Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="resistor" data-source="post: 4023301" data-attributes="member: 9142">Patently false.&nbsp; I work as a computer programmer for a major silicon valley corporation.&nbsp; Like many of their engineering employees, I like to work on side projects in my free time, many of which I put up for free on the internet.&nbsp; Obviously my employer has concerns about me suing them if they ever produce something similar to my works by coincidence, and also if I were produce something similar to their existing work through proprietary knowledge.And you know what?&nbsp; My contract contains an explicit section to address precisely these issues.&nbsp; It defines precisely what work that I do belongs to the company, what work the company has an implicit stake in (mostly work done on company time or company equipment), and what work that I do they can't touch without my permission.&nbsp; My employer certainly could have said &quot;All work you do while employed by us is ours.&quot; (though I probably would have refused to sign it).&nbsp; Instead, they invested some money in getting the legal team to write up terms for their specific needs.Now, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to make an attempt to write legalese for Gleemax.&nbsp; However, I've now presented two cases of IP licenses for the protection of a corporation (MySpace and my employer) where limited, specific grants are used rather than unilateral ones.&nbsp; What evidence do you have that it CANNOT be done?Actually, that's not what I said.&nbsp; I said the situation OS security and police arrests, which it is.&nbsp; I suggested that the solution was like MySpace's solution, which amounts to investing some lawyer hours in coming up with a tighter contract.Probably true, though many have pointed out that that is also the case for the current terms as well.And I can honestly say that I have no particular fear of them stealing my ideas.&nbsp; I highly doubt I would ever produce anything valuable enough to steal.&nbsp; However, I absolutely refuse to sign rights over to them that they do not NEED.EDIT: To be less inflammatory.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="resistor, post: 4023301, member: 9142"] Patently false. I work as a computer programmer for a major silicon valley corporation. Like many of their engineering employees, I like to work on side projects in my free time, many of which I put up for free on the internet. Obviously my employer has concerns about me suing them if they ever produce something similar to my works by coincidence, and also if I were produce something similar to their existing work through proprietary knowledge. And you know what? My contract contains an explicit section to address precisely these issues. It defines precisely what work that I do belongs to the company, what work the company has an implicit stake in (mostly work done on company time or company equipment), and what work that I do they can't touch without my permission. My employer certainly could have said "All work you do while employed by us is ours." (though I probably would have refused to sign it). Instead, they invested some money in getting the legal team to write up terms for their specific needs. Now, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to make an attempt to write legalese for Gleemax. However, I've now presented two cases of IP licenses for the protection of a corporation (MySpace and my employer) where limited, specific grants are used rather than unilateral ones. What evidence do you have that it CANNOT be done? Actually, that's not what I said. I said the [I]situation[/I] OS security and police arrests, which it is. I suggested that the [I]solution[/I] was like MySpace's solution, which amounts to investing some lawyer hours in coming up with a tighter contract. Probably true, though many have pointed out that that is also the case for the current terms as well. And I can honestly say that I have no particular fear of them stealing my ideas. I highly doubt I would ever produce anything valuable enough to steal. However, I absolutely refuse to sign rights over to them that they do not NEED. EDIT: To be less inflammatory. [/QUOTE]

Verification