Apple Claims Ownership of Shareware 759
(54)T-Dub writes "Cricket Media recently released 'Netflix Fanatic', an OSX based shareware app that lets you manage your rental queue without logging on to Netflix. An article on Think Secret reveals the reason behind it's mysterious disappearance. Apparently the developer's employer, Apple, has claimed ownership over the application's name and source code. The developer claims that under Section 2870 of the California Labor Code this is illegal. The law states that if a company has an employment agreement with provisions saying employees must assign the rights of their inventions to their employer, those sections do not apply if the employee developed it on his or her own time, without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information. Within Apple, there's unsubstantiated speculation that Apple wants to include the Netflix Fanatic code in a new version of Sherlock." Also, they're presumably not too worried with employee morale.
Apple, what's your problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, I don't think they said "Please?"
Re:Apple, what's your problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Apple, what's your problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Employee morale?
Not looking like assholes in public?
An action like this can easily undo millions of dollars spent on public relations, especially when their whole company message is about being "different" and not the faceless, corportate company so many other computer businesses have become...so in the end doing this may cost them much more than just buying the code off the employee would have.
Re:Apple, what's your problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, if the guy really developed the code at his house, on personal time and this project isn't competing againt business opportunities of his employer, he should have legal right to the code. If the case is not as clear-cut, Apple has every right to do what it can to gain legal right on what might be theirs.
Put the shoe on the other foot... (Score:5, Insightful)
He "owns" that code (and maybe some computers too).
Did he commit the crime? Or did Apple Corp. commit the crime? After all, they own his ass and everything he does or creates, they have the right to financially exploit his artwork, code, writings or anything else. That means he should not get in trouble and Apple Corp. should.
Sorry, but no company owns anything not directly related to the job without prior written contractual agreement (and additional financial compenstation). Anything less is slavery, and as my example above should prove it's also obsurd.
Apple is a big company, so I suppose they have their fair share of clueless lawyers and PHBs so moronic attempts to trample on people's individual rights can be expected.
That doesn't mean they are any less a bunch of assholes for the attempt though. The assholes.
Re:Put the shoe on the other foot... (Score:4, Informative)
Except that such contracts contravene most state and federal labor laws. And, if you read the original Slashdot article, or the original web site describing the dispute (which the author of Netflix Fanatic took down recently), you'd know that Apple is probably in the wrong, as they appear to be violating California labor law. Granted, I am not a lawyer, and I don't have all the facts (and neither do you), but such broad contracts assigning all of an employee's IP to their employer are in fact illegal in many areas. That doesn't stop employers from putting such clauses into contracts, but it doesn't make them valid or enforceable either. Quite the opposite.
Stop rubber-stamping legal abuses by corporate lawyers!
RTF Law. Looks like Apple DOES own it. (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you read the law BEYOND the part that was quoted, you'll see that the mandatory exclusion of transfer of rights DOESN'T cover this situation.
This work would appear to "relate at the time [...] to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer". Apple does consumer multi-media software apps for their own platform. An app to "manage rented media queues" would seem to most reasonable people to be clearly "related" to that business.
The inventor can protest all he wants that it was done on his own time with his own tools and it doesn't matter. Unless he can convince a judge or jury otherwise, 2870. (a) 1 says that 2870. (a) doesn't apply. So his contract to assign his inventions to Apple is valid.
Apple's view is that they already PAID him for this program. If they let him give it away when they could be selling it (or sitting on it for their own business reasons), they're not just letting him take something that they paid him for. They're also jepoardizing their ownership of EVERYTHING ELSE they paid their employees to do. So why are they paying all these people all this money?
Sounds to me like the situation is this:
1) Guy builds a neat software app and, misunderstanding the situation or thinking that Apple is not interested, thinks it's allright to release and/or sell it on his own.
2) Apple says "Wait a minute! We paid you to give stuff like that to US!"
3) Guy says "Oops! You're right!" and pulls the app.
4) Media finds this out and mentions it.
5) Slashdot reader doesn't recognize that the exception in 2870 (a) 1 applies, so he thinks that it's an assault on open source and composes a post saying so.
