Again this is general and not specific. The case Richmond put forward is very much a case of over-reach from my point of view (it is quite possible that there was something in his contract there - probably obscurely worded, or it was the universities lawyers interpretation of statute).
I remember hearing about such things a few years ago in the UK with regard education - I didn't say I agreed with it :) This is why contracts are important, there are there to protect both employer and employee - whether it be in the case of consultants, or full-time employ in a company. When we do consulting type work we always clearly define the IP and copyright assignments of what we produce - we don't sign until both sides are happy. There's also a different between abstract principals and concrete deliverables. Hence the 'wars' over the validity of software patents (as an idea). A tangible thing which does something is a little different from the abstract ideas it embodies. Most countries are still struggling to find out where the line is. Then there are some schools of thought that say that patents in general are hurting innovation (they were evolved initially to help ensure it) others which still think they are vital. Go figure. We live in wonderful, imperfect, grey world :) Mark. Sent from my iPhone > On 28 Jul 2017, at 13:45, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode > <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > What an unfortunate way of looking at things, because what knowledge do ANY > of us have that we developed "on our own"? Any program I write I use > knowledge I "developed" from any number of sources. Should they all have a > claim on what I do? > > For this to really work, the knowledge would have to be of the nature that > only the company and those employed by the company is privy to. Even this is > shady. What if it is a way to write queries that no one else uses or has > thought of? If I employ that in my personal apps does the company own my > work? > > This is why all lawyers (barring any who subscribe to this list) ought to be > dragged through the mud and run out of town. > > Bob S > > >> On Jul 28, 2017, at 11:32 , Mark Waddingham via use-livecode >> <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: >> >> The reason is simple. The programmer is using knowledge and ideas at home >> which he did not develop himself - he is using the IP of the company of >> which he is part of to do them. He does not own that IP, so he does not own >> any derived works of that IP (regardless of where / when / how he derived >> said works). > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
