorities, you'll find that rsync and tar are more than adequate.
For corporate solutions... well, that's a whole different story. Then you're getting paid to feed someone else's legal paranoia. Just buy more drives.
You'd be a little bit frightened if you studied the history of FDA approved birth control treatments. Basically, when dealing with birth control treatments, pharma companies have carte blanche as long as it works and not too many women complain.
Take a cancer treatment. If a cancer treatment were like a birth control regimen, and the patient started complaining of side effects, the doctor would say,"Quit taking it."
I guess it's because it's considered a voluntary medication. Being "female" hasn't been marked as a medical ailment... at least not yet.
I guess the idea is that there are certain biochemical signaling pathways which depend on the frequency pattern of a messenger molecule interacting with a target, rather than a simple off/on response
That's why this isn't a surprise. Once people are past introductory courses in biology and biochemistry they shouldn't think it's an on/off response. If they do, they should have failed.
That's no different than saying that more light will cause a plant to grow faster. Or more sugar will raise the glycolytic cycle.
It is true that pharmacologists haven't done much experimenting with "take this pill once a day, this one once every other day, and this one once a week" but that's not because no one's thought about it. It's mostly because running the FDA trials to get approval for a multicomponent regimen are nearly impossible in terms of resources. Even pharmaceutical cocktails typically start with one drug that was approved 20 years ago, and another which was tested with it 5 years ago, and some new additive.
There is a rudimentary form of this going on. It's testing at different dosage levels. 5 mg, 10 mg, 100 mg, 500 mg. Pharmacology, specifically in ADME research, focuses quite closely on the cyclical rise and fall of the active ingredient's concentration in and around the cellular tissue of interest.
If so, you should know that amazingly little details have been worked out about why those drugs work
It's actually a little bit more hazy than that. We work out the details when developing the individual molecules, but we really stop back-checking validity once we get to whole animal models.
For example, in angiogenesis, we're targeting (typically) VEGF receptors or the proteins which interact with the VEGF receptor on the inside of the cell wall. We demonstrate a molecule which effectively inhibits the targeted enzyme in a petri dish assay, then we demonstrate that a particular cell line is inhibited in producing the proteins necessary to form endothelial lining...
Then we put the molecule in rats and, if the tumor goes down, we win. If the tumor doesn't go down, we lose. If the tumor goes down, however, we don't really bother checking if it was really a result of inhibited angiogenesis or if the overall mechanism turned out to be targeted apoptosis.
I made my group leader REAL angry one time by pointing that out. He told me to go back to school.
I'm not sure what the breakthrough is, either.
I think they're attempting to formalize, in the media, the concept that there are cyclical patterns in upregulation and downregulation of particular processes. This isn't really surprising. Cells go through life cycles and they function as steady state machines, just like computers do. It's not a surprise that there are some basic pathways which get up and downregulated on a regular basis.
Where do I see this going? Currently biochemistry maps all sorts of cellular pathways based on pharmacological application: apoptosis, necrosis, endothelial growth, or a particular process in cells such as the liver for diabetes treatments. Perhaps this is a forefront article that some researchers are beginning to put enough of those pathways together to the point where they can start to mine the database and find out which pathways are truly "key interactions" and which pathways only looked good.
Vague analogy: like mapping root-servers as opposed to studying the BIND cache of a mid-sized ISP nameserver.
You want the income that a company can give you, but you don't want the company to be able to look out for itself and its people
A company is not an author or inventor. It knows that. There's no secret here. Companies should be more attentive to their employees need to prevent a problem from getting to the point where they may lose out.
Life sucks. Why should a company have it all in the bag?
Is there any room in your view of the workplace for the possibility that some employees are bad, and deliberately steal things?
I've never met an employee who was out to hurt the company. If they exist it's up to the company to figure it out. IP law was not created as a crutch for the hiring process.
how it's just as important for the employees to live up to their obligations on the job
Is there room for the possibility that many managers place unreal obligations on their subordinates in order to make themselves look good through the effort of an expendable underling?
Look. The door swings both ways. Both parties have many things to consider. The company, however, cannot expect to use IP rights as its bludgeoning stick. It'll just have to figure out a better way of solving workplace problems.
Oh, and:
Spare me the dictionary.
You're suggesting that the new guy you're trying to get to pay you a living is somehow in cahoots with the guy you're leaving?
Perhaps the computer industry simply hasn't matured to this level. Every other industry has. There's a certain amount of protectionism for the managerial staff. It has nothing to do with being in cahoots. It's a general principle: the management is never at fault in any situation which results in the loss of an employee. While this isn't (in reality) true, it is carefully guarded to protect companies from lawsuits. But if companies are so iron fisted that they don't budge an inch whne there's something obviously wrong, to the point where they may lose IP and employees, why should they be immune to a wake up call?
you don't think they should be able to look into whether or not you're a risk
The bank has no real risk. Screw 'em.
then you have to what... hire hit men
Do a better job of keeping your coworkers happy. Don't ask me how unless you're going to pay me consulting fees. If you can't keep your group in a cooperative mood that's your problem. If that means that someone's decided to outright leave then the company should take a more placating role. They should not assume they can receive government backing.
When this involves millions of dollars
Deja vu. I see... I see... something about,"If it involves millions of dollars then a $250k bonus will very easily hold back someone's temper until you can work it out."
Personally, if I can't get a letter of recommendation that actually jives with a human I can talk to, I've got to wonder what someone is hiding
Indeed. So why didn't the former manager send one? Oh well. Better not hire this guy.
That's racketeering. In the absence of information, information is passed, and it's all bad about the guy who needs a job.