6) Slashdot editor posts the new item essentially verbatim.
and the flap is on.
2870. is the engine of California's hi-tek booms. By letting inventors keep and develop inventions that are outside their employers' interests and non-competing, it promotes an explosion of inventiveness and startups. But it falls short of giving workers the right to develop potentially competing works that their employer didn't explicitly assign them to create or doesn't wish to pursue at the moment, and didn't give them PERMISSION to take back. Some would even argue that this is deliberate, a necesary provision to avoid killing the succeeding generations of geese just as they start laying the golden eggs.
So let's not misconstrue the law. If the developer decides to press his claim and can show in court that the exception applies, it's his. If he doesn't or can't, it's Apple's. And if you don't like it, get the law changed.
Not so fast... (Score:5, Insightful)
So let's ask some simple questions.
If Apple can't demonstrate either of these things, it's hard to argue that they already paid him for the work, in which case the guy appears to have a legitimate grievance.
Legally speaking, the phrase "the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer" seems to place the burden of proof firmly on Apple: they have to show that they were doing, or definitely going to do, something along the same lines.
At this point, it's up to the legal system to interpret the relevant law given the specifics of the case. Of course, whether one man can hope to fight a legion of Apple lawyers within the current legal climate of the US is a different question, but the theory is sound.
Re:RTF Law. Looks like Apple DOES own it. (Score:4, Informative)
Except that I spoke to the shareware author for this app back when this started weeks ago (before Slashdot picked this up, before the Netflix Fanatic website got recently altered to omit mention of the specific laws), and the author never said, "Oops! You're right!" He pulled the application pending negotiations with his employer's legal department. At the time, I had no idea this guy was working for Apple.
Paraphrasing from the private e-mail that Cricket (the shareware app's author) gave me, he said his employer was making their claims based on 2870 (a) 1, but that this was a sham, and they had no interest other than in putting the application on a shelf and never doing anything with it. Therefore, they're in the wrong. Since the author can't afford to fight this for several reasons, justice will not prevail.
Re:Apple, what's your problem? (Score:3, Flamebait)
Let's do an experiment!
Substitute Apple with Microsoft and we'll see how many people would be screaming then!. Just because the company is called Apple and is viewed as something like a saint in the community, people go out on a limb to make up excuses for them. Wake up! Just because theire boxes are considered sexy, doesn't make them A-OK. I will never ever ow
Re:Apple, what's your problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
to people like us, we see it as a violation of an employees right to own what he does on his own time. But to the other 90%, in a court case, it would appear the employee was trying to steal from Apple was was rightfully owned by Apple. I don't think a case like this will effect marketshare at all.
IANAL, but no employer has ever won a court case on these IP agreements, even when the software was developed for the company on company time and on company computers. In this case, it is certainly not a "work for hire" because Apple did not ask him to develop this software or anything like it. It was also developed on his own time and with his own equipment. If this developer hired a lawyer, Apple would not have a leg to stand on.
Of course, where would he work then? Apple developers have a very short list fo employers to go to, and honestly Apple is the best place they could work! Maybe he could go to Microsoft, but he would probably not be happy there. :P
Re:Apple, what's your problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but no employer has ever won a court case on these IP agreements, even when the software was developed for the company on company time and on company computers.
You are completely and utterly wrong. When you've reviewed the relevant caselaw (see Lexis or WestLaw), you're welcome to express an informed opinion. In the meantime, the critical factors will be to what extent Apple's time, computing resources or IP were used in the development of Netflix Fanatic.
Re:Apple, what's your problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I am not an attorney. However in my industry background I've been extensively counseled on these subjects.
My agreement with you is subject to one caveat: the relevent section of California labor code (California is more liberal than most states on this topic) is:
2
Re:Apple, what's your problem? (Score:4, Informative)
This is completely and utterly wrong. The norm is to enforce these provisions in favor of the employer, except in the most egregious cases and absent local statute to the contrary (like California's). Provisions that require assignment of all inventions (created at home or at work) are also very often enforced.
I'm not going to bother giving any cites, but I will point you to this interesting article [harvard.edu] by Rob Merges, which he published back in 1999, entitled "The Law and Economics of Employee Inventions." In the beginning of the article, it gives the default rules on employee inventions (i.e., the rules that apply when no contract exists), and then talks a bit about what happens when an explicit contract does exist. (Hint: there's a reason why that subsection is called "the (almost complete) primacy of contract.")
Btw, the interesting part is the law and econ analysis that makes up the meat of Rob's article. (At least, it's interesting to me.)
Re:Apple, what's your problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple, what's your problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple, what's your problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Developer: "What do you mean?... oh.."
Re:Apple, what's your problem? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Apple's Sins (Score:5, Insightful)
What functionality? They fixed a bug that people were exploiting and was never emant to be a feature.
What hesitation? They never said they weren't going to update it. I fact, there very first announcement on the matter was to confirm that they were after people had leapt to the wrong conclusion.
A computer that's 5 or 6 years old and likely has hardware that isn't really up to the job any more. I'm curious, does Windows XP run on a PII?
That's a rather misleading way of putting it as it suggests that Apple's problem is with OSS, when the truth is very different.
Re:Apple's Sins (Score:5, Insightful)
Also note the Apple Look-n-feel lawsuit. If Apple had won that one, Microsoft wouldn't have been allowed to produce Windows, nor would the X Window System be allowed to exist without paying heavy royalties to Apple. Apple essentially claimed they owned the GUI and claimed it in it's entirety as their own. It's ironic that Microsoft's legal dollars paid for the right for us all to use common GUI elements that otherwise would be Apple Computer property.
There is a LONG history of Free Software folks being strongly against Apple during the look-n-feel suit that seems to have been airbrushed away in recent years.
Re:Apple's Sins (Score:4, Insightful)
People didn't like IBM in the past because they were the dominant player and the rest of the industry couldn't stop them if IBM tried strong-arm tactics. In the mainframe biz this is still true, but now there are alternatives to mainframes (PC farms). People don't like Microsoft now because they are so powerful that they can strong-arm basically at will. Linux is changing that.
Most corporations do some good things and some bad things. Very few are basically evil. And a few are basically good.
Apple is like any other corporation. Not all corporations are evil faceless satans. I realize that to a great many people that what I have just said here is heretical...
Shocking... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, let's all rant and rave for 500 messages. Then, in 3 days, the real story will come out and be the complete opposite. And it won't ever be mentioned again on slashdot.
Knee-jerk-pot-smoking hippies! The whole bunch of you!
Re:Shocking... (Score:3, Funny)
So, let's all rant and rave for 500 messages. Then, in 3 days, the real story will come out and be the complete opposite. And it won't ever be mentioned again on slashdot.
Hurry, we only have three days! Unless of course the article gets reposted, which should buy us at least one more day of ranting before the truth comes out.
Re:Shocking... (Score:4, Funny)
Snotty-overpriced-hardware-buying-nouveau-art-deco -loving-yuppie scumbag. But hey, I can say that since I'm a Mac user too. :-)
No logon required ? (Score:2)
A [...] shareware app that lets you manage your rental queue without logging on to Netflix
Is it just me or does this really sound like "check your email without logging on to your mailserver" ?
Me slightly confused.
Re:No logon required ? (Score:2)
Are they psychic? (Score:3, Interesting)
Did he run around Apple HQ boasting about it? Seems a pretty dumb thing to do, these kinda of clauses (where employers maintain rights to your creations) seem pretty common.
Why didn't he release it under an alias?
Re:Are they psychic? (Score:2, Insightful)
For the same reason you don't post anonymous on slashdot
Re:Are they psychic? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are they psychic? (Score:4, Informative)
Why should he have to hide his identity if he's not doing anything wrong?
Re:Are they psychic? (Score:5, Informative)
The rest of the clause is
"
and (a) which does not relate (1) to the business of the employer or (2) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) which does not result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this state and is to that extent, void and unenforceable."
Re:Are they psychic? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not dumb. What he does in his spare time is his, period. Why should he assume his employer will try to steal it?
