Re: [OT] advice needed.
Vladislav Safronov wrote: > I am going to work in a Web Company to write some mod_perl apps. > They gave me a contract (I think the terrible one) which > contains paragraph (among the others) that signs the rights to all > inventions over to them. The same paragraph (the inventions resulted from your contracting work belong to the company who hired you) is in my contract here in Germany and my lawyer told me it's a usual thing. > The problem is .. I have never sign such contracts and I don't know if it's > "common" contract template that programmers sign when start coding for > somebody. I'd go to a lawyer to check the contract.
Re: [OT] advice needed.
"Alexander Farber (EED)" wrote: > > Vladislav Safronov wrote: > > I am going to work in a Web Company to write some mod_perl apps. > > They gave me a contract (I think the terrible one) which > > contains paragraph (among the others) that signs the rights to all > > inventions over to them. > > The same paragraph (the inventions resulted from your contracting > work belong to the company who hired you) is in my contract here > in Germany and my lawyer told me it's a usual thing. > > > The problem is .. I have never sign such contracts and I don't know if it's > > "common" contract template that programmers sign when start coding for > > somebody. > > I'd go to a lawyer to check the contract. It's a very common clause here in the UK. The only thing that you need to watch out for is that the clause covers only those inventions made 'while in the course of your duties'. This allows you to do other work in your spare time. Most employers want to hold title to the work produced by their employees while they are paying them to do that work. -- John Reid Senior Analyst/Programmer Open Connect (Ireland) Ltd http://www.openconnect.ie/
Re: [OT] advice needed.
"Vladislav Safronov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > I know it's very OT, but don't kick me I just need advice. > > I am going to work in a Web Company to write some mod_perl apps. > They gave me a contract (I think the terrible one) which > contains paragraph (among the others) that signs the rights to all > inventions over to them. > The problem is .. I have never sign such contracts and I don't know if it's > "common" contract template that programmers sign when start coding for > somebody. It depends what you're developing IMHO. I could care less about the sites I'm writing for and what they do. What _is_ important is honing your skills and the techniques you use. These are what I feel increase my value: the ability to do whatever job better and faster. I'm not likely to want to go out and do a ferry booking B2C site on my own in the very near future...however, using the Template Toolkit as a mod_perl handler is WAY up the list of Good Things. HTH, Dave -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Apache, mod_perl, MySQL, Sybase hired gun for, well, hire -
RE: [OT] advice needed.
Something else I generally don't want to see in my contracts is a statement which says basically anything you learn while there you cannot use anywhere else. If I see that I will force them to take it out or not sign it... I have heard it is legally unenforcable (Who can say you cannot take your ideas and knowledge with you when you leave), but I still don't like it. Richard > -Original Message- > From: John Reid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 8:41 AM > To: Alexander Farber (EED) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OT] advice needed. > > > "Alexander Farber (EED)" wrote: > > > > Vladislav Safronov wrote: > > > I am going to work in a Web Company to write some mod_perl apps. > > > They gave me a contract (I think the terrible one) which > > > contains paragraph (among the others) that signs the rights to all > > > inventions over to them. > > > > The same paragraph (the inventions resulted from your contracting > > work belong to the company who hired you) is in my contract here > > in Germany and my lawyer told me it's a usual thing. > > > > > The problem is .. I have never sign such contracts and I > don't know if it's > > > "common" contract template that programmers sign when > start coding for > > > somebody. > > > > I'd go to a lawyer to check the contract. > > It's a very common clause here in the UK. The only thing that you need > to watch out for is that the clause covers only those inventions made > 'while in the course of your duties'. This allows you to do other work > in your spare time. Most employers want to hold title to the work > produced by their employees while they are paying them to do > that work. > > -- > John Reid > Senior Analyst/Programmer > Open Connect (Ireland) Ltd > http://www.openconnect.ie/ >
RE: [OT] advice needed.
this is the contract (one paragraph is already excluded) : http://vlad.narod.ru/contract.html is it really looks like a usual thing? (the matter of the job is just making mod_perl apps.) /Vlad. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 4:32 PM > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OT] advice needed. > > > Vladislav Safronov wrote: > > I am going to work in a Web Company to write some mod_perl apps. > > They gave me a contract (I think the terrible one) which > > contains paragraph (among the others) that signs the rights to all > > inventions over to them. > > The same paragraph (the inventions resulted from your contracting > work belong to the company who hired you) is in my contract here > in Germany and my lawyer told me it's a usual thing. > > > The problem is .. I have never sign such contracts and I > don't know if it's > > "common" contract template that programmers sign when start > coding for > > somebody. > > I'd go to a lawyer to check the contract.
Re: [OT] advice needed.
