Conference 7.286::digital

.0>           {...}and 2) those employees who have likewise 
.0>           developed product on their own but reported their 
.0>           developments to Digital in accordance with their agreement.
    
    I feel fairly strongly that enforcement of the Employee Agreement is
    the right thing to do when it is clear that it has been breached.
    
    I have twice in my thirteen years with the corporation been faced with 
    situations where it seemed possible that issues might arise relating to
    my employeement agreement with Digital, and both times I anticipated
    that possibility by approaching my management and the Law Department
    for prior review.  From personal experience it isn't the easiest or 
    most convenient process, but I felt that in both cases my rights and
    concerns were addressed properly.  I have no sympathy for anyone who
    chose to subvert the process and avoid "doing the right thing".  FWIW,
    neither of the two situations ever developed to the point where it
    would have been an issue (in one the business opportunity did not
    materialize, the other fell through the cracks primarily due to my own
    personal conflicting priorities before a resolution was reached so I
    pursued neither the review nor the development).
    
    Also, to my knowledge the issue has yet to be decided in court, so at
    present the situation described in .0 is merely allegation (although
    personally I'd feel it is safe to assume some good evidence exists to 
    justify the legal action).
    
    --bruce

    
    Ain't it a bit funny that we have the wherewithall to employ several
    lawyers (and tie up two VPs) to pursue this matter whilst we lay off
    delivery and openVMS people?  Anyone know the scale of 'lost revenue'
    this case involves?  (as if it could have gotten through the Product
    Prevention Process by now ;^)
    
    JN

    From the looks of it, Digital is doing the right thing.  I tend not to
    like dealing with lawyers, but if someone steals from the Company
    (which is, in effect, what is alleged to have happened) I'd demand
    action from lawyers to protect the Company.  This is a situation where
    it seems to me someone stole from *us* - the Company.
    
    Steve (who has done and continues to do software development for the
    Company after hours - at least one patent has resulted.)

>>    From the looks of it, Digital is doing the right thing.  I tend not to
>>    like dealing with lawyers, but if someone steals from the Company
>>    (which is, in effect, what is alleged to have happened) I'd demand
>>    action from lawyers to protect the Company.  This is a situation where
>>    it seems to me someone stole from *us* - the Company.

Granted, we do not have all the details here BUT exactly what was stolen?

If the following occurred:

    a. Employee used his own time to develop said software.
    b. Employee used is OWN equipment and software. (we don't really know
       this).
    c. Used no Digital resources other than his own knowledge 

    WHAT WAS STOLEN?

    If he indeed used Digital resources like hardware, software, internal
    documents, etc then he IS at fault.

    

    What was stolen were the goods promised in the contract signed when
    employment began.  That is, the fruits of the investment that Digital
    is making in its business.  If the allegations are correct, then the
    investments made in technology, training, trade secrets and other
    resources were effectively stolen and used to privately compete with
    Digital and take market share.
    
    Were he to quit and then use what he learned, no problem because the
    contract would no longer be in force.  But, if the allegations are
    correct, he used Digital resources to compete with Digital and to get
    private gain.  This, even though he may not have used Digital's
    machines or done work on company time.  
    
    This underscores the fact that Digital's greatest resources are not
    its assets or papers.  It's greatest resources are its people and what
    they know.  It needs to protect how all its resources are used and is
    justified in taking steps to assure that its resources are not used to
    subsidize its competition.
    
    The quickie answer is that money was stolen from Digital.  It's money that 
    could have been the result of sale of technology that Digital had purchased 
    rights to via the employee contract.
    
    Steve

    Sounds to me like it doesn't pay to be owned by a company like Digital.
    -das

>    What was stolen were the goods promised in the contract signed when
>    employment began.  

It was an agreement... But was it a contract?  As someone pointed out, by the
time they ask you to sign, you have already been offered the job, it has been
accepted.  Then they ask for the agreement to be signed; however, they offered
nothing of value for what they got (the job was your already); was a contract
truely in effect?  MY job acceptance was NOT conditional on the signing of
the agreement.  When they asked me to sign, I WAS a Digital employee.

>    is making in its business.  If the allegations are correct, then the
>   investments made in technology, training, trade secrets and other
>    resources were effectively stolen and used to privately compete with
>    Digital and take market share.

Without facts, how can you claim trade secrets were stolen?  Take market share
from what?  Did Digital have a competing product?  Wass it even IN that area
of the market?
    
>    Were he to quit and then use what he learned, no problem because the
>    contract would no longer be in force.  

