> Time to patent my own stuff: > Description: generic device that makes people happy, feel good, have a good sex life, > be smarter, stronger and have any benefit anyone could ever have hoped for. > Prior art: none
The company I work for had a clause in the offer saying that they own everything that I do as long as I am employed there.
I asked for clarifications. Did they claim all rights to any piece of music, art or literature I might produce at home during the weekends and if so, did they intend to treat it as a "work for hire" and compensate me for the time I spent on it? Not really? OK. What about software I wrote before I came to work for them and might continue working on, or open source projects I may contribute to, on my free time?
At the end they told me that the intent was to have a some sort of do-not-screw-us-over-while-you-work-for-us clause but legal insisted on the current format to cover all angles of their collective asses and they are not willing to change or amend it.
I said fine, just give me a signed letter saying that you do not claim any rights for any work I do that: (a) was not done on company time, (b) did not involve company equipment, and (c) did not compete with any products the company developed or sold at the time.
I did say that it was quite important to me and, indirectly to them (because they will get an employee who is trying to improve himself outside of his immediate job interests).
They agreed, so I signed the offer, expecting to get that letter in a short order.
After a month or so, I got that letter. The language was very straightforward and pretty similar to what I suggested.... and we lived happily ever after.
> No more than physical property is. Or Government. Or speed limits.
Not really.
Physical property - you can be deprived of it.
Government - a (potentially) useful construct to help coordinate a large group of people acting as a unit.
Speed limits - a method that allows said goverment to either lower the chance of the people it "governs" to get smashed into a bloody pulp or, alternatively, to enrich its coffers (depends on how reasonable those limits are).
Intellectual "property", on the other hand, is a ridiculous attempt to own ideas. Note that various concepts like patents and copyrights are about granting limited exclusivity on the implementation and/or presentation of these ideas (for the sole purpose of enriching the public domain by providing incentives to create), not about "ownership".
The difference may seem insignificant but it is not.
In effect, society tells you that if you create a new toy, you will be the first to play with it for a while but then it goes into the common box so all the other kids can enjoy it as well. Now, if the original ideas were adhered to, then whoever does not "play nice" with the toys (e.g., patenting a concept only to sue those that try to actually implement it), would get their hands slapped and the toy taken away by the nursery teacher (the abovementioned government).
Unfortunately, some people find it advantageous to twist the original meaning in order to limit the flow of ideas into the public domain to a mere trickle. Some of these people were smart individuals who realized that by controling language, one can control perception and thought. Thus, time-limited distribution rights turned into "property", copyright infringement became "theft", illegal distribution (and sometimes legal sharing) were referred to as "piracy"... All in an effort to keep as much as possible in the hands of as few as possible for as long as possible.
Therefore, while I acknowledge that copyrights, patents, etc. can have a positive role in the modern society, I stand by my assertion that intellectual _property_ is a fiction.
> It's becoming more and more obvious that they don't represent us, the > consumers, at all, but represent purely the rights holders... which is all > the more annoying as the rights they have are only supposed to have been > granted for a short period and the content is supposed to revert to public > ownership. It's about time the balance was tipped back towards a far fairer > term in which they have to recoup their "investment"...
It's about time the whole "IP" idea is taken out and shot.
The creators/originators are only granted some limited and temporary exclusive rights, they do not "own" the ideas. Ideas cannot be anyone's "property".
Be polite but firm, let them know that you consider the issue to be of extreme importance and it will be the main factor to influence your voting decisions (although senators are not elected, they do have party affiliations).
Unless you are proactive in these matters, don't be surprised if your fair use rights disappear.
Slashdot Mirror
> Freedom, Equality, lots of Beer and Sex, or Death!
That sounds more like Canada.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité, ou la mort!
Rings a bell?
"All your base are belong to us!"
(*) Accept
( ) Do not accept
> There code , there license
There cave, there bear, Og go cave, Og kill bear, Og eat bear, Og rest, Og write GPL 3.0 !
Unfortunately, all budget LCD screens with 20ms response times have 6-bit panels and use dithering to approximate colours.
> Crack Found in Shuttle Tank
I am sure it was planted.
> Time to patent my own stuff:
> Description: generic device that makes people happy, feel good, have a good sex life,
> be smarter, stronger and have any benefit anyone could ever have hoped for.
> Prior art: none
Correction:
Prior art: Aldos Huxley's Brave New World
Nice try anyway.
Tasp
> Codehaus is a similar site with a lot of cool stuff.
There's also boost for C++ developers. It is not a large repository but it contains important building blocks.
I wonder if there is any decent code repository for
> I switched my party affiliation from Republican to Democrat this year.
So you switched your affiliation from Kang to Kodos?
Congratulations... I guess.
> the kettle doesn't fall far from the black pot tree
Don't look a mixed metaphore in the mouth.
Baghdad court says that occupying coalition forces must pay Iraqi taxes.
> We don't need you prostate subjects, you just screw the whole thing up
> for everyone with your worshipping of the government [...]
