jec@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (08/27/87)
So much for ever working for DEC.
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (08/28/87)
A lot of companies do that. I make it a point not to work for such companies. After all, they do not own your life.... -Matt
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (08/28/87)
In article <36400004@iuvax> jec@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu writes: > > So much for ever working for DEC. Dave Conroy wrote MicroEMACS while working for DEC, 1 year ago. *Have they changed their policy lately ?* Did Steve Jobs buy DEC too ? ----- P.S. Conroy says there has been a PD 68K version of his (DECUS) 'C' compiler. Anybody know anything about this ? -- Richard Sexton INTERNET: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {akgua, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!richard "It's too dark to put the key in my ignition..."
tenney@well.UUCP (08/30/87)
I tried three times to email this and never got thru to Dave, so I appologize. I felt this shd be more private, but... I'm sorry to hear this. I'm a member of the IEEE Intellectual Property Committee and employment agreements have been one of our big topics for years (essentially our reason for existing at first). I don't have my older files handy, but there are laws on the books in about a dozen states (and I vaguely remember some Federal bill) that basically states that what you do on your own time, with your own resources (ie. you don't use your company's resources) are your own. One thing we heard of often has been that many companies "bully" their employees into believing that the Company is right and everything you do is theirs. If I can be of any assistance, feel free to reply. No, I'm not an attorney, but I might be able to get some info for you. Best suggestion is to suggest to your legal dept. that you own what you're talking about and that there are laws on your side (ignoring which state...). I'd be curious to know if you have any luck. Good luck. Glenn Tenney These are my own opinions and NOT those of the IEEE or, perhaps, anybody else.
fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (08/30/87)
This really belongs in misc.legal, lets try to move it there... Note to misc.legal readers: This thread started in comp.sys.amiga with a situation in which an employee of DEC has apparently been notified that release of the results of his off duty hacking on the Amiga computer violates a conflict of interest provision in his employment agreement. I won't comment here on the relative merit of DEC's stance since I don't know the details of the employment agreement or of the employee's duties. But I'd like to comment in general on what to watch out for to avoid problems such as this. Since this discussion really doesn't belong in comp.sys.amiga, I've posted this message in misc.legal, with follow-ups there, but cross posted to comp.sys.amiga so the original participants in the discussion would see it. Some hints and rules for avoiding problems with conflict of interest and invention assignment provisions in an employee agreement: (1) Negotiate your agreement. First rule is to know what you are getting into when you become a new employee. Request in writing copies of all employment agreements you will be required to sign at your new job BEFORE accepting a job with a new employer, and certainly BEFORE relocation. Some employers will conveniently forget to mention these agreements until your first day of work, and then depend upon the vulnerability of your position to work in their favor towards getting you to sign something contrary to your own best interests. The time to negotiate an acceptable agreement is BEFORE you commit to a job change. (2) Know the laws of your state. Know the laws of your state if the agreement tries to be unreasonably restrictive. Many states have provisions in their legal code regulating what can and cannot be required. As an example, from the California legal code: California Labor Code Section 2870 Article 3.5 Inventions Made by An Employee 2870. Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, and (a) which does not relate (1) to the business of the employer or (2) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this state and to that extent void and unenforceable. (3) Avoid obvious conflicts. Try to channel your creative energies towards areas which do not directly relate to your job duties or those of your immediate associates. For example, if you work for a company that develops database applications, and you have your choice of off duty hacking on database systems or digital signal processing algorithms that interested you when you were in school, pick the one that seems obviously unrelated to anything you are being paid to do. This is probably one of the hardest rules to follow since it is only natural for most computer enthusiasts that enjoy their work, to continue that line of development in their hacking at home. Since such work could potentially be very beneficial for both the employer and employee, it is sometimes worthwhile to try to work out some sort of agreement about the results, if you really want to pursue areas of development that you don't have time for during your normal work day. This is also especially important if you find that your most creative work is done at home, outside the stress, distraction, and deadlines of the workplace environment, since this is most likely where you will make "breakthrough" inventions or discover that algorithm that triples the previous speed of your employers product. (4) Be upfront with your employer. Be upfront with your employer that you have the means and desire to pursue development of potentially marketable software products at home, but that you will abide by your agreement with respect to conflicts of interest and non competition. You may be able to hide your development activities as long as everything you do remains private. In that case, why bother doing anything if you can't share it with the world via public domain or freely redistributable release, or via release as a commercial product. You are a paid professional, not a company slave or indentured servant. Open communication and cooperativeness are the keys to a workable situation, unless you have a totally unreasonable and tyrannical employer. -Fred -- = Drug tests; just say *NO*! = Fred Fish Motorola Computer Division, 3013 S 52nd St, Tempe, Az 85282 USA = seismo!noao!mcdsun!fnf (602) 438-3614
king@dciem.UUCP (Stephen King) (08/31/87)
In article <363@mcdsun.UUCP> fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: >This really belongs in misc.legal, lets try to move it there... > ... Since this really is an Amiga related issue, because of Dave's well known contributions, couldn't we keep it here? I want to see what people have to say, and what the outcome is without subscribing to yet-another-newsgroup. We did, afterall, have a real flurry over Ehwac <-> Pixar; is this what you wish to avoid? How do the rest of the reader's feel. (I will bow to the wishes of the majority)...sjk -- * Defence & Civil Institute * ...!utzoo!dciem!king * of Environmental Medicine * Stephen J King - Simulation & Training Group - (416) 635-2149
tony@artecon.artecon.UUCP (Anthony D. Parkhurst) (08/31/87)
In article <3857@well.UUCP>, tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) writes: > I'm sorry to hear this. I'm a member of the IEEE Intellectual Property > Committee and employment agreements have been one of our big topics for > years (essentially our reason for existing at first). I don't have my older > files handy, but there are laws on the books in about a dozen states (and > I vaguely remember some Federal bill) that basically states that what you > do on your own time, with your own resources (ie. you don't use your > company's resources) are your own. One thing we heard of often has been > that many companies "bully" their employees into believing that the Company > is right and everything you do is theirs. The issue is not whether or not DEC owns what Dave (Hi Dave) does on his own time, but whether DEC feels that they may lose business over such activity. They would never try to take possession of his work, they would simply fire him. Yes, many companies do have you sign that piece of paper whose validity varies from state to state, however this falls under the rules of "Conflict of Interest", which is an entirely different matter. Most big computer corps have explicit rules on what is a conflict of interest, and what is not. Basically, the rules usually go something like this: A "Conflict" arises if: 1) You do work (outside the company) for a Vendor, Customer or Competitor of the company. 2) You do work (outside the company) which would normally be done by someone while working for the company. (In other words, if you do some work for somebody on a computer made by your company, and if you didn't do this work, they would be forced to hire the company to do this, then that is a conflict of interest. 3) (The catch-all, just incase they could not stretch the first two rules to cover just about anything.) Any outside activity that would result in a loss of revenue for the company is a conflict of interest. Now, the nice things that Dave does for the Amiga could almost be covered by rule number 1, except that he is not working directly for Commodore-Amiga, (but he is helping their business anyway). Rule number 2 does not apply because people would not go to DEC for programs for the Amiga. So, this leaves rule number 3. Apparently, either they think that Dave will single handedly ruin DEC, or they have had enough problems in the past, so they enforce the rule strictly accross the board. (I personally think their afraid of Dave :-) If Dave does not reach an understanding with his company, and he persists in providing wonderful Amiga software, then they will fire him. (I suppose they could try to claim ownership of his work and sue him to keep it from getting release, but if they fired me, I would do my best to ruin them :-) Dave will have no recourse against DEC for <insert legaleese for unjustified firing here> since "Conflict of interest" is a valid reason for firing someone. I hope Dave can come to an understanding with his employer, or go work at Amiga (hint, hint). -- Tony -- **************** Insert 'Standard' Disclaimer here: OOP ACK! ***************** * Tony Parkhurst -> hp-sdd!artecon!adp.UUCP (or) hp-sdd!artecon!adp@nosc.ARPA * * "One lawyer can steal more than a hundred men with guns." -- The Godfather * *******************************************************************************
sat@unicus.UUCP (S.A. Thurlow) (09/01/87)
In article <2418@dciem.UUCP> king@dciem.UUCP (Stephen King) writes: >In article <363@mcdsun.UUCP> fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: >>This really belongs in misc.legal, lets try to move it there... >Since this really is an Amiga related issue, because of Dave's well >known contributions, couldn't we keep it here? I want to see what >people have to say, and what the outcome is without subscribing to >yet-another-newsgroup. We did, afterall, have a real flurry over >Ehwac <-> Pixar; is this what you wish to avoid? How do the rest >of the reader's feel. (I will bow to the wishes of the majority)...sjk I vote that we migrate this discussion to misc.legal like fred suggested. The big fuss with leo vs. pixar didn't gain us anything (it just expanded my kill file). Also, in misc.legal, we are more likely to find someone who knows more aboutt this and whether it is (legally) right or wrong. Hundreds of people agreeing DEC (or Pixar, or anyone else) is a jerk doesn't accomplish anything. Lets put this in misc.legal where it belongs. Scott. -- Scott A. Thurlow Unicus Corporation InterNet: sat@Chi.Unicus.COM (on a good day) UUCP: {uunet!mnetor,utzoo!utcsri}!unicus!sat (on a bad day) ARPA: uunet!mnetor!unicus!sat@Seismo.CSS.GOV (on a REALLY bad day) BITNET: THURLOW@UTORGPU (you figure this out)
msl5864@ritcv.UUCP (Michael S. Leibow) (09/09/87)
>Dave Conroy wrote MicroEMACS while working for DEC, 1 year ago. > >*Have they changed their policy lately ?* > >Richard Sexton I talked to Dave Conroy recently because he gave me a new version of Uemacs. He said he released MicroEmacs before He came to DEC. I questioned him no further. I want to release his latest version of MicroEMACS because I converted it to the Amiga. I will wait until I am not working at DEC anymore (I am a coop student). I have also updated Dave Weckers VT100 to a VT220. I or Dave will be releasing that sometime too. I don't know if I will be able to release it outside of DEC though. (I will try). Anyhow, sometime around December, I will be a student again and will try and release a VT220 emulator. -Mike Leibow {I don't know my return address at DEC.. if you know how to get to DECWRL, then I am at DECWRL!dec-regina!leibow } don't return mail to me here. I won't see it until december. -- Michael S. Leibow UUCP: {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!msl5864 CSNET: msl5864%rit@csnet-relay.ARPA