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@mail.ue.com.au (Christian Simich) wrote: :On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:42:12 GMT, Nils.Myklebust@idg.no (Nils :Myklebust) wrote: : :>netac <netac@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@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@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