Why didn't he release it under an alias?
Why should he? How is he going to get paid for it if he does?
Do you think he should have been PLANNING on Apple trying to steal his work?
Re:Are they psychic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, he should have. He was naive. He probably won't make this mistake in the future.
It's fairly common for companies to let employees develop things on their own time. If nothing comes of it, it's ignored. If the employee starts making money from it, the company claims it. Employees who object to this (perhaps by citing the law) are laid off.
It's a win-win situation from the company's viewpoint. No-risk, no-cost software development, and if it works, the company gets the profit.
Of course, treating employees this way is disastrous policy in the long run. It really kills morale, and usually loses you your most inventive employees. But how many American corporations are capable of looking past the current quarter's revenues?
You folks really oughta learn more about how the world really works.
Re:Are they psychic? (Score:3, Funny)
Until you book 500 hours retrospectively on your timesheet and book it to the budget of whoever claimed the project...
Re:Are they psychic? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Are they psychic? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know about the original poster, but a lot of people (like me) are new grads or have very little experience. Chang
How long... (Score:4, Interesting)
...until there are a flood of posters who mistakenly assume that the headline refers to Apple trying to claim ownership of the shareware concept? Perhaps "Apple Claims Ownership of Netflix" would have been better.
Other Laws? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Other Laws? (Score:2)
Re:Other Laws? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Other Laws? (Score:3, Informative)
slavery is illeagal, so are contracts that make you the equivalent of a slave.
Sweden rocks! (Score:4, Interesting)
I own the copyright on everything, even the stuff I do at work.
I even own the patent rights if I invent anything, even if I did it within a government funded university project.
(If you receive private funding, you probably have a contractual agreement waiving some or all of your patent rights, though)
How about that?
Order Frenzy (Score:3, Funny)
That's how it works... (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to say it, but that's how it works. Companies do this all the time and I'm sure apple will make it right.
Let's take the Stickies application written by Jens Alfke for example:
You can read the whole story about how Jens wrote the stickies program as an Apple employee and had it claimed as Apple's while they made sure it was dealt with at the same time here [mooseyard.com].
-davidu
Re:That's how it works... (Score:5, Insightful)
Buying you flowers and candy after they've ravaged your ass, does not "make it right".
If you or I so much as copy a song, it's a crime; if a large corporation claims to own your creation, it's buiness as usual. Welcome to modern corporate capitalism.
Re:That's how it works... (Score:3, Insightful)
If his contract states that whatever he works on at work is the property of Apple, then he is fucked and tough shit to him.
And then the California District Attorney can post an arrest warrant for Steve Jobs...
California's labor-laws are notoriously pro-employee. Contracts like that are illegal [unixguru.com] there. Enforcing an illegal contract is a crime.
Re:That's how it works... (Score:3, Informative)
If Apple can show that such inside information was used, they have a case. At best, though, it's a rebuttable presumption, not grounds for automatic seizure of copyright.
I, For One, (Score:4, Funny)
Now, what's the article about again?
the lesson... (Score:5, Insightful)
I felt like I was being a little paranoid when I demanded that my last contract - which stated that my "full productive capacity" belonged to my employer - be modified to make it clear that work I did on my time was my own.
Heh. I'll never silly about making such demands again.
Read your contracts, folks. Point out absurdities ("all your thoughts are belong to us") and refuse to sign until they're fixed. If they say "well, we don't mean that..." - get it in writing.
Re:the lesson... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:the lesson... (Score:2, Informative)
California Labor Code Section 2870:
Employment agreements, assignment of rights:
Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall NOT apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entierly on the employee's own time, and (a) which does not relate (1) to the business of th
Re:the lesson... (Score:3, Informative)
Apple can claim that they have the right to usurp this guys program based on the exclusion clause in the Labor Code -- (see a1) "which does not relate to the business of the employer". As Apple has become the significant application developer for thier own platform, they could claim that any application that enhances the MacOS X platform relates to thier business.
They could also make the more dubious claim that they anticipated developing such a program and t
Re:the lesson... (Score:3, Informative)
2. It does result from the work performed for the employer. Without knowledge of the system, the employee wouldn't have been able to craft the application.