Well, I seem to recall that the agreement mentioned not doing something like
this for a period of up to 6 months after employment by Digital, right?
That included working for competitors etc.

>    correct, he used Digital resources to compete with Digital and to get
>    private gain.  This, even though he may not have used Digital's
>    machines or done work on company time.  

What specific resources were used?  Employees are NOT indentured servants, you
know.  If you are talking about his knowledge, kindly show that he did not
possess the knowledge and skills before becoming employeed.
    
>    its assets or papers.  It's greatest resources are its people and what
>    they know.  

A VERY bad view, in my opinion.  People are NOT resources (at least they
should not be).

>It needs to protect how all its resources are used and is
>    justified in taking steps to assure that its resources are not used to
>    subsidize its competition.

Then Digital can control your private life as well since anything you do
that is unhealthy impacts Digital's 'resource'.

re:       <<< Note 2049.3 by RIPPLE::NORDLAND_GE "Waiting for Perot :^)" >>>

>                        -< Ironic use of 'resources'? >-
>    Ain't it a bit funny that we have the wherewithall to employ several
>    lawyers (and tie up two VPs) to pursue this matter whilst we lay off
>    delivery and openVMS people

Personally, I don't find it either ironic or funny. DIGITAL is, quite
reasonably, enforcing a contract it entered into with an employee at
their time of employment. I would hope that's one of the many reasons
we retain a legal department. I fail to see any connection between this
activity (the litigation) and any layoffs, other than chronological
coincidence.

-Jack

    
    What was stolen? I can't believe people ask this. The $500,000 
    was only the guy's royalties. The sales of this product, which DEC
    could have sold, were in the millions. 
    
    Why did it belong to DEC? Because you develop here. Intellectual 
    property grows. The guy was only able to think of and write this
    software because he was intimately familar with DEC. In fact, he
    probably only realized there was a need for this because of his 
    familiarity with DEC. 
    
    DEC is perfectly in their rights going after him. What he should have
    done was quit and then developed it. IT sounds like he would have
    done just fine. 

    
    	I agree with the previous notes.  This was clearly a flagrant
    	and intentional violation.  There are lots of situations where
    	Digital employees may develop things on their own time that
    	are unrelated to their current employment at Digital and I
    	think the company has, to my knowledge, always been reasonable
    	about giving the employee the freedom to do that sort of thing
    	within reasonable bounds.  All you need to do is follow the 
    	process and get approval.
    
    	This one seemed to be very clear-cut...there was no attempt
    	to get approval, it was done through another company apparently
    	to hide the fact that it came from a Digital employee and it
    	was apparently very closely related to the work the individual
    	was doing.  I can't imagine anything that would be a more
    	clear-cut violation of policy than that.
    
    	Chuck
    
    	

    re .11
    
    It was?  You are rather ahead of the court decision on the case.  Do
    you have other information than the announcement of the case?
    
    /Butch

re: .8

>It was an agreement... But was it a contract?  

There is a contract.  As proof, see how long your employment lasts if you 
refuse to sign or decide to nullify the document.

>Without facts, how can you claim trade secrets were stolen?  Take market share
>from what?  Did Digital have a competing product?  Wass it even IN that area
>of the market?

Surely you are aware that I have no specifics other than what was in the 
base note.  However, if the allegations are correct, the likelihood exists for 
my assertions.
    
>Well, I seem to recall that the agreement mentioned not doing something like
>this for a period of up to 6 months after employment by Digital, right?
>That included working for competitors etc.

So, add 6 months.

>What specific resources were used?  Employees are NOT indentured servants, you
>know.  If you are talking about his knowledge, kindly show that he did not
>possess the knowledge and skills before becoming employeed.
    
If you will recall, so far there are only allegations.  I do know what 
    resources are given to me and what are generally made available 
to Digital employees.  It's up to the courts to decide whether or not he had 
prior knowledge.  Even if it can be shown that he did, it would probably prove 
to be a weak defense since he was explicitly being paid under an agreement not 
to compete with Digital but to work for the company.

>A VERY bad view, in my opinion.  People are NOT resources (at least they
>should not be).

We are in violent disagreement.  Digital's true value is in its people. 
Otherwise, it is simply a collection of assets to be sold to the highest
bidder, IMO.

>Then Digital can control your private life as well since anything you do
>that is unhealthy impacts Digital's 'resource'.

Wrong.  My private life is my own business so long as I live in a fashion that
is at least legal.  What we are talking about here is alleged to be illegal 
behavior, sufficent to cause damage to the Corporation and to cause a court to
question whether there has been violation of the law.

