HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property - Your employer's position?
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:46:30 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <jc3sjvg@sgi.sgi.com> rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes:

>+---------------
>| 	1.  They intend to attempt to Patent the product...
>+---------------

>If your state defaults to a "work for hire" posture, that's correct.

No, that's not right.  Patents are covered by federal law and may only be
issued to the actual *inventor*.  But the employee may agree/contract to
assign future inventions to the company.  The "work for hire" concept is
valid for copyrightable subject matter.  Also federal law, so no state-to-state
variation there, either.  But if it isn't patentable, trademarkable or
copyrightble, and it's intellectual property, it's state law.
 


>you were operating under *before* you sign(ed) the agreement. But *if*
>you have any prior-agreement rights, to preserve them you may well have
>to resign *before* you sign. See a lawyer.

Yup. Sorry.

>I am not a lawyer, just someone who has had to sign a lot of these things.
>They all look kinda familiar after a while. But don't let that lull you to
>sleep. The details vary. They're *not* all the same. Be particularly careful
>if you're an independent consultant!

Amen.  And like you said, you can always modify them before you sign them,
as long as you bring the modifications to the companies' attention.

I think that while you are correct in advocating caution when signing
these, even if you do sign them, a lot of the stuff in these
agreements is typically not enforceable if drafted too broadly.
Courts are generally very sensitive to leaving enough space for the
employee to make a living in his/her chosen field, and will often
strike down over-broad restrictions.  An overbroad restriction would
be something like "You may not compete in the computer industry for a
year after you terminate."

Also, the knowledge you gain while working is yours to take and use
wherever you go, even though the knowledge is gained at company
expense.  This knowledge, however, does not include trade secrets, but
not everything stamped "Proprietary" is necessarily a
legally-recognized trade secret.

Remember, for stuff that's already happened, there's plenty of room to
negotiate since you may have them over a legal barrel.  If they want you
to sign as a pre-condition for further employment, you may have to sign,
but negotiate out the unreasonable terms.  It's to the company's advantage
too.

One technique I have used with these is the old "pocket veto."  Don't sign
it and stick it in a drawer.  Half the time, no one even asks about them
again.  But as Mr. Warnock says, make sure you know your rights absent any
agreement before you try this.

-Steve


-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
The above is not a legal advice. It is, at best, a discussion of
generalities. Consult your attorney before acting in a specific situation.
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: cayz@barney.cis.udel.edu (James Cayz)
Subject: Data File Legal Question...
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 01:58:52 GMT


Hi All,

	Please, don't flame me if this is a FAQ, I didn't even subscribe to
this newsgroup before tonight, but, I have a question that I hope I can get a
_simple_ answer to, via direct reply email (ie,I don't want to waste bandwidth
& start a flame-war).  So, please, send replies to "cayz@cis.udel.edu"!!!!

	I need to know the legal standpoint of reading data created by another
program. The data is in an unknown format.  If I figure out how the data is
written, and what everything means, without dissassembling the program that
wrote it, can I write another program that reads & uses this data, and not get
into big trouble?

	If I am gonna get into trouble, then, how do companies like WP and WORD
and etc. read & write each other's format?  Mutual Non-Disclosure Statements?

	Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

	Thank you.

	James Cayz
	cayz@cis.udel.edu
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Legal aspects, if any of Re: Email Privacy?
Keywords: email, posting on the net, copy-right
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:46:00 GMT

whs70@dancer.uucp (24411-sohl) writes:

[...]
> It seems to me that the sender of a
>letter retains copyright, but making the contents known doesn't
>(IMHO) violate anything legal.  Posting the letter verbatim might
>be a copyright violation (I'll let others more knowledgeable
>add any additional comments on that point), but if your letter was
>paraphrased to just reflect your thoughts and ideas, I don't reallt
>think there's much you can do about it except stop sending that
>person email (assuming that person refuses to stop posting your
>comments).
[...]

I think you are right. Copyright protects the right to copy and the
right to perform in public (and, in some cases, the right to rent).
It does not restrict disclose. It you want to send something to
someone, and you want the law to stop them from disclosing the ideas
to anyone else, you'll have to try to get them to sign a nondisclosure
agreement.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: st@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Stephen W. Thompson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: REQUEST: E-mail Privacy Legal Issues
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:50:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Apr7.122837.4865@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I'm interested in asking the collective knowledge of the net whether
>they have any information on corporate liability for:
>
>(1) E-mail/corporate mail messages posted by employees (libel, etc.)
>(2) Unauthorized reading of private electronic mail
>(3) E-mail privacy issues in general.