Vladislav Safronov wrote: > http://vlad.narod.ru/contract.html > is it really looks like a usual thing? Fairly usual, once read carefully and you realize that they're only claiming inventions that relate to them/resourced by them - the rest is disclosure, in an attempt to forestall any future problems. The problem is really in section 3. Section 1 is relatively normal, except that the last sentence doesn't limit the restrictions to work related to the company. It would, for example, prohibit you from volunteer work in an unrelated field. This is silly. Obtain written clarification. Section 2 is normal. Courts will uphold restrictions on proprietary information, provided that the definition of proprietary information is reasonable (ie: company customer information, proprietary technology etc). Not normal stuff you learn about your field. AT&T came to some grief trying to enforce restrictions on "normal stuff". Section 3, first sentence is absurd. It means that you can't work in your field for two years after termination. In Canada, such a clause would be considered by the court to be a blatant attempt to deprive you of your right to earn a living in your chosen profession, and would likely cause the entire contract to be invalidated (also cf. AT&T's grief). A former employer of mine tried this stunt on me and we laughed in their face. They folded. The rest of section 3 is common, but rarely enforceable (it is also probably too broad). Companies usually draft this in such a way that you're prohibited from directly competing with their business using proprietary knowledge that you obtained from them, or raping their employee base directly. In context with section 5 (which limits what inventions they have a legitimate interest in), section 4 is reasonable - they're only asking you to tell them about them so that if they do have a Section 5 interest, they can pursue it. If there is such a clash, it's better to find out about it sooner than later. Section 7 (disclosure of prior inventions) protects you, not them.
RE: [OT] advice needed.
It is funny that you mention AT&T. That was exactly who I was talking about when I mentioned "Be sure they don't say you can't take your knowledge with you". As I used to work for AT&T and they tried that. Richard > -Original Message- > From: Chris Lewis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 11:29 AM > To: modperl > Subject: Re: [OT] advice needed. > > > Vladislav Safronov wrote: > > > http://vlad.narod.ru/contract.html > > > is it really looks like a usual thing? > > Fairly usual, once read carefully and you realize that they're only > claiming inventions that relate to them/resourced by them - > the rest is > disclosure, in an attempt to forestall any future problems. > The problem > is really in section 3. > > Section 1 is relatively normal, except that the last sentence doesn't > limit the restrictions to work related to the company. It would, for > example, prohibit you from volunteer work in an unrelated field. This > is silly. Obtain written clarification. > > Section 2 is normal. Courts will uphold restrictions on proprietary > information, provided that the definition of proprietary > information is > reasonable (ie: company customer information, proprietary technology > etc). > Not normal stuff you learn about your field. AT&T came to some grief > trying to enforce restrictions on "normal stuff". > > Section 3, first sentence is absurd. It means that you can't work in > your field for two years after termination. In Canada, such a clause > would be considered by the court to be a blatant attempt to > deprive you > of your right to earn a living in your chosen profession, and would > likely cause the entire contract to be invalidated (also cf. AT&T's > grief). A former employer of mine tried this stunt on me and > we laughed > in their face. They folded. The rest of section 3 is common, > but rarely > enforceable (it is also probably too broad). > > Companies usually draft this in such a way that you're prohibited from > directly competing with their business using proprietary > knowledge that > you obtained from them, or raping their employee base directly. > > In context with section 5 (which limits what inventions they have a > legitimate interest in), section 4 is reasonable - they're only asking > you to tell them about them so that if they do have a Section 5 > interest, they can pursue it. If there is such a clash, it's better to > find out about it sooner than later. > > Section 7 (disclosure of prior inventions) protects you, not them. >
Re: [OT] advice needed.
Where the heck does trying to do the right thing by GPL (or similar), in attempting to return some improved OpenSource code to the community. Or however the license phrases it. Shouldn't these contracts address that issue specifically, especially when the project is _based_ on OpenSource/GPL'd code? Mike D.
Re: [OT] advice needed.
Mike, I think many developers share a similar desire to not have projects (that leverage free software) close down what are really generic programming techniques, routines, classes, protocols, etc. And further, we'd like to contribute enhancements and documentation based upon our work. I'd like to find a lawyer who has experience and/or want to pursue legal means of removing the friction that keeps us from giving back. Part of that work would of course involve contract writing/editing. I'm hiring. Contact me if you are such. It is up to you to educate your potential employers about just how much of what you do is pior open art and how free software can empower them. That means the first contract has to be amended. ;-) Be very explicit about your intentions from the get go, and repeat yourself a few times; never assume they'll look at the code or even closely read your written self-description. Ed Michael Dearman wrote: > Where the heck does trying to do the right thing by > GPL (or similar), in attempting to return some improved > OpenSource code to the community. Or however the license > phrases it. Shouldn't these contracts address that issue > specifically, especially when the project is _based_ on > OpenSource/GPL'd code? > > Mike D.
