Subject: you thought those IP clauses in your contract were not enforceable

From: Oleg Goldshmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:13:18 +0300

I think the subject of this tidbit 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/26627.html

was touched upon here (or was it LINUX-IL? Never mind). Many of us
have those IP clauses in our employment contracts. I recall one that
said the employer owned "everything conceived" by the employee, and
the lawyers failed to laugh when kids were mentioned.

Now a typical situation (in my experience) is that when you question
the clause formulation during contract negotiations you hear that it
is not important and not enforceable. Apparently a judge in a faraway
land thought differently.

You've been warned ;-)

-- 
Oleg Goldshmidt | [email-masked] 
=================================================================
"... Of theoretical physics and programming, programming embodied 
the greater intellectual challenge." [E.W.Dijkstra, 1930 - 2002.]

---

From: guy keren <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:34:48 +0300 (EET DST)

> the lawyers failed to laugh when kids were mentioned.

this wasn't discussed on the mailing list, according to my memory. what
was discussed, was the non-competetion clause, preventing one from working
in the field, or for the competetion, for X years after you quit your
current job. its not entirely the same.

> land thought differently.

note that this is the USA's laws, which are different from the israeli
laws - so making a 1-1 translation won't necessarily work.

in any event, this implies one should put various restrictions on that
clause, when signing the contract. to generalize - one should fully read
all their contract, mark down what they cannot live with, and insist on
getting that changed, and then checking that they can live with the
change. if not - repeat.

-- 
guy

"For world domination - press 1,
 or dial 0, and please hold, for the creator." -- nob o. dy