Legalities Question
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
It belongs to you and you can claim prior art.
Check your contract! Seriously, employers claim rights over all work, Inspiration Tax I suppose.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
Dalek Dave wrote:
Seriously, employers claim rights over all work
There is a provision somewhere in SA IP law, that I can't currently find, that nullifies any contractual claim on the part of the employer to work done by an employee outside of his duties to the employer. I have a pressing deadline so I can't spend too much time looking for it.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Seriously, employers claim rights over all work
There is a provision somewhere in SA IP law, that I can't currently find, that nullifies any contractual claim on the part of the employer to work done by an employee outside of his duties to the employer. I have a pressing deadline so I can't spend too much time looking for it.
Ah yes, well, different legal systems have different rights and obligations, but UK law does give the employer rights to all work within the contract. You can always alter the contract before signing it.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
-
Let's say I was working for a company a year or two ago, and during my tenure there, I came up with a configurable encryption mechanism that involved wrapping a given file with vendor-configurable encryption scheme. This way, the software could only be decrypted by software provided by the vendor, yet regardless of the encryption configuration used. Now, let's say that some software was being written that used this encryption system, but before it could be released, the company in question went out of business. Patent filing was discussed (before the company went under), but as far as I can find, it was never done. I realize there are no lawyers here, but does anyone think I would be violating any copyrights or anything if I were to write an article here about the encryption method I developed? I would be going completely from my memory of the code. BTW, the encryption system wasn't going to work for what they wanted, but they wanted it done, and this was the best I could come up with. The actual encryption mechanism worked great, what they wanted it for prevented other types of security to be used. They were streaming files over the web, and the decrypted files existed as temporary files on the user's hard drive. The company went under before we could try to address this issue (and truthfully, there was no fix for this issue due to extenuating circumstances).
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001Personally, I wouldn't worry about it and I don't care what any employer, past or... well... past, says about it. My feeling is that if the particular piece of code is application-specific, then it's theirs. If it is a more general-purpose piece of code that can be used in many applications then I consider it "mine" and I just happen to be allowing them to use it in their application free of charge because I'm a nice guy. Basically, if I'm assigned to create Foo and along the way I create a general-purpose Bar then I feel that Bar is mine, but Foo is theirs. About six of my articles are based on code that I wrote in response to requirements for an employer. Unfortunately, the situation you describe is likely trickier because you were tasked with creating the particular code rather than the code being just one technique that you used to solve an assigned task. On yet a third hand, you aren't planning on making money selling the code, so you probably shouldn't worry.
-
The legal issue is not of the code but of technique. The code might be different but the technique might be same, so that will be a problem.
I found this text on the net regarding US laws: Fair Use. Even with that in mind, there are further limits to copyright. For example, partial or limited reproduction of another's work may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use. This doctrine is especially liberal where the use advances public interests such as education or scholarship and specifically permits making a backup copy of a program. Further, sellers of utility software, such as clip art or programming libraries, should permit hassle-free distribution of non-competing works created by licensed users. [Programmers should seriously consider whether to use the work of publishers who assert additional rights.] Beyond fair use, still more fundamental limits to copyright protection should be considered. Expressions are Protected, not Facts or Ideas. The basic idea is easily illustrated: An author of an online story has protection for her words, but not for facts that she went to the trouble to collect or her basic plot. Similarly, a programmer has protection from others' duplicating a segment of code but not from their writing different code to accomplish the same end. Protection for facts as such is probably not available, and processes can be protected, if at all, only by trade secrets or patents. [For more on the last option in particular, see Seeking Cost-Effective Patents, right-hand navigation bar.] That said, caution is nevertheless warranted. Copying someone's creative presentation of facts could easily infringe. Also, merely translating from one language into another may infringe -- just as would translating a novel from French to English. Independent Creation is Permitted. A second work, identical to an earlier copyrighted work, does not infringe, if it is, in fact, independently created. While a well-known first work of a very unique or fanciful kind may make an independent creation defense difficult to believe, the problem may be more complicated with regard to some kinds of software. Assume that, code has been copied with slight variations from the original, and it is claimed that function dictated form. A practical cure for the problem of showing that a work was in fact copied is to embed "identifiers" such as misspellings and useless loops or variables. The objective is to hide them so that they will show up in copies which are claimed to be, but are not, independently created. If so, the issue will no longer be the alleged copier's credibility. I think this pretty much says I can (legally) independ
-