I suspect this is not as legal/official as you wished, but at the National
Conference on Computing and human Values (NCCV) last August in New Haven,
I participated in the working group on privacy.  We put a document 
together (I never got a copy of the final version, just the draft) in which
we called for, if nothing else, corporations/employers to be required
to make a clear policy statement on 'ownership' of electronic mail,
bulletin boards and -- even -- telephones.  The concensus was that an
organization may run the gamut from letting the employee have complete
control of e-mail/telephone conversations, and thus no interception or
censorship be permitted, to closely monitoring and censoring everything,
AS LONG AS THE EMPLOYEE IS CLEARLY INFORMED AS TO THE POLICY THEY WILL
BE EXPECTED TO ANSWER TO.  We were saddened that this is done so 
infrequently.

References in hand:

Bible, Jon D. and Daren A. McWhirter, _Privacy in the Workplace: A
   Guide for Human Resource Managers_, New York: Quorum Books, 1990.

and the ever-authoritative:

Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems, _Records,
   Computers and the Rights of Citizens_, Wash., DC: U.S. Dept. of
   Health, Education & Welfare, July 1973.  (Report)

  - This was chaired by Willis Ware, who was also in our working group.

Steve
--
Stephen W. Thompson, University of Pennsylvania, 215-898-4585
Institute for Research on Higher Education, thompson@a1.quaker.upenn.edu (best)
   "Ask me about the Peace Tax Fund."           st@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (works)
From: eric@cwphysbb.tmc.edu (Eric M. Rains)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Old software
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:58:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr6.235855.21967
Reply-To: smm20@phx.cam.ac.uk
Organization: Not very

In article <1992Mar25.222617.434@yvax.byu.edu> evensens@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>Is it legal to sell old versions of software when you have the new version?

If the software is copyrighted (others have dealt with the questions of
license ) and if you didn't get the new version under a contract requiring you
to return or destroy the old, you have the right to sell the software.  Of
course, if you do so you have no right to retain the copy you originally had.
This is dealt with in the coypyright act, somewhere in 17 U.S.C.

                                             Siobhan Murphy
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (24411-sohl)
Subject: Legal aspects, if any of Re: Email Privacy?
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 13:43:57 GMT
Keywords: email, posting on the net, copy-right

In article <1992Apr13.235751.7099@cirrus.com> venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar) writes:
>In <1992Apr13.194759.28954@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp
>(24411-sohl) writes: 
>>In article <1992Apr13.163605.1779@cirrus.com> venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar) writes:
>>>In <1992Apr10.201938.4498@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp
>>>(24411-sohl) writes: 
>>>
>>>>Second question - In what way is the "private email" being posted?
>>>>  As a responce that is copied to a newsgroup?  As a reply to a list
>>>>  of other email users?
>>>
>>>Posting it on a newsgroup in its entirity...along with email headers.
>
>>From my perspective, anything posted to a newsgroup is NOT "private."
>>As such, you must expect that the possibility exists that a
>>superior or peer in your company may see something you post.  As
>>such, I don't see any "privacy" issue involved.  
>
>No, I mean that the email has been sent as personal mail between two
>persons, and has been mad public by being posted by the receiver by posting
>it in its entirity (with mail headers) on the net. Sorry for the confusion. 
>
>>Direct email between two individuals, on the other hand, would seem
>>to warrant a treatment similar to any personal letter situation.
>
>Yes, but what is the law as it affects personal letters. Can they be made
>public by the receiver?

Well, I'm  not a lawyer, BUT it seems that the only possibility you
have of trying to avoid this in the future is to put a copyright
notice in every email message you send with an additional note that
the message is NOT to be resent, copied, etc. in any form, or otherwise
made public to anyone but the recipient.

Failing that, it seems no different than if you sent me a letter 
and I showed it to others, I can't think of any violation (legal, not
ethical) that might be involved.  It seems to me that the sender of a
letter retains copyright, but making the contents known doesn't
(IMHO) violate anything legal.  Posting the letter verbatim might
be a copyright violation (I'll let others more knowledgeable
add any additional comments on that point), but if your letter was
paraphrased to just reflect your thoughts and ideas, I don't reallt
think there's much you can do about it except stop sending that
person email (assuming that person refuses to stop posting your
comments).

