Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA6992 ; Fri, 15 Jan 93 16:07:55 EST Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:11636 comp.unix.bsd:10070 comp.unix.wizards:28237 comp.org.usenix:3100 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uunet.ca!ecicrl!clewis From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings... Message-ID: <4148@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> Date: 17 Jan 93 20:34:43 GMT References: <BZS.93Jan14203519@world.std.com> <1343@eplunix.UUCP> <1993Jan17.020030.11728@news.eng.convex.com> Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada Lines: 47 In article <1993Jan17.020030.11728@news.eng.convex.com> gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes: > The whole concept of intellectual property is so damned dishonest. > Of all the cockamamie ideas to come out of the legal profession > "intellectual property" has to be the most fraudulent. It purports > to protect inventors. What a fraud! How can anyone fall for it? > I can only conclude that the people who champion it It protects the people who *own* the invention, often having invested large sums of money in developing it. There's nothing wrong with the concept of intellectual property, when you consider that these "inventions" were invented by inventors who're being paid to do it, and the inventions are owned, usually by contract, by the employer. The inventor is just doing his job - he got his reward, and the company got theirs. There's nothing wrong with IP with respect to internal trade secrets as opposed to user-visible interfaces (look-and-feel is a whole 'nother ballgame) The problem arises where lawyers think that IP restrictions are forever, an (ex-) employee is assumed to necessarily *use* that technology in a new place, and that company IP supercedes someone's ability to make a living in their field (if we set aside situations which are tantamount to industrial espionage). Fortunately I live in an area where even employee-employer signed IP agreements are almost always struck down because they're overbroad, overlong or just plain ridiculously restrictive. Leading to lawyers in the field saying not to worry about IPs, because they're almost always ipo-facto illegal being in contravention of employment standards legislation, or being trivially strike-downable. The only time these tend to stand is where the company can establish that you were bribed with a new higher-paying job explicitly in return for company secrets. In those cases you're screwed, and you deserve to be. We're probably being unduely panicky about this at this point, for computer-company IP isn't different than IP in any other industry, and as yet, there doesn't appear to be significant abuse of IP in those areas either. Future employment restrictions tend only to be upheld in extremely exceptional cases, and only for a limited time. USL's restrictions wouldn't have a chance of becoming permanent here, unless the judge completely lost his/her mind and completely ignored the ample law and precedent. Temporary injunction during litigation maybe, but certainly not permanent. -- Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541 Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca