Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.programmer:2127 comp.software-eng:772
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrcce!c10sd3!c10sd1!johnson
From: johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Work for Hire contracts
Message-ID: <479@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM>
Date: 17 Aug 88 18:08:52 GMT
References: <496@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> <25636@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <25638@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <3110@sdsu.UUCP>
Reply-To: johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Organization: NCR Comten, St Paul
Lines: 42

In article <3110@sdsu.UUCP> roetzhei@sdsu.UCSD.EDU (William Roetzheim) writes:
>
>I believe that the company 'owns' everything produced on company time.  
>This means that programmers can not code on company time and then take
>the code (or fragments of the code) home to use for other purposes.  I also
>believe that knowledge entrusted to an employee by the company to do his/her
>work belongs to the company and can not be used for personal gain.  On the
>other hand, I believe that a programmer (or anyone else) has the right to
>use his/her talents and skills to produce code/algorithms/etc. on his or
>her own time, and that the company has no rights to these items.  Some
>States (CA is one) have laws which say basically the same thing.  
>
>WHR

Minnesota also has a law that states that anything that is produced on 
your own time with your own equipment is yours, and that any intellectual
properties agreement stating such are null and void.  There are also court
presedents that state that is you are required to sign the agreement after
you are hired (vs. signing in order to be hired) that it is void.

There is one major complication, just what is company time?  Many (if not
most) companies offer Flex-Time for its professional staff.  If you can work
your own hours, what is company time.  Also, if you are a salaried employee,
you are paid for the tasks you do, not the time you spend.  

I have also heard of a case where an employee developed a product in his
spare time (at the office), on company equipment.  After he began selling this
software himself he was fired and the company sued to prevent him from 
selling this product.  The court ruled that since the company had not 
planned the product (and thus the employee had not been asigned it as a 
task), nor was it impacted by the use of its equipment, that the company 
had no right to the product and the employee continued to make a merry 
profit.

Disclaimer: I am not offering legal advice, just stating my viewpoint.  
            Consult with professional legal consul before making any
            major decisions.
was allowed to continue to sell it.
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.