I found this text on the net regarding US laws: Fair Use. Even with that in mind, there are further limits to copyright. For example, partial or limited reproduction of another's work may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use. This doctrine is especially liberal where the use advances public interests such as education or scholarship and specifically permits making a backup copy of a program. Further, sellers of utility software, such as clip art or programming libraries, should permit hassle-free distribution of non-competing works created by licensed users. [Programmers should seriously consider whether to use the work of publishers who assert additional rights.] Beyond fair use, still more fundamental limits to copyright protection should be considered. Expressions are Protected, not Facts or Ideas. The basic idea is easily illustrated: An author of an online story has protection for her words, but not for facts that she went to the trouble to collect or her basic plot. Similarly, a programmer has protection from others' duplicating a segment of code but not from their writing different code to accomplish the same end. Protection for facts as such is probably not available, and processes can be protected, if at all, only by trade secrets or patents. [For more on the last option in particular, see Seeking Cost-Effective Patents, right-hand navigation bar.] That said, caution is nevertheless warranted. Copying someone's creative presentation of facts could easily infringe. Also, merely translating from one language into another may infringe -- just as would translating a novel from French to English. Independent Creation is Permitted. A second work, identical to an earlier copyrighted work, does not infringe, if it is, in fact, independently created. While a well-known first work of a very unique or fanciful kind may make an independent creation defense difficult to believe, the problem may be more complicated with regard to some kinds of software. Assume that, code has been copied with slight variations from the original, and it is claimed that function dictated form. A practical cure for the problem of showing that a work was in fact copied is to embed "identifiers" such as misspellings and useless loops or variables. The objective is to hide them so that they will show up in copies which are claimed to be, but are not, independently created. If so, the issue will no longer be the alleged copier's credibility. I think this pretty much says I can (legally) independ
That leaves me, more confused. :) I guess if your company complains or sends lawyers after you, you can always remove the article.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
.45 ACP
What is your opinion on Berretta PX4 Storm Sub Compat[^]? Do you have any other favorite compacts/sub-compacts?
-
That leaves me, more confused. :) I guess if your company complains or sends lawyers after you, you can always remove the article.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
.45 ACP
What is your opinion on Berretta PX4 Storm Sub Compat[^]? Do you have any other favorite compacts/sub-compacts?
I'm gonna go ahead and see if I can't recreate the essential functionality, post an article about it, and see what happens.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
What is your opinion on Berretta PX4 Storm Sub Compat[^]? Do you have any other favorite compacts/sub-compacts?
My view of sub-compacts is that you shouldn't spend a lot of money on them. You're probably going to be using it as a concealed carry weapon, and as such, there is a possibility that you'd either get it confiscated or forcibly taken away from you at some point. I'm thinking along the lines of a Taurus PT745. It's got a single-stack magazine which makes it more like my 1911 Government model. It also has a Pierce grip extender on the magazines so that my little finger doesn't wrap *under* the grip (that's really uncomfortable for me, and my wife doesn't like that either). It's light, relatively inexpensive, and reliable. For the record, I also have a XD40 Service (4-inch barrel), but I prefer the feel of my 1911 for shooting. The 1911 is harder to conceal than the XD40, which itself is harder to conceal compared to the Taurus.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
I found this text on the net regarding US laws: Fair Use. Even with that in mind, there are further limits to copyright. For example, partial or limited reproduction of another's work may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use. This doctrine is especially liberal where the use advances public interests such as education or scholarship and specifically permits making a backup copy of a program. Further, sellers of utility software, such as clip art or programming libraries, should permit hassle-free distribution of non-competing works created by licensed users. [Programmers should seriously consider whether to use the work of publishers who assert additional rights.] Beyond fair use, still more fundamental limits to copyright protection should be considered. Expressions are Protected, not Facts or Ideas. The basic idea is easily illustrated: An author of an online story has protection for her words, but not for facts that she went to the trouble to collect or her basic plot. Similarly, a programmer has protection from others' duplicating a segment of code but not from their writing different code to accomplish the same end. Protection for facts as such is probably not available, and processes can be protected, if at all, only by trade secrets or patents. [For more on the last option in particular, see Seeking Cost-Effective Patents, right-hand navigation bar.] That said, caution is nevertheless warranted. Copying someone's creative presentation of facts could easily infringe. Also, merely translating from one language into another may infringe -- just as would translating a novel from French to English. Independent Creation is Permitted. A second work, identical to an earlier copyrighted work, does not infringe, if it is, in fact, independently created. While a well-known first work of a very unique or fanciful kind may make an independent creation defense difficult to believe, the problem may be more complicated with regard to some kinds of software. Assume that, code has been copied with slight variations from the original, and it is claimed that function dictated form. A practical cure for the problem of showing that a work was in fact copied is to embed "identifiers" such as misspellings and useless loops or variables. The objective is to hide them so that they will show up in copies which are claimed to be, but are not, independently created. If so, the issue will no longer be the alleged copier's credibility. I think this pretty much says I can (legally) independ
-
Unless they have patented the algorithm.
