undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdragonwriter12y ago0 comments

> Our default policy was (as is the case at most companies) that code written by our employees is copyright Rackspace. This is true just about universally - look on wikipedia about the "work for hire" doctrine.

Such a policy seems impossible to reconcile with the statutory requirements for a work to be a work for hire, which (when based on employment status rather than specific commission of the work in question) is specifically limited to works that are "prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment", 17 USC Sec. 101 (emphasis added).

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

VanL12y ago· 4 in thread

Hi dragonwriter,

The scope of employment has historically been interpreted very broadly, usually in terms of any present or possible future business opportunity. You will see how that leads to a broad right of assignment.

You may say, that is ridiculous! I can't believe such a thing! Well, I agree that it is ridiculous, but it is still generally true (modulo some exceptions applicable in a couple of states due to specific employment laws).

At Rackspace, we believe in doing the right thing. We already were doing the right thing, but only when asked. We changed our policy to instead do the right thing by default.

the_ancient12y ago

Only in the minds of Corporate lawyers is that true, the few cases that have gone all way to judgment often side with the employee unless the work product is directly related to their job function. Most of these cases also settle out of court long before they get to judgment because the soulless company bankrupts the former employee with bullshit legal costs

VanL12y ago

This is not true. For example, take a look at DSC Communications Corp. v. Evan Brown, or DDB Tech v. MLB Advanced Media or Medsphere v. Shreeve.

In DSC, the court ruled that Alcatel owned the employee's thoughts that had not yet been committed to writing. (See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/12/alcatel_owns_us_empl...).

In DDB, the court found that Schlumberger (the oilfield services company) owned a baseball simulator written by an employee. (See http://www.finnegan.com/Publications/federalcircuit/FCCDetai...)

In Medsphere, the CTO of the company was sued for releasing the source code to their application as open source on Sourceforge. (See http://www.informationweek.com/medsphere-settles-lawsuit-wit...)

It may be only "corporate lawyers" who agree with the policies, but those lawyers tend to be very persuasive in front of judges.

2 more replies

chrissnell12y ago

I worked at Rackspace from 2007-2013 and have been acquainted with them for even longer. The notion of a "soulless company" bankrupting a former employee is ridiculous in the context of the Rackspace way of doing business. It goes against the Rackspace Core Values. Many Rackers have left the company to found companies of their own and I've never heard of any legal fight with any of these folks.

There aren't many 5,000+ employee companies with OSS policies this friendly.

1 more reply

dragonwriterOP12y ago

I should add that, whatever questions I have about the potential technical overreach (and it certainly isn't atypical, I agree) in the described terms of your original policy, I think that both how you appear to have applied it and, even more, how you are now treating the issue are both positive things in the industry

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse