Re: Informix vs Oracle, alleged trade secret theft

I spesifically do not want to take this discussion about the philosophical (ethical) issues much further her in c.d.i. Although it affects us all there is a limit to how far we should discuss this kind of topic here in a technical newsgroup. Other facts about this case are of course interesting.
All I will say therefore is that I agree with a some of what Christian wrote and disagree with most. Now beeing an employer have nothing to do with this. I had the same opinions when I for many years where an employee. Check your premises and you may see it.

Hope this ends it. Otherwise it should definitly be taken offline.

csimich_at_mail.ue.com.au (Christian Simich) wrote:

:On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:42:12 GMT, Nils.Myklebust_at_idg.no (Nils
:Myklebust) wrote:
:
:>netac <netac_at_worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:>
:>:Larry Baker wrote:
:>:>
:>:> Yomama Sophat wrote:
:>:> > 1) Who's in the right?
:>:> > 2) Who will win in the end?
:>:> > 3) Who's got the better technology?
:>:>
:>:
:>: These cases are very scary. Unless the case is about specific theft of
:>:software or intellectual property, I could see the point. However, more
:>:and more tech companies are moving forward with these suits as if to say
:>:they own the minds of their engineers and they are not free to go
:>:forward and take a better job for a better offer. Its disgusting, and
:>:as technical professionals we should all be very concerned about this.
:>:The work I do for my company belongs to them, but my mind belongs to me
:>:and so do my skills and I can sell them to the highest bidder. I think
:>:this point gets lost in the discussion sometimes.
:>
:>I am sorry, but it is an essential feature of a free country that you
:>can write the type of contract that you want to. If you can't you are
:>not free.
:>Also if I employ someone for advanced development work I would
:>normally write a contract that they couldn't do competitive work for
:>some time after the emploiment was terminated. I would assume Informix
:>have something like this as well.
:>Your mind and your knowledge clearly belongs to you with the exception
:>that you can't break a contract. It would often say you shouldn't take
:>the knowledge you have gain during an emploiment and give it to a
:>competior. It doesn't realy matter whether you bring disks, paper or
:>your own memory with you to that competitor.
:>
:>Of course you are also free to not sign such a contract, and then
:>probably have to go somewhere else for emploiment. You chose. Nobody
:>else can or should make such a decision for you.
:>
:>If you say that emploiers shouldn't be allowed to demand contracts of
:>the above type you shackel emploiers and you have the start of a non
:>free country which will one day fire back at you very hard.
:>
:>The whole issue then resolves arround the contracts these emploiees
:>have written with Informix.
:>Another issue is that the judicial system in the US have been all but
:>broken by a long series of bad lawmaking and not very good practicing
:>in the courts. This makes it very unclear what contracts can be upheld
:>in the courts.
:>
:>
:>Nils.Myklebust_at_idg.no
:>NM Data AS, P.O.Box 9090 Gronland, N-0133 Oslo, Norway
:>My opinions are those of my company
:>The Informix FAQ is at http://www.iiug.org
:
:
:I have to respond to Nils here because I feel very strongly about the
:subject and Nils raised very interesting issues here.
:
:I am not engaging into 'flaming' here because I understand where is
:Nils coming from; the employers are at risk that some or significant
:know-how may leave the company when a critical person moves to the
:competitor.
:
:The problem is that what Nils states as the 'freedom', in this case a
:CORPORATE FREEDOM to structure the contracts in certain ways, goes
:against the PERSONAL FREEDOM - to go and work for whomever one wants
:to.
:
:Not everyone is lucky or capable enough to start and work for their
:own business. If that was the case, we would not discuss this. There
:will be no employees to sign the contracts.
:
:Luckily, I suspect that this kind of contract, even if signed by a
:person, may not be binding in some countries. If anyone from
:Australia is reading this, could you comment please.
:
:I heard of a ridiculous case of contracts in USA where the employees
:of some food chain company had to sign that, from memory, they will
:not work for a competitor in 10 miles radius from any of the outlets
:of their current company. It proved, that being a big chain, present
:in many spots, these radii would cover viruatlly the whole town in
:an area.
:
:I agree that theoretically one does not have to sign the contract and
:may look elsewhere for the job. In practice, if many companies start
:putting this type of clauses in, there would be no practical choice.
:
:No offence Nils, but would you argue for the FREEDOM to buy slaves?
:
:These contracts are almost like the old feudal laws, if you ask me.
:
:As a final word, the area is hard, and both employees and employers
:need to be protected.
:
: If an employee has not stolen anything in from the company, the
:knowledge itself should not make a great difference. There is much
:more to commercial success these days then just the knowledge in one's
:head: Marketing, sales channels, QA, productivity and strong
:financial backing worked many times for the inferior technologies.
:
:After all, who can stop a former or disgruntled employee doing a
:'brain dump', over a cup of coffee, to someone working for a
:competitor?
:
:Contracts cannot replace the ethics, and believe it or not, many
:people are still strongly guided by this kind of old-fashioned
:feeling.
:
:
:
:--
:Christian Simich, Melbourne, Australia
:
:All opinions and statements expressed in this forum are mine
:and mine only and should not be attributed to my current
:employer or interpreted as support to any commercial
:interests.

Nils.Myklebust_at_idg.no
NM Data AS, P.O.Box 9090 Gronland, N-0133 Oslo, Norway My opinions are those of my company
The Informix FAQ is at http://www.iiug.org Received on Thu Jan 30 1997 - 00:00:00 CST