I couldn't find anything during my patent search.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Yeah, I have design documentation that I wrote, as well as the document that I wrote and presented to a venture capitalist.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Personally, I wouldn't worry about it and I don't care what any employer, past or... well... past, says about it. My feeling is that if the particular piece of code is application-specific, then it's theirs. If it is a more general-purpose piece of code that can be used in many applications then I consider it "mine" and I just happen to be allowing them to use it in their application free of charge because I'm a nice guy. Basically, if I'm assigned to create Foo and along the way I create a general-purpose Bar then I feel that Bar is mine, but Foo is theirs. About six of my articles are based on code that I wrote in response to requirements for an employer. Unfortunately, the situation you describe is likely trickier because you were tasked with creating the particular code rather than the code being just one technique that you used to solve an assigned task. On yet a third hand, you aren't planning on making money selling the code, so you probably shouldn't worry.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
My feeling is
Not a defence in law. Whatever you think you may be entitled to do, if it contravenes the laws of your country then you are at fault and can be sued for millions. I would not advocate taking the risk.
-
I couldn't find anything during my patent search.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001If you did an online patent search @ the USPTO, remember that a previously applied for patent doesn't show up in a search until (a) the patent application has been scrutinized (not just accepted) or (b) the patent has been granted. It usually takes upto 24 months for an application to be scrutinized. :( /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
My feeling is
Not a defence in law. Whatever you think you may be entitled to do, if it contravenes the laws of your country then you are at fault and can be sued for millions. I would not advocate taking the risk.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
and can be sued for millions
I wish anyone that wants to sue me for millions all the luck in the world collecting it. It's surprisingly easy to step off the grid.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Let's say I was working for a company a year or two ago, and during my tenure there, I came up with a configurable encryption mechanism that involved wrapping a given file with vendor-configurable encryption scheme. This way, the software could only be decrypted by software provided by the vendor, yet regardless of the encryption configuration used. Now, let's say that some software was being written that used this encryption system, but before it could be released, the company in question went out of business. Patent filing was discussed (before the company went under), but as far as I can find, it was never done. I realize there are no lawyers here, but does anyone think I would be violating any copyrights or anything if I were to write an article here about the encryption method I developed? I would be going completely from my memory of the code. BTW, the encryption system wasn't going to work for what they wanted, but they wanted it done, and this was the best I could come up with. The actual encryption mechanism worked great, what they wanted it for prevented other types of security to be used. They were streaming files over the web, and the decrypted files existed as temporary files on the user's hard drive. The company went under before we could try to address this issue (and truthfully, there was no fix for this issue due to extenuating circumstances).
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001If there are no patents and it's a 'clean room' implementation I don't see how there is any issue. I am not a lawyer so I shouldn't be trusted.
And above all things, never think that you're not good enough yourself. A man should never think that. My belief is that in life people will take you at your own reckoning. --Isaac Asimov Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
and can be sued for millions
I wish anyone that wants to sue me for millions all the luck in the world collecting it. It's surprisingly easy to step off the grid.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001Go for it. The worst thing that will happen will be a cease and desist letter from their liars lawyers, at which point you can retract the article and everybody will be happy. Well maybe everybody except you! Cryptography is a hobby of mine. I know I should get a life! I would be interested in seeing your presentation.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
If there are no patents and it's a 'clean room' implementation I don't see how there is any issue. I am not a lawyer so I shouldn't be trusted.
And above all things, never think that you're not good enough yourself. A man should never think that. My belief is that in life people will take you at your own reckoning. --Isaac Asimov Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
Chris Austin wrote:
I am not a lawyer so I shouldn't be trusted.
or possibly
Chris Austin wrote:
I am not a lawyer so I shouldn't be trusted.
FTFY :-D
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
Go for it. The worst thing that will happen will be a cease and desist letter from their liars lawyers, at which point you can retract the article and everybody will be happy. Well maybe everybody except you! Cryptography is a hobby of mine. I know I should get a life! I would be interested in seeing your presentation.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopesReally, it was nothing fancy, and certainly not patentable (in my humble opinion).
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Let's say I was working for a company a year or two ago, and during my tenure there, I came up with a configurable encryption mechanism that involved wrapping a given file with vendor-configurable encryption scheme. This way, the software could only be decrypted by software provided by the vendor, yet regardless of the encryption configuration used. Now, let's say that some software was being written that used this encryption system, but before it could be released, the company in question went out of business. Patent filing was discussed (before the company went under), but as far as I can find, it was never done. I realize there are no lawyers here, but does anyone think I would be violating any copyrights or anything if I were to write an article here about the encryption method I developed? I would be going completely from my memory of the code. BTW, the encryption system wasn't going to work for what they wanted, but they wanted it done, and this was the best I could come up with. The actual encryption mechanism worked great, what they wanted it for prevented other types of security to be used. They were streaming files over the web, and the decrypted files existed as temporary files on the user's hard drive. The company went under before we could try to address this issue (and truthfully, there was no fix for this issue due to extenuating circumstances).
