>I can only guess what is meant by "repurpose," use again in any way? Now
>surely it has to be "in some way connected with the employee's work for
>the money." I don't think, for example, that if I wrote a paper or a line
>of code before signing on, then reuse (some of it) it on my own time, not
>using any company facilities, and not in any way connected to my job, that
>they could make it stick that they owned it. But I'd be damn careful that
>I didn't use the company laptop!
right. back when i wrote security articles for linux.com, let's say that i owned the copyright as a freelancer. (I don't b/c i signed an agreement that it was work for hire, but let's say i did.) If i took that article for which i own the copyright, and then write a variation on the article for this company, they want to own it by virtue of signing the agreement.
now, if in my spare time, i repurpose articles to sell to another magazine, that's my business. they only care if it is something i do as part of my job -- and i'd agree that you probably shouldn't use company laptop even so, just to be on safe side. :)
by repurpose, i mean (in case of an article) doing something like updating it. i just read an article you wrote, which was floating around for some reason. in it, you used an example that was timely 10 yrs ago. repurpose would mean update the example to something more timely today and republish. or something.
i say repurpose because most IT stuff is invariably going to be tweaked or changed slightly to work in another environment. things change so quickly that something you wrote a year ago will have to be updated for any number of reasons. but the basic point was the basic underlying structure of how the code works or how the article is laid out, the structure of argument or persuasion or training will basically be the same.
(BTW and IIRC, html and css code cannot be copyrighted anyway; but there is some dispute about that, as with all things IP. again, only a vague memory.)
> > we have to provide a list of everything we think we owned
> > prior to
> > employment, as well as any "inventions" etc that
> > we've since made but are
> > not something we made on company time. and people are like,
> > why? why do
> > they care?
>
>I wonder about whether the company could make it stick that the employee
>has waived ownership rights to anything not included on such a list if the
>employee even thinks about it while in the company's employ. I mean. if I
>were an evil company lawyer (as I've been) I might include such a clause
>in the contract, and some judges might uphold it, but others might not.
yeah. the smart thing for the company attorneys to do is hedge their bets.
> > which doesn't seem to be a big deal to me. they are
> > giving warning: don't
> > give us your repurposed shit and then expect you own it
> > later. we
> > do.
>
>That's what I'd say. But actually it is sort of dumb of them. Suppose I
>had X idea before began my employ. I forgot to include it on the list.
>While in the employ of the company problem Y arises. X would be the
>perfect fix. If I am rational, am I going to use X? I am not. I might
>reverse engineer a kludge to get around it so that the company would not
>own X, but then the company is the loser. It is denying itself the
>initiative of its employees, who, instead of trying to solve the company's
>problems, are instead thinking about how to protect their own property.
yup. R and i were just talking about how i could explain all this to a mentor-friend (the guy who called me intense recently). Guy was in military -- career guy. now, in military, they have this thing where the .mil will share a percentage with you if you create something. so, they get bulk of benefit *and* encourage people to participate in what the .mil calls the bennie-sug -- beneficial suggestion program.
both entities are trying to reach similar goals, it's just the .mil (perhaps b/c of government $$ issues) are doing it in a way that encourages people to share their ideas, rather than quashing any thought of it.
which is kind of interesting when you think about it. all those folks who naysay government, well.... that actually seems like a better approach than private biz.
>Of course the company may bet, or know, that most tekkies are not rational
>and will not do what I just described, but will just use X, thus handing
>it over to the company.
*lurch moan* i have been chomping at bit to try to explain all the ways techies are not rational lately. my mouth is permanently agape at some of the things people will just look at in a surface way and not really ask the questions that matter. but another story. another BIG LONG story.
> don't try to sue us if we end up making money on
> > that repurposed
> > article. we own it and any claim you might have had,
> > you're giving away and
> > transferring ownership, patent, trademark, and copyright to
> > us. thanks!
> >
> > message: never give em repurposed stuff you think you own.
> > if you want them
> > to have it, don't repurpose on their time. off to sell
> > it to them!
>
>
>A it's a wise tekkie that know her own employer and can read a contract.
had a lotta help from my friends. all knowledge is social knowledge! ownership? :)
> >
> > the non-compete is pretty straightforward: don't try to
> > get hired or help
> > anyone else get hired by one of our competitors for 1 year
> > after termination.
> >
> > this is a problem because company is constantly buying out
> > other small
> > companies. they own stuff people never heard of. i could be
> > trying to get
> > hired by someone they consider a competitor, simply because
> > i have no idea
> > they own some company that's sort of languishing. i
> > could discover say,
> > that i suspect most of their business is about everything
> > to do with
> > washing dishes, and never know that they have some little
> > rinky dink thing
> > that is all about vacuuming rugs. i go to work for a
> > competitor of the
> > vacuuming rugs subsidiary and i'm in breach of
> > contract. and, of course, i
> > have to pay all attorney fees.