Steve

    re. being hired before you sign the employee agreement;
    When you are first hired there is a probation period so I would guess
    if you didn't sign your contract you would violate your probation and
    you probibly wouldn't be around for to long.
    re. 6 months before doing work.
    I believe this rule is in place for folks who take packages (TFSO,
    SERP). If you quit or are terminated with no package I think you could 
    work doing the same work for another company asap.
    
    For the person that thinks employees of Digital are not resources of
    Digital; What do you have to offer this company if you don't think
    you are a resource of Digital?
    
                                John

    >was only the guy's royalties. The sales of this product, which DEC
    >could have sold, were in the millions.
    
    As I understand this situation, this gentleman took the idea to Digital
    and presented/proposed it as a product... and was told it would never
    fly....
    
    >This one seemed to be very clear-cut...there was no attempt
    >to get approval, it was done through another company apparently
    >to hide the fact that it came from a Digital employee and it
    >was apparently very closely related to the work the individual
    >was doing.
    
    I don't think it is all that clear-cut..... Again, as I understand
    he presented/proposed this to Digital... which in my way of thinking 
    is (at least) informing the company that he had something worth looking
    at.... BUT, as usual, someone in this company had their head firmly
    planted in their butt..... and didn't see the same vision this gentle-
    man saw, in the product.... Just maybe, it was a way for this person to
    get Digital's attention...
    
    I think someone in this company (the person he originally went to, with
    the product) should be spanked for a missed opportunity.
    
    Why should Digital have so much power over knowledge, when Digital
    doen't even know how to use that knowledge. There are so many people in
    this company with talents such as this gentleman, that is not even
    considered... because they may not be engineers or some other
    "god-like" creature.... 
    
    I personally think Digital deserves to loose this case. Just maybe it
    would cause them to wake up...., and take the workerbee a little more
    seriously.
    
    This gentleman may have been wrong in what he did. But, he beleaved in
    the product he had tried to sell to Digital and Digital failed to see
    the worth (then).... Now that it is a success, they want to tout it as
    their's, because this guy is/was an employee.... thus making it theirs
    by default...... 
    
    My opinion..!
    
    Bob G.
    

    I am not a legal expert, but is this case not in the Courts
    currently and discussion of it here a "no-no?"
    
    Just wondering,
    db

    re: .15
    
    I ran into something like that when I worked for Mostek.  After hours
    I designed a chip (solid state DIP switch) that was used as a plug bar for
    the MK4701 (NV RAM) chip that my group was doing.  We had working
    parts, but someone high up at Mostek decided the idea was no good.
    
    Now, Mostek owned the idea and the chip, but becuase they felt it was
    of no worth I was permitted to report on the project and at least get
    some school credit out of it.  I specifically requested and got
    permission to do so.  
    
    Later, one or more engineers left Mostek and went to Dallas
    Semiconductor.  They made some improvements on the idea and made money
    on it with a family of solid-state DIP switch parts.  (I assume they got 
    whatever permission from Mostek was necessary to do this.)
    
    The point is that even though someone in Mostek management was wrong in
    dismissing a viable, proven idea, the technology still belonged
    to Mostek.  The correct thing to do was to get permission before using
    the idea outside.
    
    Steve

>    re. being hired before you sign the employee agreement;
>    When you are first hired there is a probation period so I would guess
>    if you didn't sign your contract you would violate your probation and
>    you probibly wouldn't be around for to long.

When I was hired, there was NO mention of a probationary period.  As far as
my job acceptance, there WAS no such period and it is too late to 'add' one.


>    re. 6 months before doing work.
>    I believe this rule is in place for folks who take packages (TFSO,
>    SERP). 

Then it is kind of tough for people taking packages to get another job, isn't
it?  Will Digital actively pursue them as well?

>    For the person that thinks employees of Digital are not resources of
>    Digital; 

I am not claiming people do not contribute to the company; I AM claiming that
people are not the equivalent of a piece of capital equipment (which is the
impression I got from previous notes).

>What do you have to offer this company if you don't think
>    you are a resource of Digital?

If the company does not believe I am contributing something, then they can let
me go.  I am an employee of the company, which to me has quite a different
meaning than 'resource'.
    

>There is a contract.  As proof, see how long your employment lasts if you 
>refuse to sign or decide to nullify the document.

Sorry, but that is NOT proof a contract exists.  (I am not a lawyer and I do
not even pretend to play one on TV).

>Surely you are aware that I have no specifics other than what was in the 
>base note.  However, if the allegations are correct, the likelihood exists for 
>my assertions.

Your assertions came across as statements of fact.

>We are in violent disagreement.  Digital's true value is in its people. 

Yes, well I think there is ample evidence across the company that people
are not treated as the most valuable thing.

>Wrong.  My private life is my own business so long as I live in a fashion that
>is at least legal.  

If you consider yourself to be a valuable resource of the company, and you
feel that the company has every right to protect its resources, then that
includes you whether it is your private life or not.  Right?  After all,
you should not watch TV because that rots the brain and would lessen the
amount of time you can spend growing an expanding to meet the company's needs.

>What we are talking about here is alleged to be illegal 
>behavior, sufficent to cause damage to the Corporation and to cause a court to
>question whether there has been violation of the law.

A violation of contract.  Is that the same thing as 'illegal'?  What specific
LAW was broken?

    re: .17

    You are right..... I am not necessarily defending the action. What I
    tried to say is, I think Digital needs to take some of the blame for
    this situation.... 

    Me thinks Digital doesn't like the feeling of egg on its' face.

    I think the whole issue drives home the fact that Digital hasn't a clue
    as to what is really wanted/needed by customers/users of our equipment.

    I sure hope, no matter which way this case goes, Digital comes away
    having learned a lesson..... Which might be to listen to workerbees who
    have ideas.... AND listen to customers' who have specific needs.
    
    My opinion..!
    
    Bob G.
    

    I've been amazed with notes in here before and I guess this is yet
    another string of amazing comments.
    
    Aren't we "all" Digital? 
    
    

    I may be wrong, but I had heard that Ed DeCastro started Data General
    after he failed to get sponsorship for a new product at Digital. If so,
    how does it stack up vis-a-vis the current topic.

	Perhaps it is the reason the current policy exists?

					Tom_K

Hardly any comparison.  DEC wouldn't build the kind of minicomputer
DeCastro wanted to build (the PDP-11 design was chosen instead), so DeCastro 
left DEC and formed his own company.  He didn't try and make money on his own
while he was still employed by DEC.  Mind you, there were rumours that
the design work for DG's first machine was done on DEC time...

    re .22
    
    Romor has it DeCastro may have taken a design (of his?) with him
    from DEC to (start) DG.
    
    Rumor has it that there was (is?) bad blood betwixt DEC and DG over
    this very thing.
    
    Rumor has it that he (DeCastro) did NOT earn 1/2 Million on his
    product while still employed by DEC.
    
    Rumor has it that the person targeted by DEC DID earn 1/2 Million
    on "his" product while still employed by DEC.
    
    I can understand presenting a product proposal at DEC and having it
    rejected by the powers that be (I've actually gone thru this several
    times with at least two ideas).  Had I felt confident enough, I
    probably could have left DEC and tried to produce it on my own.
    I suspect, unless I took a pot full of Restricted Distribution stuff,
    I could get away with it.
    
    I don't understand getting serious money from a moonlighting operation
    in the very speciality that DEC had hired me for and not attracting
    unfavorable attention.
    
    It is my belief that DEC believes that it owns the rights to software
    written by its software engineers at work, at home and in carpools.
    
    Circulating the .0 memo was probably to reinforce my and others
    belief of that.
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

    Ummm, if a lawsuit has been filed with any court, then the facts and
    Digital's allegations are part of the public record.  What we see here,
    for 25 replies, is speculation and rumor.
    
    If this lawsuit is real, what are the specifics?  If no suit has been
    filed, why was the memo in .0 sent out at all?
    
    Yours for more factual speculation,
    
    Wes Plouff

What is clear is that this person (let's call him X) wrote some software
and then proceeded to sell it, making a substantial amount of money in the
process.  This was allegedly done without the consent of Digital. 

A few notes back someone claimed that X had offered the idea to Digital and 
been told that it "wouldn't fly".  That's far from being told, "we aren't
interested, but you can sell it yourself if you want to".  Unless the 
latter was Digital's position X was in violation of contract to sell it.

A separate issue is that of intellectual property rights.  It appears from 
the original statement in .0 that Digital is seeking to have the courts 
assign it the property rights in the software X wrote.  One will have to
wait to see what the legal process decides.  There is no indication of why
Digital is seeking this assignment.  It may be that Digital believes it is
entitled to the rights, on the other hand it may be that Digital is seeking
to obtain the rights as a punitive measure. 

As far as who owns work done by an employee on their own time, that is not 
at all clear.  For example, here in the UK, if you make a patentable
invention (UK patent law specifically debars patents on software) other 
than as part of your normal work and your employer wants the property
rights of the patent assigned to them, they must compensate you for it.
In a case here concerning ownership of copyright, a person employed as a
translator was held to own the copyright of translations they made on their
own time. 

jb

    Another thought.
    
    If the guy had lost money on his idea, I doubt that DEC would be suing
    him.  DEC only assumed ownership AFTER it became obvious that the guy's
    idea was indeed profitable.  Previously DEC had indicated that it was
    not interested in whatever concept the guy was proposing.  Why should
    this guy be held responsible for DEC not recognizing an opportunity.
    
    In a larger sense, it is unfortunate that some one with talent and
    inventive spirit is now on the outside of the company and those who
    didn't understand the potential of his ideas are working with the
    lawyers to get their pound of flesh; and those people are still with
    us.  Another piece is that he was doing something to satisfy (a) DEC
    customer(s), why wasn't DEC interested in doing that in the beginning? 
    and what do those customers think of DEC suing some one who was helping
    them?
    
    Dave

    I can't believe that no one has brought the fact that basenote title
    incorrectly refers to "contract" and the memo correctly to "agreement".

    I'm not a lawyer but I do know the difference.  A contract has to be
    made between persons exchanging promises that are legally enforceable.
    What is the promise made by Digital in the employee agreement?

    The offer of employment and the acceptance are made without even
    knowing of the employee agreement.  I don't, nor do most employees have
    an employment contract.

    You can read Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, and other business
    magazines and see that more often than not, these employee agreement
    intellectual property rights are ultimately not enforced by the courts.
    The facts in the case matter and we don't have them here.

    As for "We're all DEC", frankly I'm tired of reading that.  We're people
    and we have interests that are distinct from the reported earnings of
    Digital Equipment.  Digital is taking steps to protect it's income,
    and we each take our own steps to protect our own income.

	Does this mean that Digital owns everything that I write on my PC 
at home?


		Dan

    ref .-1
    good question, is it a VAXmate? or a PC you got from work?
    may be then DEC does own at least some of it?

    it is like, I give you an equipment, you use it to make money, then
    I should be entitled to some of that? right?

    /Nasser
    I spell checked

>	Does this mean that Digital owns everything that I write on my PC 
>at home?

Well, you could always test it out. 

Submit an SPR and see if the 'owner' stands up :-).

Perhaps the result of the court case will make that much clearer.,

    There are worked examples of PC-based software (shareware) developed by
    DEC employees - but in the cases I'm peripherally familiar with, the
    authors went through the exercise of notifying DEC and getting the
    required agreements sorted out. The examples I'm thinking of are SEDT
    (Anker Berg-Sonne) and EASYEDIT (Alan Sharkey).

    Based on these examples, I'd say there's good evidence that software
    developed on your home PC which you may be thinking of making money from
    does fall under the employee agreement, but that it's also not
    necessarily the case that DEC will prevent you from pursuing such a
    venture (as long as you adhere to the terms of the employee agreement).

>
>	Does this mean that Digital owns everything that I write on my PC 
>at home?

And if it does turn out to be owned by Digital, but the machine it is on is
not, then perhasp you could charge Digital for use of storage facilities :-)
(and system management functions, etc etc)

	It seems to me that either Digital owns what I write on my own pc on
my own time or it doesn't.  It makes no difference whether I choose to sell it
or not.  In fact, if Digital owns it, I probably owe Digital a royalty for
using it?!?  

	My recollection on this is fuzzy, but I vaguely remember that some
years ago an employee of Sears invented a new kind of wrench at home on
his own time.  Sears informed him that they owned the rights to it since
he was an employee of theirs.  Sears went on to make millions on the wrench.
However, the employee after obtaining legal advise decided to sue Sears
since he now believed that they really did not own the rights to his
invention.  In the end the employee won a very large settlement.  


	Dan

    The Sears suit mentioned in .-1 was for the type of wrench that has an
    easy lock-unlock for the various-sized sockets.  I believe the man won
    his suit because his home invention wasn't anything like his normal
    duties for Sears.  If I have that right, then a programmer working for
    Digital could not use the Sears suit as a precedent for selling the
    results of programming done at home.

    I think it's pretty safe to say that a Digital employee who invents a
    new kind of socket wrench at home won't be sued by DEC.
    

    re .-1
    
    Why should Unix code be exempt from the employee agreement?

    Good point. Plumbers are also at risk if they work on pipes in their
    spare time.