The goverment seems to fail to ensure equal access to education but, luckily, slashdot can rectify that.
The subject of today's lesson is the difference between prostate and prostrate.
Bye bye private copying.
> "For life"
Customer: Um, the computer I gought from you died.
Sales Dude: What kind of warranty did it come with?
Customer: Lifetime.
Sales Dude: Well, since it died, the warranty has expired.
> Hatch is a psychopath.
No, Hatch is an honest politician (at least according to Heinlein's definition of the term).
I have committed an unforgivale sin of posting to this discussion while still having mod points.
Therefore I must suffer horrible torment for my inability to mod the parent post "+1 insightful".
My only hope is that some untainted soul may correct my mistake by taking upon themselves the holy mission of moderating post #11992763 up.
> In theory a democracy would never have a law that would make most of it's voters into criminals.
> It would be quite disfunctional...
Speeding?
The company I work for had a clause in the offer saying that they own everything that I do as long as I am employed there.
I asked for clarifications.
Did they claim all rights to any piece of music, art or literature I might produce at home during the weekends and if so, did they intend to treat it as a "work for hire" and compensate me for the time I spent on it? Not really? OK.
What about software I wrote before I came to work for them and might continue working on, or open source projects I may contribute to, on my free time?
At the end they told me that the intent was to have a some sort of do-not-screw-us-over-while-you-work-for-us clause but legal insisted on the current format to cover all angles of their collective asses and they are not willing to change or amend it.
I said fine, just give me a signed letter saying that you do not claim any rights for any work I do that:
(a) was not done on company time,
(b) did not involve company equipment, and
(c) did not compete with any products the company developed or sold at the time.
I did say that it was quite important to me and, indirectly to them (because they will get an employee who is trying to improve himself outside of his immediate job interests).
They agreed, so I signed the offer, expecting to get that letter in a short order.
After a month or so, I got that letter. The language was very straightforward and pretty similar to what I suggested.
Which brings me to the question:
What are the (dis?)advantages of running the FF/TB couple as opposed to the Mozilla suite?
or I'll hit you with my peg leg and sic my parrot on you!
> No more than physical property is. Or Government. Or speed limits.
Not really.
Physical property - you can be deprived of it.
Government - a (potentially) useful construct to help coordinate a large group of people acting as a unit.
Speed limits - a method that allows said goverment to either lower the chance of the people it "governs" to get smashed into a bloody pulp or, alternatively, to enrich its coffers (depends on how reasonable those limits are).
Intellectual "property", on the other hand, is a ridiculous attempt to own ideas. Note that various concepts like patents and copyrights are about granting limited exclusivity on the implementation and/or presentation of these ideas (for the sole purpose of enriching the public domain by providing incentives to create), not about "ownership".
The difference may seem insignificant but it is not.
In effect, society tells you that if you create a new toy, you will be the first to play with it for a while but then it goes into the common box so all the other kids can enjoy it as well. Now, if the original ideas were adhered to, then whoever does not "play nice" with the toys (e.g., patenting a concept only to sue those that try to actually implement it), would get their hands slapped and the toy taken away by the nursery teacher (the abovementioned government).
Unfortunately, some people find it advantageous to twist the original meaning in order to limit the flow of ideas into the public domain to a mere trickle.
Some of these people were smart individuals who realized that by controling language, one can control perception and thought. Thus, time-limited distribution rights turned into "property", copyright infringement became "theft", illegal distribution (and sometimes legal sharing) were referred to as "piracy"... All in an effort to keep as much as possible in the hands of as few as possible for as long as possible.
Therefore, while I acknowledge that copyrights, patents, etc. can have a positive role in the modern society, I stand by my assertion that intellectual _property_ is a fiction.
> This, of course, completely ignores the basic ideas of property,
> including intellectual property [...]
"intellectual property" is a figment of your imagination.
> It's becoming more and more obvious that they don't represent us, the
> consumers, at all, but represent purely the rights holders... which is all
> the more annoying as the rights they have are only supposed to have been
> granted for a short period and the content is supposed to revert to public
> ownership. It's about time the balance was tipped back towards a far fairer
> term in which they have to recoup their "investment"...
It's about time the whole "IP" idea is taken out and shot.
The creators/originators are only granted some limited and temporary exclusive rights, they do not "own" the ideas. Ideas cannot be anyone's "property".
is to fight for them.
While you're at it, hop over to the CIPO site and check what other wonderful "initiatives" they have (hint: Patent Law Harmonization with the US).
Then head over to IPP and read their report on copyright reform, or hop over to other parts of strategis and read about the Copyright Reform Process
Canadians have taken their government for granted for far too long, it's time to remind them that they answer to the people, not the corporations.
Bug your Members of Parliament (find yours).
Bug the Senators too.
Be polite but firm, let them know that you consider the issue to be of extreme importance and it will be the main factor to influence your voting decisions (although senators are not elected, they do have party affiliations).
Unless you are proactive in these matters, don't be surprised if your fair use rights disappear.