Re: Informix vs Oracle, alleged trade secret theft

In article <32F245C6.73C5_at_segel.KINGDOM.OF.MYDOMAIN.com>, Mike Segel <mikey_at_segel.KINGDOM.OF.MYDOMAIN.com> wrote:
>netac wrote:
>>

 [SNIP]
>> I haven't missed the point. I agree with you, but what I am saying is
>> that companies now try to extend the "trade secret" concept to include
>> "your knowledge" and therefore your marketable skills. Obviosuly many
>> of us in development use our knowledge to develop things for our
>> companies that become their "trade secrets", so where is the line
>> between our knowledge, that belongs to us, and their trade secret, whihc
>> belongs to the company. What I am saying is that this line is blurring
>> in favor of the companies. If it continues, we will all be indentured
>> servants, having to work for our current company at any level of
>> compensation because they can use the courts to prevent us from going
>> someplace else with our marketeable skills...
>
>It has always been in favor of the companies.
>Lets look at an example:
>
>Supose I am a quant jock working for company Trader-X. I
>develop an option pricing program which is 15 basis points
>more accurate than those currently being used by my competitors.
>(15 basis points is 15/100 of a percent.) Trader-X then uses this
>program to compare the prices of options with the prices we calculated.
>Trader-X makes millions!
>
>Trader-Vic a competitor wants to know how Trader-X does it. In the end,
>Trader-Vic finds out I am the guy, so they want to hire me. I have
>a non-compete clause with Trader-X. Can I go to work for Trader-Vic?
>After all, they promised me Jenny McCarthy along with the penthouse
>on Mag Mile ;-)
>
>The answer is maybe. State laws control contracts. Illinois is a right
>to work state. This means that a former employer can not stop me
>from working in my profession. It all depends on how the contract
>was written. If the clause is too repressive, the courts *may* say the
>clause is too restrictive and violates my right to work. But if the
>contract blocks me from working for a direct competitor for a period
>of time, then the courts will allow it as a valid clause.
>
>However in my scenario, I can't since Trader-Vic is a direct compettitor
>and Trader-X has paid me to create a program which gives them a
>compettive edge. They own the intellectual property or trade secret.
>
>You have to remember that they paid you to learn and do the research
>to develop the product, hence they have a right to that product.
>After all, your knowledge was gained through collaberation. The laws
>are there to help protect a company's investment and recoupe their
>expenses.
>
>Just my $.02 worth.
>
>-Mikey
>BTW, I'm not a lawyer. I just play one on TV ;-)

You'd make a terrible lawyer. This issue has nothing to do with Right-to-work, or working in you profession. If I'm a "C" program, I can go elsewhere and write "C" code, but I cannot transfer the code or algorithms that a proprietary to my previous employer. Understand?

Tom Received on Fri Jan 31 1997 - 00:00:00 CET