Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmum.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watmum!cdshaw
From: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Company vs Employee Software rights
Message-ID: <122@watmum.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-May-85 16:17:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmum.122
Posted: Mon May 13 16:17:49 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 14-May-85 00:07:09 EDT
Reply-To: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 29

**THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.. just what I remember**

In cases where there is an "agreement" to limit one's rights in some form
or other, if there is a statute in effect that guarantees that right, then
the agreement is to no binding legal effect. Thus.. an agreement to be someone's
slave is not a binding document.

The obvious thing to do, then, is to try to have legislation enacted to 
ensure the rights of home hackers on home machines, notwithstanding any 
agreements with your employer about your employer's "intellectual rights".

The other side to this is the situation where a nondisclosure agreement is
desired by the company because of some trade secret or another that you 
would learn during employment. You could easily use the secret yourself by 
quitting and starting your own company (or sell it to the Russians).

In this case, a company is (in some sense) within it rights to get after you
because of "intellectual robbery". In the DEC example cited in previous 
postings, DEC is merely protecting itself in the easiest way; by preventing
any and all of its employees from doing anything. DEC is only really guilty of
using too large a scope in its agreement.

What this all means is that we need a much better definition of "intellectual
property", and some clear thinking is needed to make sure that no one's 
rights are damaged.


Chris Shaw    watmath!watmum!cdshaw
University of Waterloo