Dan Brown is smart. The movie based on the NYT continuing best-seller is due out soon. How can he make sure the movie does as well as the book?
Dan Brown: "Is Michael Baigent in please?
Michael Baigent: "Yes Mr. Brown?"
Dan Brown: "Could you perhaps see you way clear to sue me?"
Michael Baigent: "I don't see why; your book has done wonders for our book ("Holy Blood, Holy Grail"). We'd be crazy to sue you after you helped our sales so much!
Dan Brown: "That's why I wnat you to sue me! The movie is coming out soon, and I'm worried that it won't do as well as it could with a bit more publicity. What we need is another media blitz like happened after the book came out; all the attachs were the kind of publicity you can't buy at any price, and they made my book what it is."
Michael Baigent: "But what can we sue you over? Your book borrowed some ideas from the same sources we used; what can we sue you for?"
Dan Brown: "It doesn't matter! Sue me for plagairism, or whatever. If you win, my publisher will pay out millions but they can afford it, between insurance and the increased ticket sales for the movie. If you lose, your book will still benefit by being connected to the movie. Either way, you'll get a lot of money and I'll get a lot of money.
Any company that did NOT immediately cut off your computer access would be worthy of respect and support, regardless of the resignation. A company that terminates your access is not only preventing you from doing it harm, it is also preventing you from turning over your work officially to others, and to communicate with others in that two-week time frame exactly how to carry on without you.
Companies that terminate you immediately upon giving notice force a potential resignee to go underground earlier, doing whatever damage they choose to do before the notice is given, and if I worked for such a company and was expecting the kind of abrupt treatment you got, I would be tempted a bit more to do harm in that process. I would also not care about turning over my workload to someone else and not care whether others in the company were informed about my work and becoming ready to step in to handle it.
While it may be consistent with current "professional" IP management to immediately cut off access, it's ultimately a self-defeating policy that will have the opposite effect than is intended: If the policy is an attempt to curb employee retaliation against the company, it produces the opposite effect, increasing employee dissatisfaction and preventing efficient turn-over of responsibilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Dan Brown is smart. The movie based on the NYT continuing best-seller is due out soon. How can he make sure the movie does as well as the book?
Dan Brown: "Is Michael Baigent in please?
Michael Baigent: "Yes Mr. Brown?"
Dan Brown: "Could you perhaps see you way clear to sue me?"
Michael Baigent: "I don't see why; your book has done wonders for our book ("Holy Blood, Holy Grail"). We'd be crazy to sue you after you helped our sales so much!
Dan Brown: "That's why I wnat you to sue me! The movie is coming out soon, and I'm worried that it won't do as well as it could with a bit more publicity. What we need is another media blitz like happened after the book came out; all the attachs were the kind of publicity you can't buy at any price, and they made my book what it is."
Michael Baigent: "But what can we sue you over? Your book borrowed some ideas from the same sources we used; what can we sue you for?"
Dan Brown: "It doesn't matter! Sue me for plagairism, or whatever. If you win, my publisher will pay out millions but they can afford it, between insurance and the increased ticket sales for the movie. If you lose, your book will still benefit by being connected to the movie. Either way, you'll get a lot of money and I'll get a lot of money.
Michael Baigent: "OK, who do I call....."
Any company that did NOT immediately cut off your computer access would be worthy of respect and support, regardless of the resignation. A company that terminates your access is not only preventing you from doing it harm, it is also preventing you from turning over your work officially to others, and to communicate with others in that two-week time frame exactly how to carry on without you. Companies that terminate you immediately upon giving notice force a potential resignee to go underground earlier, doing whatever damage they choose to do before the notice is given, and if I worked for such a company and was expecting the kind of abrupt treatment you got, I would be tempted a bit more to do harm in that process. I would also not care about turning over my workload to someone else and not care whether others in the company were informed about my work and becoming ready to step in to handle it. While it may be consistent with current "professional" IP management to immediately cut off access, it's ultimately a self-defeating policy that will have the opposite effect than is intended: If the policy is an attempt to curb employee retaliation against the company, it produces the opposite effect, increasing employee dissatisfaction and preventing efficient turn-over of responsibilities.