Also, if only excerpts of your letter was posted, it probably falls into
the "fair use" exception to copyright, so that's something to
consider.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com

Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: mats@netcom.com (Mats Wichmann)
Subject: Re: intellectual property
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 15:55:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: misc

hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary miller) writes:


>Charles Bennett Smith, in a message to All on 04-10-92 at 5:26pm, said:

>CB/>Greetings.  I have just had a copy of a legal document called an
>   >"ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS" handed to me by my boss.  The company is
>   >a software and hardware consulting company, and they want to
>   >own the rights to all work we have done (past, present, and future)
>   >for the company.

>               This is a standard request that technology-related
>               businesses universally make of their employees: if
>               you invent it while employed by them, it belongs
>               to them.  They paid for it; it's theirs.  Usually
>               they are accompanied by confidentiality and non-
>               competition agreements (or all are contained in a
>               single form).  It is customary for employees to
>               sign such documents, unless they have a LOT of
>               leverage and can negotiate a special deal.  They
>               are generally enforceable.

Except that the non-compete clauses often turn out to be a bit too broad.

My experience, and note that this places my comments into the realm of
"anectodal evidence", has been that companies reach a point where
they're informed that they need to provide protection for the rights of
their stockholders by insuring that assets which they thought were the
property of the company truly are.  This is often one of the steps
taken with growth, often if the company has plans of going public.
I've never yet seen one of these agreements which did not contain some
objectionable langauge; you can often effect minor changes by lining
out portions and initiallling the changes, and asking the company rep.
to also initial.  As examples of more outreageous things I've objected
to recently have been agreements signed as a consultant: one clause
prohibited me from recruiting anyone within the company for a year, I
was able to amend this to exclude people whom I knew before taking on
the contract.  Another clause prohibited me from providing services to
any other company during the time I was working for the company.  As a
consultant, that was not going to work for me, but we arranged to
change it to "without first obtaining (verbal) permission"; the VP
initialed this change and promptly gave me blanket permission ahead of
time to work for anyone I chose.

So as not to go on forever, these documents err on the side of caution,
and the good ones have generally evolved over time.  It you have concerns,
if it doesn't "feel right", a consultation with an attorney is probably
worth your while.  He'll tell you what you shouldn't sign, or should
change, and what you don't need to worry about because it isn't
enforceable.
-- 
Mats Wichmann
Systems Software Consultant
alruna!mats@ossi.com (or mats@netcom.com)
From: hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary miller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: intellectual property
Date: 11 Apr 92 13:31:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: execnet.1992Apr11.2292.639
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Charles Bennett Smith, in a message to All on 04-10-92 at 5:26pm, said:

CB/3Greetings.  I have just had a copy of a legal document called an
   3"ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS" handed to me by my boss.  The company is
   3a software and hardware consulting company, and they want to
   3own the rights to all work we have done (past, present, and future)
   3for the company.
   TMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM>

               This is a standard request that technology-related
               businesses universally make of their employees: if
               you invent it while employed by them, it belongs
               to them.  They paid for it; it's theirs.  Usually
               they are accompanied by confidentiality and non-
               competition agreements (or all are contained in a
               single form).  It is customary for employees to
               sign such documents, unless they have a LOT of
               leverage and can negotiate a special deal.  They
               are generally enforceable.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
   s r
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.21 #11645 ~ A seminar on time travel will be held 2 weeks ago
--
Executive Network Information System   (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: doctor@cs.mcgill.ca (Howard PICAIZEN)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: E-mail privacy.
Summary: Need info.
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:35:40 GMT
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Originator: doctor@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca


Hi.

I haven't been following this group, so I'm not aware of what has been
said on this topic. However, I am in need of some information
pertaining to this topic.

Has there been any legislation or any legal precedents set concerning
a third party interception of email messages, say, by a system
administrator? If anyone is aware of such an occurence, please email
me with the details. I am interested in whether or not such an act has
ever been ruled illegal, or whether or not evidence obtained through such
interception was permitted to be presented in court.

I am mostly interested in the Canadian legal system, but any
information will do...

Thanks,
HP.

-- 
Captain Howard Picaizen (doctor@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca), IKN SANG.
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." -Kirk
"A warrior does not let a friend face danger alone." -Worf
"Let's be sure that history never forgets the name... Enterprise." -Picard
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 14:47:50 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <khsjs9g.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>1. The Iraqis can now kidnap President Bush and put him on trial in
>Baghdad  for mass murder.
>
>2. It's OK for IRAN to carry out its death sentence on Rushidie.

Naa, they have to kidnap him, give him a fair trial (certainly he IS
guilty of the blasphemy he was sentenced for), and THEN kill him.



