Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Welcome to the Monastery
 
PerlMonks  

Re^5: Code Samples and Previous Employers

by Tanktalus (Canon)
on Mar 23, 2005 at 01:19 UTC ( #441664=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^4: Code Samples and Previous Employers
in thread Code Samples and Previous Employers

Canadian courts, however, take a very dim view of enforcing non-competes and copyrights of "ideas" in favour of corporations over individuals. I mean, if you actually have a copy of copyrighted code, that's pretty blatant. But merely having learned how a certain framework works, then gaining/maintaining a future employment based on your recollection of that framework (that is, you reimplemented a very similar idea) is not going to be enforced against that individual.

Corporations that cherry-pick competitors' best talents solely to learn copyrights will have their hands slapped, but the individual is rarely going to be punished for anything. There is a certain "right to work" (which is separate from the union-busting laws of the same name) which Canadian courts feel are superior to any contract to the contrary, thus any contract stating you cannot use knowledge gained in a position in future positions are generally found to be null and void (or at least that part is found that way).

Disclaimer: IANAL. This is just what my current employer has told me (on my first day at work, I might add).


Comment on Re^5: Code Samples and Previous Employers
Re^6: Code Samples and Previous Employers
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 23, 2005 at 16:08 UTC
    You've phrased this as a declaratory statement, but then you fall back on the fact that the entire thing is heresay from your employer. The whole notion that "Candian courts value X over Y" falls into the "carefully guess the will of the judge" category; remember that any precedent can be overturned whenever a judge feels it's appropriate. Judges just aren't predictable: they can rule how they feel is appropriate, outside of external influences. That's good in some cases, bad in others. One of the ways that it's bad is lack of predictablilty: the notion of precedent mitigates, but does not solve, this problem.

    Moreover, it's quite possible your employer's opinions of the Canadian courts are wrong. He does, after all, have a vested interest in getting you to divulge information about past workplaces: and little to lose until you leave. See if he changes his tune during the exit interview.

    Call me cynical, but trusting businessmen without checking the facts isn't always wise. Especially in matters of law. -- AC

      "He". I'm not even going to cry sexist on this (the HR person doing the "welcome to the company" orientation was a woman) largely because someone might confuse me with a feminist.

      During the same "welcome to the company" orientation, my employer, through this HR representative, told us that this company fights every wrongful-dismissal case, without exception, and basically never loses (99%+ success rate). It's not because they have a large purse (they do). It's because they follow the law, case law, etc., overly meticulously (more than is required). This is not a company that would (or needs to) get you to divulge secrets.

      Also, I should expand the context a bit: when telling us about case law, the HR rep was talking about us leaving the job we were just starting, not the other way around, specifically mentioning how our contract has been enforced in the past when leaving a job to go to a competitor. As long as we don't physically bring code, or try to implement something that our (now former) employer has patented, all other knowledge is fair game.

      To that, I'll add that I was hired straight from university - I didn't have anything to divulge ;-)

      Lastly, just within the last week, one of our top architects left our company (in the US) to join our #1 competitor for the product he was working on. The response? "Xyz left the company to work for Abc Corp. While we wish he had stayed, we wish him all the best." If anyone was in a position to divulge our secrets, he would have been in that select group. Few people know more about our trade secrets than he does. Few people know more about our planned (and not announced) future direction in our projects than he does. Not even a whiff of legal action, even though this is "expressly" forbidden in our contracts (which I think is there just to keep physical copying from happening). Even in the US, I presume, courts look disfavourably on corporations trying to keep an individual from being employed.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://441664]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others rifling through the Monastery: (13)
As of 2014-12-26 13:09 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (171 votes), past polls