|
So a carpenter is only allowed to build one table, one chair when it's for hire and can't go home and build the same exact chair and table using his own materials?
No, that would be obtuse.
Of course you can recreate the same code on your own time using your own materials. But for your safety I'd suggest renaming classes & methods, etc.
But, you could also ask permission to use the libraries.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
ahmed zahmed wrote: a carpenter is only allowed to build one table, one chair when it's for hire and can't go home and build the same exact chair and table using his own materials?
Not if the design is identical to the design that he made for the company, no.
|
|
|
|
|
Carpenters don't make things (such as encryption algorithms), that if recreated at home and then compromised... could allow hackers access to protected data (for individuals, corporations, and governments). So your analogy is silly. Carpenters generally don't need 'domain specific knowledge' or have access to any classified or proprietary information to create tables.
On the other hand. If you make a very simple yet useful library at work, which contains no domain specific knowledge, is easily reverse engineered by anyone wanting the feature, and you do it with YOUR OWN TOOLS, then I think you are ok... as long as you don't open source it in a way the compromises the licensing of your company... and then again... as long as you don't provide it for free while they are trying to sell it... and if ... and if ...
the scenarios are probably too specific to imagine here, hence the line about 'talk with your manager'. If you are uncomfortable asking for it... you probably shouldn't recreate it!
modified 1-May-14 13:00pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Boy you really stretched the analogy beyond all reason so you could justify your "silly" comment.  
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
ahmed zahmed wrote: No, that would be obtuse.
Except the law is not about absolutes.
Rather it is about how reasonable something is.
So if you do in fact create exactly the same thing then it would be up to the judge/jury to decide it if is "reasonable" if the code you created actually appears to be something that you created fresh or it a copy that you attempted to obfuscate to look different.
This of course precludes any existing agreements that states that one can't even work in the same area (regardless of when or how one does it.)
ahmed zahmed wrote: But for your safety I'd suggest renaming classes & methods, etc.
Not sure what that comment means. But taking existing code and renaming it is copying. And a reasonable interpretation would be that you had done just that.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, but it's also reasonable that the ideas one uses to do one's work are also able to be used for your own benefit outside of work.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
ahmed zahmed wrote: but it's also reasonable that the ideas one uses to do one's work are also able to be used for your own benefit outside of work.
Unless of course it is contractually stated otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Again, that depends.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Ideas are not subject to copyright so unless you've signed something that explicitly excludes you from using them, I see no problem with re-creating something similar at home, as long as you don't do it with the work code visible to you (to remove any possibility of copying). I've done something similar at work to re-use ideas I had working for one client in internal work and the consensus was that that is fine as long as you don't use any of the code you wrote before.
|
|
|
|
|
The ideas are yours. If you need those libraries recreate them.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, you'd be a thief.
The only exception would be if they gave you permission.
|
|
|
|
|
If you create the libraries on the company time, chances are that they own them. I have this in place in my company - all work created using company resources is covered as belonging to the company. If you worked for me and took your own laptop and did your work on there in your breaks, then I wouldn't have a problem with you using the code for yourself, but if you did it when you were supposed to be working on my projects and/or used my equipment, I would be very annoyed at you taking the code for yourself. The practical example of this was the creators of Barbie suing (and winning) the creators of Bratz because they created the Bratz dolls when they were working for Barbie.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: If you create the libraries on the company time, chances are that they own them.
Probably. Would they own the ideas of the libraries as well? I could easily re-create the libraries at home.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Would they own the ideas of the libraries as well?
Yes - depending on whether the libraries themselves were unique or just an implementation of existing ideas.
e.g. if you wrote a maths library to perform various mathematical functions, then you couldn't take the source code and use it yourself, but you could write another maths library based on your knowledge, because maths libraries pre-existed your development of one.
But if you wrote something unique then reproducing even the idea could be an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
"Ideas" are NOT patentable ... only HOW they are implemented.
You cannot patent a "light bulb" (though a "patent troll" might try) ... tungsten wire vs halogen vs sodium vs mercury, etc ... that's something different. There is always room for a better mouse trap.
Renaming class names, variables, etc. won't help you ... courts will look at "code patterns" at the "byte code" or machine level to make a determination if a copyright was violated. The same "constants" in a program can make this particularly easy. Of course, "experts" will always need to be brought in.
|
|
|
|
|
This also depends to some extent on the nature of your contract. I've been a developer for more years than I care to remember, but I have always been very careful to ensure that copyright in the code remained with me (except for very specific contracts).
In the UK at least, code is considered a creative work for copyright purposes, so unless your contract of employment explicitly states that anything you write on company time, using company equipment, becomes the property of (and the copyright therein also becomes the property of) the company, then you retain all the intellectual property rights.
These days, of course, most employers are aware of this and structure their contracts accordingly, but this certainly wasn't the case generally until quite recently.
Now I work for my own company, this isn't much of a problem 8)
|
|
|
|
|
This is in my current contract. Anything I create using company resources, on company time, is sole property of the client I'm on contract with.
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the companies I have worked for cover that in the contract of employment: they own the rights to everything you produce while working for them - and one or two contracts have gone further and claimed ownership of everything produced while employed by them: which covers time outside working hours as well, but that is probably difficult to enforce in a court. Lawyers would enjoy the profits of trying though.
If you are at work when you do any work on them, they own it. Taking it home without permission would be theft and could be enforced pretty easily: if it came to court, you'd almost certainly lose.
On good terms with your boss? Explain and ask him for permission!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Related to R&D:
Anything related to your position while a Federal (US) government employee is owned by the US Government; similar rules for many large companies.
It makes sense: the US Gov't point of view is that you are using knowledge gained while employed by them, so the creation of the knowledge is their property.
This all comes about, actually, as a consequence of the rules/laws that a Federal Employee is not permitted (aside from wages, etc.) from profiting from his association with the government. This extends to gifts from vendors (beyond, perhaps, a cup of coffee or very cheap pen).
For a period of time, due to some scandals in congress, rules (=laws) were enacted of a nature whereby a Federal Employee could not earn money form speaking, even if totally unrelated to their work. This law, naturally, excluded senators and congressmen. It has since been fixed - only applying to work-related material (it's owned by the people and you cannot charge them for what is already theirs).
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: so the creation of the knowledge is their property
So when going out of employment you should forget everything you learned while employed? That's a bit hard... Unless you're with the MIB 
|
|
|
|
|
If I recall correctly, there was some sort of time limit. It may have been as short as when one's gov't employment is terminated (which is what would happen if you violated the rules).
For private sector, it's likely in the contract that one cannot make of use of their intellectual property for some set period. The rest buys Porsche's for Intellectual Property Lawyers.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: and one or two contracts have gone further and claimed ownership of everything produced while employed by them: which covers time outside working hours as well
That's ridiculous... And, as you say, almost impossible to check.
Of course you shouldn't write articles while employed... 
|
|
|
|
|
Their attitude was that they don't pay developers by the hour; they pay by the month, so anything you did during that month was theirs!
I did ask if I should take a plastic bag with me on bathroom visits, but just got a stern look... 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote:
Their attitude was that they don't pay developers by the hour; they pay by the month, so anything you did during that month was theirs! |
They pay for x hours per month, so anything produced in those x hours can be theirs. What I do outside office hours is none of their business though!
OriginalGriff wrote: I did ask if I should take a plastic bag with me on bathroom visits, but just got a stern look...
Doesn't sound like a company I would want to be working for...
|
|
|
|
|
Do you get overtime payments if you work more than that?
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