On MacSlash Last Month (Score:5, Informative)
This was discussed a while ago on MacSlash. The author directly wrote in apparently.
Here's the link: Employer Grabs Netflix Fanatic Software From Creator [macslash.org]
I've said it before... (Score:5, Informative)
Section 2870 does *NOT* protect you if you're a software developer. Check out sub section 1. It includes an exemption for the company if your invention relates at the time of conception
The company's case against you is pretty straighforward: "We're in the business of making and selling software. Your invention is software. Hand it over."
And they don't even have to pat you on the head for writing it.
I hope homeboy has more luck trying to exert his rights under the CLC than other people who've fallen for it have had.
Re:I've said it before... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I've said it before... (Score:2)
Not only that, but the guy was "selling" the program. That sounds like a pretty direct conflict of interest to me.
But then again, it does suck that a software employee can't make any outside $$ writing software. I would hate to think that if someone offered me $10K to develop a 100-line VB app over the weekend, that I would have to turn them down beca
Re:Has a judge ever interpreted the law that way? (Score:3, Informative)
If you're a writer for a newspaper, it may prevent you from starting your own newspaper.
Possibly, but the idea of starting a paper while working at another job is patently ridiculous - you wouldn't have time to sleep!
If you're a telemarketer, it may prevent you from creating some super-whamodyne call-making machine to sell on your own.
You know, those things are mostly illegal. I think only charities and political campaign workers are allowed to dial you and play a message automatically
You're ri
That's Funny! (Score:5, Insightful)
The one foolproof way of ensuring a particular bit of information is forever available on the net is to declare it illegal...
Expect the source code to show up any minute now...
Re:That's Funny! (Score:3, Interesting)
In that case, it was made clear that the author had written the software for his employers' internal use. It appeared that even though his contract didn't state "all your code are belong to us", that particular product was considered "Work For Hire" under copyright law, which means he didn't own the rights to it at all. The author had never heard of this forgettable part of copyright law, and quit in disgust.
This, however, seems like a mo
Sherlock (Score:4, Insightful)
Sherlock never really impressed me- until I tried the latest version; they've included a fair bit of stuff, and at least at work and at home on cable, it's pretty zippy compared to getting the same info via the web. The dictionary search has been pretty handy.
What amazes me is the near vacuum of useful sherlock modules- there's a website here or there that has maybe a dozen or two, of which only a few are actually interesting. There's a fedex module, but no UPS module.
What is MUCH worse is the distribution model for sherlock modules- you don't actually get the module, you get a LINK to the module, and if that website goes down, the module essentially stops working after a while even if you've added it to Sherlock; it only caches them, doesn't download them(which is why it takes a while to access a module if you haven't used sherlock in a while). Stupid, stupid, stupid, STUPID! Not only is it unreliable and a waste of bandwidth, but it has great exploit potential- breaking into one account and an author's module could deliver all sorts of goodies right to an attacker's doorstep, and nobody would be the wiser. Not to mention, maybe Fedex decides they don't like Joe Blo's module and DMCA him- everyone looses their Fedex module.
Program under a psudoname (Score:2)
No I wont tell you which as that will create documentation so the thieves in corperate can STEAL them.
everything I do at home and from 5:00pm to 8:00am is my fricking property, but corperations do not think that way so you have to take steps to protect yourself.
Some writers also do this to keep their day-job employer from stealing their book.
Re:Program under a psudoname (Score:3, Interesting)
The assumption, when you work for a company, is that you will not be attempting to compete with the company you work for. It's like doing freelance consulting in your spare time when you work for a consulting company during the day. At the very least, it's shady.
It seems like you don't want to contribute to th
Re:Program under a psudoname (Score:2, Insightful)
Non-compete is completely different from "all your ideas are belong to us".
Uh, his employer tries to lay claim to work done in his off hours, and he's the one with the bad attitude?
