Re: Informix vs Oracle, alleged trade secret theft

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.