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Now, let's say that some software was being written that used this encryption system, but before it could be released, the company in question went out of business. Patent filing was discussed (before the company went under), but as far as I can find, it was never done. I realize there are no lawyers here, but does anyone think I would be violating any copyrights or anything if I were to write an article here about the encryption method I developed? I would be going completely from my memory of the code.
Nah, no company demands non-disclosure on the software secrets that eventually led it out of business. ;P
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
Really, it was nothing fancy, and certainly not patentable (in my humble opinion).
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
it was nothing fancy
Sometimes the simple solutions are the most elegant.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
I found this text on the net regarding US laws: Fair Use. Even with that in mind, there are further limits to copyright. For example, partial or limited reproduction of another's work may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use. This doctrine is especially liberal where the use advances public interests such as education or scholarship and specifically permits making a backup copy of a program. Further, sellers of utility software, such as clip art or programming libraries, should permit hassle-free distribution of non-competing works created by licensed users. [Programmers should seriously consider whether to use the work of publishers who assert additional rights.] Beyond fair use, still more fundamental limits to copyright protection should be considered. Expressions are Protected, not Facts or Ideas. The basic idea is easily illustrated: An author of an online story has protection for her words, but not for facts that she went to the trouble to collect or her basic plot. Similarly, a programmer has protection from others' duplicating a segment of code but not from their writing different code to accomplish the same end. Protection for facts as such is probably not available, and processes can be protected, if at all, only by trade secrets or patents. [For more on the last option in particular, see Seeking Cost-Effective Patents, right-hand navigation bar.] That said, caution is nevertheless warranted. Copying someone's creative presentation of facts could easily infringe. Also, merely translating from one language into another may infringe -- just as would translating a novel from French to English. Independent Creation is Permitted. A second work, identical to an earlier copyrighted work, does not infringe, if it is, in fact, independently created. While a well-known first work of a very unique or fanciful kind may make an independent creation defense difficult to believe, the problem may be more complicated with regard to some kinds of software. Assume that, code has been copied with slight variations from the original, and it is claimed that function dictated form. A practical cure for the problem of showing that a work was in fact copied is to embed "identifiers" such as misspellings and useless loops or variables. The objective is to hide them so that they will show up in copies which are claimed to be, but are not, independently created. If so, the issue will no longer be the alleged copier's credibility. I think this pretty much says I can (legally) independ
Fair Use - does not apply. Independent Creation - does not apply. You are not independent to the original creation. An example of this is AMD creating x86 processors that duplicated Intel's functionality. AMD had to go out of their way to find engineers with no prior knowledge of Intel's chip designs. Expressions are Protected, not Facts or Ideas - This should cover what you want to do. As long as you are rewriting from scratch, with no reference to the original code, you should be ok. However, you should get legal advice ... blah blah blah.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
wrapping a given file with vendor-configurable encryption scheme
No offense, but that doesn't sound patentable to me.
...cmk The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying. - John Carmack
-
I found this text on the net regarding US laws: Fair Use. Even with that in mind, there are further limits to copyright. For example, partial or limited reproduction of another's work may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use. This doctrine is especially liberal where the use advances public interests such as education or scholarship and specifically permits making a backup copy of a program. Further, sellers of utility software, such as clip art or programming libraries, should permit hassle-free distribution of non-competing works created by licensed users. [Programmers should seriously consider whether to use the work of publishers who assert additional rights.] Beyond fair use, still more fundamental limits to copyright protection should be considered. Expressions are Protected, not Facts or Ideas. The basic idea is easily illustrated: An author of an online story has protection for her words, but not for facts that she went to the trouble to collect or her basic plot. Similarly, a programmer has protection from others' duplicating a segment of code but not from their writing different code to accomplish the same end. Protection for facts as such is probably not available, and processes can be protected, if at all, only by trade secrets or patents. [For more on the last option in particular, see Seeking Cost-Effective Patents, right-hand navigation bar.] That said, caution is nevertheless warranted. Copying someone's creative presentation of facts could easily infringe. Also, merely translating from one language into another may infringe -- just as would translating a novel from French to English. Independent Creation is Permitted. A second work, identical to an earlier copyrighted work, does not infringe, if it is, in fact, independently created. While a well-known first work of a very unique or fanciful kind may make an independent creation defense difficult to believe, the problem may be more complicated with regard to some kinds of software. Assume that, code has been copied with slight variations from the original, and it is claimed that function dictated form. A practical cure for the problem of showing that a work was in fact copied is to embed "identifiers" such as misspellings and useless loops or variables. The objective is to hide them so that they will show up in copies which are claimed to be, but are not, independently created. If so, the issue will no longer be the alleged copier's credibility. I think this pretty much says I can (legally) independ
Hi John, Do keep in mind that copyright is one thing and patent law quite another. best, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
