interesting copyright question (theoretical)

Hi guys,

I've just got interesting idea that I'd like to share/discuss with the community.

In short. Imagine you are a coder who coded something for a company and according to a contract all the sources and intellectual property must belong to a company. But then you divorce with a company, you remove the sources from your computer and other media, but you still do not remove your head from your shoulders

And now the very interesting question. You have not the sources, but you still are the only person who understands "know-hows" that were used int the product. You need not original sources to explain "know-how" and you patent it with the newly created sources. Now there appears very interesting copyright issue. A company owns all the intellectual property you created for the company for its money, but who and how can prove that "know-how" you have patented was created for a company for its money and not in your free time for some other company or just for yourself

Any thoughtful ideas are welcome. An please, do not try to enter the thread if you have nothing to say, please

 

You should seek legal advice from a law firm.

 

Nope. Until it's purely theoretic question there is no need for the law firm. I think product owner is more interesting in a law firm, because dev can patent "know-how" without any law firm

PS. As we are kinda old opponents I want to stress your attention on this point. Since you think developer is just a slave who strictly follows specification, you cannot understand where there is a room for "know-how". But if specification is just a requirement "gimme what I want but I don't know how", "know-how" belongs to a developer, definitely, while implementation belongs to a specifier, definitely.

Another example. If you pay money and ask "show me a miracle" and somebody really shows you a miracle. Who is a wizard, that guy that payed money or that one that showed a miracle? (purely theoretic question without any binding)

 

What does the contract state? You don't give your creations away. You sign it away.

 

Contract is always a long and routine paper with a lot of silly articles. Which doesn't change anything. The question is if a dev patent "know-how" after he departed with the product owner, what is a legal way to get out of this issue (for the vendor, primarily, because a vendor kinda becomes a patent violater). In any Court of any country a dev has clear advantage. He understands what he is talking about, while even a division of the lawyes do not undertstand just a line of the code and of the "know-how"

And and in any case, patent system protects those who patented something first. But is owner able to patent anything if he has no idea what "know-hows" are implemented in the product he owns ?

 

You have mixed up copyright and patents. You wouldn't be able to patent anything you did in Online Armor, as Online Armor would be prior art, which would would be required to disclose in your patent application.

 

unfortunately that silly little thing is bound by law. Its a legal binding piece of paper. Can't say without knowing if there was any agreement or verbal agreement between the parties.

 

Mike, I have no idea why you think about Online Armor. I didn't call just a single name. Online Armor is not the only thing in the world people can discuss, sorry to upset you

 

No agreement can take something from you that you created before or after contract. Which renders the things more complex. And if you used in the product something you created for the different product. There appears a conflict between the two payers ...

When I say about "another product" I mean just another product, which was developed with abslutely different contact (or even without any written contract at all)

 

you would get done for removing it and for using it in its present form as it now belongs to the company

 

OMG. I asked to answer only if you have anything to say about the question. What makes you think I need to know about your rules to hire people? This is of no interest to me, sorry.

I'd recommend you to abstract from any specific situation you think of for one and read the topic carefully which states that this topic is "THEORETICAL". It is interesting for me (and I believe not only for me) to realize different possible issues in this field.

I beg you not to bring to the thread anything personal and special. This will just spoil the thread. If you think this is wrong section for the topic, then advise me, please, what section would be right.

BTW, this question may have absolutely opposite practical meaning from what you seem to think. For example, I can be thinking of becoming employer myself and just want to learn what problems I can run into. I believe you agree, than generally the more you are learnt the more you are protected and ignorance is what makes us not protected.

 

the unemotional and unbiased answer to your question lays in the realm of copyright law of the country where the contract was signed. Thank you all for your comments. Thread closed.