Does Your Employer Own Your Thoughts? 758
MJ writes "Evan Brown has finally lost his 7 year court battle over ownership of thoughts in his brain. Judge Henderson of the 219th District Court in Collin County, Texas granted DSC Communications Corporation, Inc (now Alcatel, USA) a Final Judgement granting DSC ownership of Mr. Brown's idea of a reverse compiler that Mr. Brown claims to have begun formulating twelve years before his employment at DSC and during his off-time while at DSC. Mr. Brown has received media coverage in print, televion and on the Internet: The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law, Wired, Computerworld. This rings similar to previous Slashdot articles on employer/employee IP rights."
He shouldn't have signed the contract. (Score:4, Informative)
"The company said it owned Brown's idea because of a signed employment agreement requiring him to disclose any inventions he conceived of or developed while at the company."
Sadly right/wrong doesn't matter if it's legal...
From the appeal ... (Score:2, Informative)
"The effect of this ruling is that employers in Texas can claim ownership of thoughts in their employees brains. Texas courts can and will uphold these employer claims. Texas courts can order an employee that has been fired to work for the former employer without compensation for time or expenses. What ever you have accomplished prior to going to work for your employer can become property of your your current employer."
Isn't Texas the state where you're not allowed to wear checked trousers and eating ice cream on Sunday is a capital offence? I hope so.
Want it fixed? Get rid of the judges! (Score:2, Informative)
Final proof the corporations have more rights (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds Fishy (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Help protest this ruling... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sadly, yes... (Score:2, Informative)
MisterQ
Re:Say it isn't so (Score:3, Informative)
Not just the tech world...and not just thoughts (Score:3, Informative)
When she went to work for them in a NON-production capacity, they asked her to sign a contract that stated that the rights to anything she produced while with the company would belong to the company. This, even thought it was a NON-production position.
Trouble was, long before accepting their employment, she already had a signed deal for an independent production that was underway -- and her new company did not ask her to sign this contract until several weeks after she accepted and began employment. She immediately disclosed her existing deal, and made it clear that she would not sign the contract unless it specifically excluded this existing deal.
It took more than two months of phone calls and letters before they acknowledged their impasse. My wife's position was, "I understand that you don't want me to walk away with any of YOUR rights, but I don't want you to walk away with any of MY rights, so I will not sign this unless it specifically excludes my existing project." The company's lawyers responded with, "Gee, we have never encountered this type of situation before, and we don't know an appropriate way to handle it, so why don't you just do what everyone else does and sign it as is?"
Needless to say, she refused to do so. As of this writing, she remains employed, and the contract remains unsigned.
Re:Say it isn't so (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Say it isn't so (Score:4, Informative)
Book recommendation (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Say it isn't so (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Say it isn't so (Score:2, Informative)
"As the founder of a software company, let me assure you that a reasonable proprietary rights agreement signed by all the developers at the company is essential. Without it companies could not get investors"
I've raised $26 million from top-tier Sandhill Road VCs, and been in various ground-floor startups that went through a total of over $150 mil. Not one of the VCs ever asked to see employment contracts for anyone below a VP level.
Venture capital and angel investors alike care about
the management team
the opportunity
the competitive advantage you bring
I agree it's important to have solid language about intellectual property in your employment contracts; but saying it's because of investors seems to me to be simply denying responsibility and pointing the finger where it doesn't deserve to be pointed. Just admit it that it's important to management and to the company to have such agreements in place, and don't go around blaming the investors.
Re:Say it isn't so (Score:3, Informative)
The employer should own what's done on work time, for work. End-of-story.
Re:From the appeal ... (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, Texas is the state where the past a resolution honoring the Boston Strangler. [snopes.com]
No one in Texas should be surprised by this.... (Score:2, Informative)
As for his prospects on appeal, the Texas Supreme Court has shown a consistent trend over the past 15+ years in favor of business and against consumer/employee rights. So don't expect any reversals here in Texas. If you have any thoughts in your head, KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF!
Re:Say it isn't so (Score:5, Informative)
For a non-compete to be valid it generally must be limited. It can't stop you from working in your field forever and anywhere. It has to specify a region of non-competition like the city the employer is in or the county. It also has to be for a limited and reasonable amount of time. And there has to be some consideration (ie money) coming to you in exchange for agreeing to this.
Remember there is no such thing as a "standard contract" in anything and if you don't like something in a contract ask them about it. If you have a specific project you don't want them to own then make them exclude that in the contract.
A lot of times companies barely look at their "standard contracts" and often there are some strange provisions that don't really match to the job. I got an intership and they gave me a contract that included ownership of inventions and an agreement to not hold any other job. Obviously a 3 day a week intership does not need such provisions. So I said they needed to change those things and they gave me a different contract.
Re:Help protest this ruling... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Say it isn't so (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sadly, yes... (Score:3, Informative)
Varies by State (in case it's been skipped) (Score:2, Informative)
So... as mentioned in
Re:Read this if you've ever had a thought of your (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Uh... (Score:1, Informative)
No. Here is the appellate court conclusion:
He lost all issues on appeal.Re:Help protest this ruling... (Score:5, Informative)
Pennsylvania lacks such worker protection.