Re:Program under a psudoname (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as with software. Just because you are a "software developer" does not mean that all software you develop should therefore be owned by the company if you do it on your own time. It's like being a chef for a restraunt. You can still do catering for parties in your free time and the company doesn't get x% of your profits (unles
IANAL, but I don't see the problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
From a legal point of view, that is. Section 2870 disallows claiming of rights over software written entirely in the employee's own time
Surely this is covered by the first of those provisions - and possibly the second, depending on what the guy's job at Apple is...We don't know the facts (Score:3, Insightful)
If the answer to any of these questions is yes - he would be liable to their claims. That's why you REALLY gotta go the extra mile in separating yourself from your employer. If you work for Apple - develop software for Windows as an example.
I don't know if the guy is being screwed or if Apple is within their rights. I think Apple is being heavy handed - but I don't know all the facts either.
Re:We don't know the facts (Score:5, Insightful)
If this guy was designing racing cars as a profitable sideline, I think he'd probably have a case, but as he seems to be designing useful utilities for MacOSX, he's just putting in overtime as far as Apple is concerned. Apple should give him a bonus and then take the software as stipulated in their contract.
People who don't read the small print are the bane of modern life.
Re:We don't know the facts (Score:3, Insightful)
People who WRITE small print are the bane of modern life. People who are victimized by it are just lemmings going over the cliff.
Apple employees switch to x86 (Score:2)
Apple Exec1: "Every time we usurp a project, we send more people to help out KDE"
Apple Exec2: "Maybe usurping projects is not a good idea?"
Or maybe the employee was 'fairly' compensated?
Misleading article title (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Misleading article title (Score:4, Funny)
Hang out at ZDNet. You'll get used to it. You'll also get used to headlines that have no scientifically measureable relation to the stories beneath them.
RTFLC (Score:2)
Yes it does say that if a company has an employment agreement with provisions saying employees must assign the rights of their inventions to their employer, those sections do not apply if the employee developed it on his or her own time, without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:
1. Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or act
One such previous case (Score:3, Interesting)
Evan Brown used to work for DSC Communications and ran into the same problem.
Except in Evan's case, he had his idea before he ever went to work for DSC and until ordered by the judge, it remained an idea, not an invention. The judge ordered him to develop it for DSC without pay.
Check out Evan's web site on the issue [unixguru.com]
Someone set me straight, please (Score:2, Interesting)
Jumping the gun a bit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong - I hate the thought that what I work on on my own time would get claimed. But we really have no way of knowing for certain that the developer was on the right side of the law.
Re:Jumping the gun a bit... (Score:2)
This guy, had he released it as freeware or let someone else have it, would have been in the clear.
Contracts have two purposes (Score:3, Insightful)
(1) To clearly outline the rights and responsibilities of all parties. By putting these things in writting, you force yourself to really analyse just what it is you are agreeing to.
(2) To establish a legally defensable position in court. Should the two parties have a disagreement about any of the conditions set forth in the contract, the contract is used to "remind" them of just what they agreed to.
So for all those who say Apple should leave him alone or should buy it from him or whatever, they are considerably late to the party. If in fact the employment contract stated the rules clearly, (no company time or equipment) and he wilfully violated that agreement, then the options become:
(1) Submit to Apple, or
(2) Find a providion of the contract which Apple violated, allowing room for a counter suit, negotiation of a new contract, or possibly having the contract thrown out.
IANAL
And so... (Score:4, Funny)
And how did Apple get started? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
If this was Microsoft doing this, there would already by 700 comments and the Slashdot site would be bogged down and unresponsive because of the fury.
This is dangerous stuff, folks. If this is a precedent, then all the employers of people who have contributed to the Linux kernal, and to various GPL's and BSD licensed products can step forward and claim their chunk of code, too.
It's dismaying that so many 'Apple Loyalists' have joined in on the Slashdot 'Anything Microsoft Does is Eeeevile but any other company is okay' choir. We don't need a 'new master, same as the old master' ascending to power, but some here seem to think it would be okay.
Re:It's Interesting. (Score:4, Interesting)
When I worked for them (1995-2000) the ownership of ideas was spelled out pretty clear in the terms of employment.
If I came up with something completely on my own time and didn't use any company resources then it was MINE. Spelled out in black and white.
I interviewed with Apple a year ago - they do cool stuff but the more I hear about it the less I think I'd want to work for them........
It's Tuesday... (Score:3, Funny)
I half expect to see a post praising Sony in a couple of hours--wait, no, Sony's only good on Tuesday afternoon in odd months. My error.
Shareware? (Score:3, Insightful)
Overly Broad IP (Score:4, Informative)
OverlyBroadIntellectualPropertyAgreements [c2.com] discusses exactly this sort of problem.
The "Fine Arts Waiver" described on the page is definitely something I will not work without. With some companies it's just a matter of asking for it.
Ironic..... (Score:3, Informative)
Intellectual rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about the application in question but if there's the possibility it could not have been written by someone other than an employee of Apple even though the author did not use Apple tools or time then Apple does have some rights over it.
It strikes me the guy should have checked his rights first. I discussed this when I joined my company and was told that provided I haven't written anything which is simliar to, or competes with, company products then I should still get approval for open source releases and the like but they would probably be let through on the nod.
Re:Intellectual rights? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think it's fair, that's fine, but I was always careful not to sign contracts with this kind of clause in them. It prevents you from doing contracting work while employed, and makes any contributions you might make to open source projects legally questionable. You should ask youself whether the money you're paid is really enough to cover 24 hours/day of employment.
I can understand that
Re:Intellectual rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, and I can't guarantee anything I produce hasn't benefitted from knowledge gained anywhere.
Does this mean my 3rd grade math teacher's name goes on my Ph.D. instead of mine?
Wrong, Right and Inbetween (Score:3, Insightful)
I also don't know whether Apple is within it's rights or not, but I do know that Apple could have had the decency (or simple common sense in avoiding a PR scandal) to pay him for the software.
And that is what it boils down to really. Decency. I know all the yada yada yada Apple is in the business of making money yada yada and we're hard arsed bastards in this world yada yada, but decency goes a long way to ensuring good PR and employee loyalty and above all customer loyalty.
Whether Steve Jobs knew of this or not, I can only say the following to him: Be careful, Mr Jobs. Losing the loyalty of your employees can lose you the loyalty of your customers, and that it the one thing that Apple has always had above the rest. Don't fuck it up, because in the end, I don't care. I'll drop this Mac and run Linux or Windows if I see no difference between the business practices.
Re:code in your own time - not your own product??? (Score:5, Informative)
I have to worry about this kind of thing all the time. I work in biotech, and am a grad student in comp. bio.; although the applications I develop for school are in a somewhat different field than those I develop for work, it's conceivable that my employer could lay claim to some of my academic work -- and, of course, that my school could lay claim to just about anything I do. By and large, I trust both my boss and my professors, but
Re:code in your own time - not your own product??? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:code in your own time - not your own product??? (Score:3, Informative)
> what people do in their own time.
This is a question I once wondered about, too. Based on my experience with software companies, the short answer is that employers will insist you sign an "intellectual property agreement" that specifically grants them ownership of anything you create while under their employ.
How do they get you to sign such a silly thing? Well, here's how it's gone down in my life (outside of California); YMMV:
You work for company A. You want
Re:I can't wait! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Similar Contracts (Score:2)
> as I sit down at my computer at home I'm on my own time
I've heard of companies that specifically claim work done on the employee's own time for the duration of employment, plus of course the standard x-year non-compete after leaving.
Mr. Gates? Are you posting from Comdex? (Score:2)
If a worse analogy exists... (Score:4, Funny)
because (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple compote (Score:3, Insightful)
You're sounding a whole lot like a Apple fanboy who doesn't want to hear anything but praise for your favorite platform. I'm not here to tell you how great you are because of the system you bought (nor am I here to tell you that you're a moron for buying the system). I'm sure that there's a Mac fanboy page/blog where you can discuss how great your system (and the company who created it) is all day long.
This post h
Re:Slavery? (Score:3, Funny)
I suppose that if you're worried about your employer getting your code, you could always get a job where you ask, "Would you like fries with that?"