On 22/06/2011 9:04 PM, Scott Barnes wrote:
Define: Code.
Define: Home
Define: Ownership
Define: Exclusivity
etc.
What if I wrote some code that I stole from someone else on Codeplex.
If the company in question "owns" that code and I don't, does that
mean they are the ones getting sued for copyright infringement?
In terms of your first sentence, you are the one that is at fault.
How about if I use open source code to fix problems at work without
permission of said work and it breaches the conditions of the open
source license but sadly wasn't caught until say version 9 of the
software. Who's at fault?
You are. If the police can prove you broke the speed limit on 1st
January 2007 then they can charge you with that offence even if you have
driven on the road since that time.
What if you write the software on Saturday post the maximum National
Employment Standards and then the said company claims copyright for
the said work whilst making profit from it. Can I the employee return
fire and lodge a complaint against the NES? :D
No. Was the copyright claim either stated before you used it or at least
implied sufficiently for you to be intelligent enough to know that. I
doubt whether you would like to plead insanity.
Just like a puppy, you may own it and its great when the going is good
but when it piddles on the floor, you also own that to.
No you don't. The piss on the floor belongs to the owner of the floor.
You can be sued for defacing the said property.
Most employment agreements are a waste of both your time and the
employers as they usually have very loose terminology around restraint
of trade and copyright. It's not just a case of saying "We own your
work" you have to spell it out more in specifics when it comes to our
field for example. Typically a good contract will have clauses that
have a cascading explosion effect to them - kind of like a role
playing game where the spell triggers another spell and so on
basically nerfing you to the point of non-existence.
The agreement sets out what the parties thereto agree to agree about.
Not what they will dispute in the future.
The courts generally find it hard to enforce trade/copyright disputes
between both parties and often will look for the most obvious signs of
breaching the trust of an employee or employer. In that if you took
your code to jettison your career in a competitor of tomorrow
well..you need to trick the court(s) into believing that the employers
fears are a fabrication of paranoia. If you can't then its really down
to who poses the most convincing argument - weak contractual
agreements be damned.
Unless the Court is bound to apply precedents and/or statute law (ie
laws written by the government that has jurisdiction of that law) then
they will apply common sense as it is deemed to be in their view. It is
up to the parties to convince the judge as to what is common sense or
otherwise explain to him/her the precedents and or laws that may apply
in the given case.
Bottom line see a lawyer and ask them "How do i break out of jail". If
they are good they'll give you a list of ways this could potentially
be argued free & clear. I'm yet to see a contract that looked anything
like the the one i saw for when Microsoft hired the Adobe Photoshop
Architect. From what i sneaked a peak at, this guy couldn't fart in a
public place without Microsoft owning formally giving the rights to
the said public's consumption of its methane composition :D
Similarly, Microsoft may be sued for the effects of said methane. The
lawyer can be charged with aiding and abetting the escapee.
No one can anticipate what the judge will decide and that's why lawyers
are the only ones that always win.