There's too much at stake
A single year's salary? Oh no!
Do you know how many hours that takes?
Set up a flawed system and complain it doesn't work? It's not my problem that the hiring process is completely out of order.
then the hiring process cost us several thousand dollars
So why didn't the former manager send any letter of recommendation? Man that's gotta tick that interviewee off to know that he's missing out job offers just because his old manager won't even send a letter.
You turn to the governemt (state, etc) to back you up when someone turns out to have been lying about their agreement
You can't use your government as your enforcer. The government is limited in its power. It can't enforce your artificial contract powers for you. It does not have that power.
"I own it all" IP
I'm sorry, I didn't realize your ailment. Fortunately I do not suffer from the same ailment. I treat my employer like I treat my landlord. I wouldn't do anything to violate anything unless they first had crossed the line. I give a real generous line. If they crossed it then you'd better believe they have no business coming at me. My government should be protecting me from that.
The hiring process? With letters of recommendation and reviews and corporate progress reports? That should be racketeering. The companies are free to do it, but don't be surprised if the government is standing there to enforce the citizen's right to bust up someone's social clique.
But when millions of dollars are at stake
If millions of dollars were at stake, perhaps they should've tried to buy off the pissed off employee. I'm certain that something like a $250k bonus would've shut him up quick. It wouldn't have taken his rights away, but I bet a $250k bonus is enough to keep anyone happy long enough to work out whatever the problem is.
Besides. Then we'd have more "frivolous" lawsuits of all the middle-aged laborers who've gotten their butts kicked in non-union or small union shops. We'll get more guys starting bowling alleys, and hot dog stands, and pubs with good beer and decent tables... and less of these lame-o's driving around in big SUVs always thinking about the next golf course.
I'd rather have an open air pool hall than a golf course any day.
There's no way that the states can or should think through (let along legislate
At least you recognize it's not their responsibility.
IP suddenly becomes quite limited and a lot more friendly (to individual employees... maybe not above a certain level but certainly to the numerical majority of employees) when the government quits backing the corps in every decision. That's the way that it should be.
Quoting slip.
You're completely out of context. If you'd even been reading the Constitution you'd recognize the language straight out of the document.
The feds set legal precedent. Many, many years ago a federal court should've said,"Sorry. We can't rule in favor of the company because we have no jurisdiction outside the realm of protecting the original inventor, author, or creator. Case dismissed."
Just google for it... "employee agreement" "federal court" "supreme court". Mix and match the first one with the other two. Just read across all the judgements which uphold employee agreements contested by companies. Every one of those is used as precedent in cases being heard at the local and state levels. Every one of those is contributing to unfair business practices by enforcing a power that the Federal Government doesn't even have.
rent an apartment
I treat my rental agreement like I treat my employee agreement. So far my landlords and I haven't had problems so it's never been an issue. I'll never make it an issue because I'm fair and logical and would never do wrong to my landlord unless he did something which was far beyond wrong first. Then it becomes a matter for the courts. But he has more money than I do so I'm automatically at a disadvantage unless I've been completely obsessed with keeping telephone records on every call with my landlord or visit to their office. I work for a living. Even if my landlord started screwing me over, I wouldn't waste the time compiling evidence against him. I'd get the heck out of Dodge. If he comes after me well, life sucks. He's never going to be that important to me.
Except
There is no except. I pay federal politicians to rule this land in the manner empowered to them by the Constitution. The moment they step outside of that legally empowered realm they have no further authority.
It's defining additional rights.
There are additional rights, but you cannot redefine a function without first clearing it. The states would have the power to individually encode, through their State Constitutions, amendments, and laws, additional rights retained by employers. I was speaking of the feds. Most states don't address these issues in their state charters. The individual localities (counties and cities and villages) are free to further redefine those rights within their political borders.
It's a multi-tiered government... or did everyone forget about that after the North took a big club to the Southern states?
we're talking about the nature of contract law, IP, non-disclosure agreements, and how the constitution does or doesn't apply
Please. Think for a moment. The Federal Government derives its legitimacy from the Constitution. Anything not in the Constitution, or forbidden by the Constitution to the feds, is "offtopic". Contract law and IP law, passed by the federal government, cannot violate Amendment 9. Contract law and IP law cannot enumerate the Constitution such as to grant the feds additional rights. Their rights (and responsibilities) are limited to securing to authors and inventors. Those rights cannot be transferred, sold, given up, or otherwise dictated by anyone by the original author or inventor.
you have the right to get up and leave.
And, when I get up and leave, the Constitution guarantees me the right to retain, for limited time, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. Any employment agreement which attempts to dictate what I can or can't do with my respective discoveries (such as present them in a subsequent interview) is in clear violation of the Constitution.
even as you expect other people to do what you want, or you will get "pissed off."
You didn't read the conditions. Which of those conditions listed is out of line? Why don't we talk about this until we can reach a mutually beneficial agreement?
How would you write a contract
I wouldn't.
That's why you and I can write up a contract between us however we both see fit.
You cannot give up a Constitutionally guaranteed right in a contract. Anyone who believes you can just bought the Brooklyn Bridge, a second time.
I've worked... I've just... I live... barely covers... barely survived... we get no... no raises.... I work... It's a fiercely competitive industry...
Wah.
I noticed you chickened out and didn't respond to my last question
It takes you so long between posts that I came back to it after a cup of tea and a few moments of thought.
On the one side is the innocent corporation which would never think to hold back service until the people are willing to pay through their teeth for it.
On the other side is the innocent government which would never think to render everyone's communications legally monitorable.
In the middle are all the people who don't know what the heck is going on but just want to amuse themselves on the network.