Stupid Questions
In an article about Open Source software and its impact on vendors, I think I ran across one of the stupidest paragraphs I've ever seen - here's Dana Blankenhorn:
Many of these vendor fears are wrapped up in the phrase "intellectual property." What you do for me becomes my property. But why should it? Why should you, as an employer, continue to profit from the work I perform as your employee?
It's called a paycheck. If you want to have full ownership of what you do, then you do it as an independent, and take the risks that come with that. If you want to take the security of a paycheck, then you also take the restrictions that come with that. It's not that complicated - TANSTAAFL pretty much sums the whole thing up.
Technorati Tags: stupidity
Comments
different cultures, different countries, different rules
[Troy Brumley] May 14, 2007 7:44:39.302
Jim, that's the rule here in most employment situations I'm aware of, but I gather it is different in Europe. Germany comes to mind. It's also a critical question in consulting--who owns any resulting IP.
Theory and practice
[John Bayko] May 15, 2007 13:41:01.629
There are always limits to ideal principles. For example, part of the "intellectual property" of software development is experience. But if I've learned how to implement something new while working for an employer, that experience is mine no matter what any contracts, laws, or anyone in the world says or what they've paid me, and I can use that experience absolutely any way that I want. So "intellectual properry" is by definition a grey area (not "real" property but "intellectual property" - you have to pretend that it exists so you can pretend to treat it in an agreed upon way) which takes many forms. If I write down my experience, are those notes still mine? If those notes are in the form of source code, does it change? etc..
I suppose things were easier when you could own slaves, including their thoughts and ideas, and the entirety of their lives.