Some employers (such as my last one) require you to list all the works that you claim rights to when you *come to work* there. Theoretically, you're giving them rights to everything else you've produced.
It's absolutely asinine.
Re:Say it isn't so (Score:5, Informative)
Same thing in the Comics field. (Score:3, Informative)
McFarlane, Leifeld (ick), Lee, etceteras weren't happy about this and founded Image- a publishing label for creator-owned works, which was an instant success with the crowd that's into Marvel books.
In context, it makes sense. From a business standpoint, Marvel's always looking for another franchise to flog into the ground and ride the shareholders into more green. From a genre standpoint, the superhero scene is so oversaturated that they need anything that smells halfway original.
Of course, the independant comics publishers (Dark Horse, Antarctic Press, Slave Labor, others) have Known Better for years... and their books aren't recycled rehash.
I dunno if Marvel's lightened up since the Image thing, but that's how it used to be. The fact that IT has similar catches written into contracts isn't much of a surprise.
Don't get me wrong, it makes my ass hair smoulder.
Re:Say it isn't so (Score:3, Informative)
Now your employer may ask you to work extra hours, and you may agree to that. But even if you are salary you have rights, including owning the ideas you came up with in the shower.
The solution to this problem is to carefully read contracts you sign when you are employed, have them checked by an attorney if they aren't clear (as was mentioned above) and don't sign anything you don't really agree to. Most employers are pretty agreeable about this sort of thing, and if they aren't then you probably don't want to work for them anyway.
Re:Say it isn't so (Score:1, Informative)
Uh, no.
Certain classes of salaried employee, which in my experience generally includes software developers, are "EXEMPT", which means you don't get overtime.
At best you're eligible for a small payment to cover your dinner expense when you work late.
There's been a bit of controversy this year, in fact, over a Bush administration proposal to revise Federal law so that many more people will be classified as "exempt", and thus will no longer be eligible for overtime.
Re:BIG BROTHER ALCATEL (Score:3, Informative)
I stumbled upon a fresh article on this subject:
Zombie contracts in the EDA industry [eedesign.com]
RTFA (Score:1, Informative)
Look at the article:
In addition, in 1993, Brown managed the employee charged with investigating the low-level to high-level automated code conversion process and received a status report on his research on October 18, 1993.
In other words, the ideas weren't all Brown's. And the ideas he did have were clearly stimulated by work done by his subordinate at Alcatel. Which he read and discussed as part of his job. The judgment looks a lot less unreasonable now, doesn't it?
Re:Should have lived in Germany ... (Score:3, Informative)
Move here! If you take an evening class once a week, you'll be proficient after a short time. After a year, you'll be perfectly capable of handling all of your daily business in German. It's quite a logical langauge.
Also, a lot of firms want people who speak good English, so make sure your grammar and spelling are good.
You may need a while to get used to some of the other things here, such as the high price of fuel, and the overly high taxes. OTOH, the Germans do make some very nice cars...
-- Steve
Re:Say it isn't so (Score:3, Informative)
Understand what you are agreeing to (Score:4, Informative)
When changing jobs recently, I was offered an onerous IP agreement [slashdot.org]. I manage to get it amended [slashdot.org] without too much hassle - and not just for me, but (I'm told) for all future employees. Having been through this a couple of times before, it seems to me that the authors of such agreements grab everything they can by default, and will just fall over at the least sign of resistance.
You do have to be prepared to walk away. If you're not able to decline (for financial reasons, for example) and sign the thing anyway you really have no right to complain later. At the very least you should be aware of what you're agreeing to, so at least then you can choose not to develop particularly valuable IP in your own time and with your own resources. I was amazed by the number of people working for my new employer that didn't even know what they had signed.
Unfair Heading (Score:3, Informative)
Mr. Brown worked on manual conversion of low-level code to high-level code at Alcatel. Alcatel researched automated versions of this several times, and at least one of the researchers reported to him! Then he announced to Alcatel that he had an idea to automate the process, but he wanted it all on his own.
Is it reasonable to expect that an employee who works at a job and comes up with a new idea based on direct experience funded by the company should be required to share the idea with the company? I think so. Sure, they should be rewarded by the company. But walking out the door with IP that they paid for is pretty unconscionable in and of itself (read the finding for my feeble attempt at irony).
Xesdeeni
You can blame the Supreme Court (Score:4, Informative)
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)
The substance of this case (a tax dispute) is of little significance, but several resources linked above detail how this fateful case subsequently was cited as precedent for granting corporations constitutional rights.
Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Company (1893)
A corporation first successfully claims Bill of Rights protection (5th Amendment)
"Corporate Personhood" [reclaimdemocracy.org]
British Justice... (Score:2, Informative)
This case looks harsh, but if you look at the judgment, he brought up what look to me like the key points - that the employment contract was unfair - too late in the appeal process. I wouldn't panic (unlikely, I know with the general level of hysteria on /. these days about IP), because it is not clear if this sets any real precedent.
Re:Coffee = Spew = Bad? (Score:2, Informative)