>
>The usual rule is a noncompete's gotta be reasonable. If you are not on
>notice that the new employer is a competitor, you might have a case that
>it's not reasonable. Also it's often limited to the scope of employment,
>so if the new job is doing something totally different from the job
>governed by the noncompete, it's arguably not barred even if subsidiary of
>the original employer happens do do this different thing.
yup. that makes sense. the company will want to try a lot of scary things but... what is really at issue, most of the time, is that the employee doesn't usually have the wherewithal to fight it. and, IP law is so complicated and you have to do so much educating of judges, that it's a rare IP law firm that will want to push anything where not much is at stake. that was my experience anyway.
> >
> > do you think that one thing they could do is hire an
> > attorney, at their
> > expense (our choice), to collectively tell us what's up
> > with it? it would
> > go a long way toward keeping a little peace at work, cause
> > the fact is, a
> > lot of people are horked off about this, because they
> > don't understand it
> > and have all kinds of wild ideas. e.g., they think that, if
> > they have a
> > company on the side that's about web and graphic
> > design, then the employer
> > will sue them down the road.
>
>Well, if they want to avoid lawsuits and discord they certainly should
>explain to you as clearly as possible what the contractual rights of the
>parties are.
>
>There are ethical problems with the employees paying for a lawyer
>representing the company to tell them employees what the company thinks
>the contract means.
could the employer pay a third party law firm though? i mean, i really think it would be in their interest to fork out a little cash. my guess is that they are going to lose about 20% of the staff because of this. right now, 90% will say they won't sign it. they're pissed. but when push comes to shove and you've got bills to pay, i'm guessing that this rate will drop to 20%. that's still pretty bad though.
>I certainly would not accept that job. It looks to me like a conflict of
>interest. The company should have its own lawyers, paid for by the
>company, do this. The employees might well hire their own lawyers,
>representing them, the em ployees, to read the contract for them ands tell
>them what they think it means and how enforceable it is,
yeah. i was thinking we should pool our money, hire a firm and have a two hour pow wow or something. but, although ppl twigged to that idea, i could smell the fear. people are afraid, i think, of appearing to be grouping together to fight something. they'll hire their own attorney, but they chafe at the thought of doing anything collectively.
interesting huh?
> >
> > the other thing that scares them is the remedies section
> > that if you do or
> > they get wind that you might do something to breach
> > contract, then they
> > cannot possibly put a price tag on the damage it will cause
> > and, therefore,
> > they can put a restraining order on you without warning.
>
>Yes. Normally breach or threatened breach
>
>of a noncompete or a nondisclosure agreement will warrant injunctive
>relief (even though all the company stands to lose is money), I know it
>sounds stupid, that is pretty much the law in almost all jurisdictions of
>which I am aware.
> >
> > obviously, they want to be able to slap a restraining order
> > on your freedom
> > of speech immediately without having to show a judge that
> > you are harming
> > them financially in order to get said restraining order.
>
>Not exactly. To get injunctive relief in general, the company has to show
>that it will suffer damages that no specific amount of money will
>compensate for.
yeah. that is what this said in the agreement. "we can't possibly put a price tag on how badly someone would harm this company if they tried to work for competitor or wanted to make a parody of this doc and post it at fuckedcompany.com. as a consequence, we will stop them from speaking or working immediately, no warning."
talk about dwama! and this kind of language-- because this was in all caps -- was what was scary to folks. but it was also what made people laugh ruefully. honestly, this company? they can't put a price tag on the hurt they'll be in if i take my lousy php skillz down the road or mock them in public? huh?
>If they could ballpark how much they were hurt, they would fail to satisfy
>the requirements for injunctive relief, irreparable injury and no remedy
>at law, which means money won't make them whole.
ahhh. so.
>Of course money would make them whole, but the courts in general pretend not.
>
> > and, as i
> > understand it, it's pretty hard to get such a thing if
> > it limits someone's
> > ability to make a living. hence the eager desire to get you
> > to give it all
> > up now!
>
>Yes. In general if a noncompete essentially bars you from employment in
>your field and prevents you from working as tekkie doing X, it will not be
>considered reasonable. However the company may be able to enforce an
>agreement reasonable limited in time and space, and it can certainly
>enforce a nondisclosure agreement.
alrighty then. yeah. i'll visit an attorney. the guy i love from my last go round practices in this state, so i'm a happy camper in that regard. will give me an excuse to go to d.c. soon. whee.
shag