-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Xref: sparky misc.legal:9112 alt.society.civil-liberty:3355
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:31:39 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Witherspoon Excludables

In <1992Apr9.212506.17591@anasaz>, billy@anasaz stated:
>.  Where have you been?  You CAN be tried more than once for the same
>crime (it took 4 trials to get John Gotti but we got him), 

This is a total non sequitur.  Gotti has never been subjected to
duplicative state/federal prosecution.  Investigation, yes;
prosecution, no.

In case anyone cares, Gotti went to trial 4 times:

1) 1986: Assault on Romual Piecyk (state case; charges dismissed when
Piecyk refused to testify)

2) 1986-1987: Federal RICO prosecution for pre-1985 activities
(acquittal)

3) 1990: State charges for conspiracy to commit deadly assault on John
O'Connor, leader of the Westies (acquittal); two persons, including
the foreman of the jury, later indicted for conspiracy to obstruct
justice in a jury-tampering scheme

4) 1992: Federal prosecution for post-1984 activities, including RICO
and RICO conspiracy, various murder and gambling offenses (both as
predicate RICO acts and as substantive offenses), and a section 371
conspiracy to defraud the United States (concealing amount & source of
income, etc.)


In other words, no overlap.  Capiche?
-- 
			Sold by weight, not by volume.
  Some settling of contents may have occurred during shipment and handling.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary miller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: photo of minor, etc./
Date: 9 Apr 92 03:48:12 GMT
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Allen Smith, in a message to All on 04-07-92 at 6:10pm, said:

AS/3 That's an interesting point. Should people have copyrights over
   3their appearance, etc? I'd say yes. Just as someone shouldn't be able to
   3find out/use my grades, etc. without my permission, they shouldn't be abl
   3to use my appearance without my permission.
   TMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM>

               They can't.  It is a tort which the Restatement
               lists under the heading of "privacy" to use the
               name, portrait, picture or likeness of a person
               for commercial purposes without their consent.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
   s r
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.21 #11645 ~ As easy as 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841
--
Executive Network Information System   (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: libove@libove.det.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove)
Subject: What is illegal to do through the US Mail?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Detroit Ultrix Resource Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:11:38 GMT

Please reply via e-mail and I will summarize. I simply can't
keep up with misc.legal :-(

What exactly is not legal to send through the US Mail?

For example (but this is not the only thing that I am interested
in) there is a fellow in Finland who has a gigantic archive of
graphics images of all subjects, including a small segment of
pornography. Could it be illegal for me to have him send me a
copy of this tape? (No money involved at all. Would that matter?)
If it could be illegal, what would make it illegal?

Thanks very much!
--

Jay Vassos-Libove                  libove@libove.det.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corporation      decwrl!libove.det.dec.com!libove
Open Systems Resource Center       Opinions? They're mine, mine, all mine!
Farmington Hills, Michigan         and D.E.C. Can't have 'em!
From: ARL00SJB@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Wills, etc.
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:55:25 GMT
Organization: UNC Charlotte

The question is, if someone dies, when does the reading of the will take
place, and how do interested parties find out when that reading will be?
This is assuming that those parties' names might not be in the will, but
they want to find out what the bequests are?  *Must* a will be read, or can
the person who made it legally bar the reading of the will at all?
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13716 misc.legal:8977 rec.arts.tv:9292
From: calyx.corp@mixcom.mixcom.com (calyx.corp)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity -- babies in movies
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:32:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: mixcom.1992Apr08.003227.12511
Distribution: usa
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.

>There's also the movie "Crossing Delancy" with Amy Irving and Peter 
>Rigert(sp?) Where Izzy attends the briss of her friend's son and not only do 
>they show the baby on the table, they also show the fact that he decides to 
>relieve himself 1/2 way through the rabbi's speech. 

>Is there an official definiton of what's legal and what isn't? Or is this
>another one of those federal vs. state issues?

I saw this scene, and was very surprised.  Why is it legal to show
a urinating baby (for entertainment purposes!) in a movie accessible
to minors, yet it is illegal for anyone to pay to see still or moving
pictures of a toddler's or other minor's nudity.  The issue does not
seem to be the intrinsic "evil" of the nudity, nor of the public's
perverse entertainment value of a urinating child.  The concern seems
to be the psychological harm to the child.  Apparently it is not
illegal to charge admission to see a urinating baby because that child
is not traumatized by such "abuse"; photographing nude children
for pornographic purposes is apparently illegal because such children
are usually coerced to pose and/or otherwise abused, which usually ends up
being traumatic for the child.

- Nels Olsen
-- 
calyx.corp@mixcom.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal