ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] ] "Cricket Media recently released 'Netflix Fanatic', an
] ] ] OSX based shareware app that lets you manage your rental
] ] ] queue without logging on to Netflix. An article on Think
] ] ] Secret reveals the reason behind it's mysterious
] ] ] disappearance. Apparently the developer's employer,
] ] ] Apple, has claimed ownership over the application's name
] ] ] and source code.
] ]
] ] Apple really shows their true colors here. On my own time
] with
] ] my own resources is not your fucking property. Employers
] have
] ] gotten away with contracts like this because they have the
] ] resources to afford the attorneys, many employees don't
] ] understand the contracts, and those that come under fire
] ] usually don't have the resources to defend themselves.
] People
] ] that DO understand these contracts often find it impossible
] to
] ] negotiate with employers. I've turned down jobs over this in
]
] ] the past.
] ]
] ] Contracts of this sort are specifically designed to remove
] ] incentives to innovate. They allow employers to prevent
] ] employees from developing anything that might threaten
] ] established businesses, while also removing the financial
] ] rewards from innovations that employers do approve of. There
]
] ] is absolutely no aspect of these contracts which meet the
] ] Constituional goals of Intellectual Property (promoting
] ] science and the useful arts); These contracts are typically
] ] far far too overbroad to be seen as protecting employers
] from
] ] unfair competition. They are specifically designed to
] ] eliminate distruptive innovation and uphold the status quo.
]
] ]
] ] Can the government really use powers granted by the
] ] Consititution to craft laws that are specifically designed
] to
] ] be used by citizens in a manner that is destructive to goals
]
] ] of the Constitution?
] ]
] ] Legal, or illegal, its obviously wrong.
]
] The government is not using any affirmative powers here. This
] is all the power to contract. The real lesson to be learned
] here is read your damn contracts. All of them. When you
] affix your signiture to something, you are promising
] something. None of us know what the contract says here, but
] more than likely, it falls under the standard work product
] rules that have been embedded in copyright law for many many
] years.
]
] If you don't want all your code to be owned by your company,
] negotiate that with your company. If they are not willing to
] negotiate, don't take that job. It is a free market economy;
] if enough people don't take jobs because of it, then the
] standard will change.

additionally, there aren't a whole lot of details here... maybe he did use company time or materials. maybe there is some apple proprietary stuff in his code. we can't know now, and until we do, it's premature to get terribly worked up.

Either way, ryan is right, and more than likely this guy is kicking himself for not reading his contract more carefully, not to mention the california law he mentions, which i perused yesterday -- it appears to my non-lawyerly eyes, that software is a specific exemption... he's probly fucked even if he could afford a lawyer.

all of this is one major reason why i wanted my own laptop -- sometimes when i travel or go on vacation i want to write code or make design notes about something of my own... i have a laptop lent to me by my employer, but i'm not comfortable using it even to send myself an email regarding some new thought or insight on a project of my design because i don't want to risk appropriation.

RE: Slashdot | Apple Claims Ownership of Shareware -- DON'T WORK FOR APPLE