Re: Informix vs Oracle, alleged trade secret theft

In article <32F245C6.73C5@segel.KINGDOM.OF.MYDOMAIN.com>, Mike Segel <mikey@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