    	... and mailmen if they work on VAXmail, but that clearly hasn't
    happened for a long time.	:-(

    
    
      re . an earlier one
    
      The sears case was more complex than that.  The man invented the
    wrench.  Sears managed to convince him that the invention was nearly
    worthless,  and based on that information,  the man ws convinced
    to sell the rights to Sears for far less than the market value.
    
      After the wrench proved to be a huge success,  the man sued
    to have the contract voided,  due to either 'fraud' or 'mistake'
    (I forget which).  The argument was basically that sears, as a
    result of their position either knew, or should have known that
    the facts they presented to the seller were substantially incorrect,
    and that the seller,  even through the exercise of due diligence
    could not independently ascetain the facts as presented by sears.
    
     The contract was voided,  ownership of the rights reverted back
    to the inventor,  and sears ended up re-negotiating the sale
    on more favorable terms.
    
      In summary, the inventor won because he was acting on an incorrect
    assumption when he sold the rights,  not because the wrench was 
    ultimately profitable...
    
      If anybody is really interested (or still awake)  I can look up
    and post the actual text of the decision.  (I believe the inventor
    won on appeal.)
    
    
    						-al

Re:  2049.28
    
  >Previously DEC had indicated that it was not interested in 
  >whatever concept the guy was proposing.  

As best as I can tell, first this was a hypothesis in this note and
now it is stated as fact.

Having worked with the individual in question and heard some of
the story first hand, I never heard mention that the individual made
any attempt to either propose the product to Digital or inform Digital of
what he was doing.  If someone knows differently for a fact, please
correct me.

Collis

    Re: .42
    
    My comment about DEC not being interested didn't come from .0 but from
    .15 BSS::GROVER.  .15 sounded like they were privy to details that
    weren't in .0.
    
    DAR

    
    Agreement, covenant, contract; call it what you want.  But if you read
    and signed it and didn't believe it was a valid contract, I pity you.
    You don't have to be a lawyer to interpret plain English.
    
    It's for the courts to decide legality and damages.
    

    Re: .-1

    The question isn't what the words said in plain English.  The question
    is whether or not the words are enforceable, and that does require some
    legal knowledge and is probably best left to a lawyer.

.45>    The question is whether or not the words are enforceable, and that does 
.45>    require some legal knowledge and is probably best left to a lawyer.
    
    actually, it is best left to the courts.
    
    which is exactly where it is.
    
    and this issue is most likely a big reason for it being there.

Indeed, Bob (author of .15) did indicate he understood the
situation differently.  He gave us no basis to believe that
his understanding of the situation was correct, however.

At any rate, it is not an established fact that the employee
ever communicated with Digital at all about this code.

Collis

    RE: A few of the past replies
    
    
    >As I understand this situation,
    >Again, as I understand
    >Just maybe, 
    >I personally think
    >This gentleman may have been wrong
    		    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >My opinion..!
    >Bob G.
    
    Since I was the author of .15, I thought I MIGHT want to point out some
    of the verbage in that reply. As you can see above, I seem to use
    several phrases which would make it nearly imposable to think my reply
    was anything but speculation and my observation of the situation. I
    never implied that my OBSERVATION was pure (or even partial) fact.
    
    Boy, how people can read between lines is incredible. 
    
    THIS IS ALSO MY OPINION/OBSERVATION....!!!!!!!!
    
    Bob G.
    

For a good time, compare and contrast this topic and topic 1818.
				/AHM

    Well, now that I made it to the end of this string of replies...! This
    does show that as a potential product developer, you should review it
    first with Digital. If they claim ownership, then you should assess
    whether or not it is worthwhile to you to continue with it. Of course,
    it is not easy to just drop a hot idea. Then there is always the
    concern that having heard your idea, Digital may take it and develop it
    on its own, leaving you out. This depends on how paranoid and cynical
    you are. I recall writing a program for the TI 994a home computer and
    showing it to the head of a small software company. He liked the demo,
    but I did not pursue tryng to market it through him because I was so
    paranoid about having it "stolen". Instead I went with a co-worker who
    had an even smaller software company (like, himself and one other guy).
    The first guy was fairly successful in the 994a market, while the one I
    went with was not; he did not have the marketing oomph to get my
    program sold well. Over two years, I earned about $200 in royalties on
    it. Big deal, eh? I wouldn't have gotten rich from the first guy, but I
    probably would have done a lot better. So, nothing ventured, nothing
    gained.
    
    Perhaps Digital should get the word out about some happy situations
    where it did not interfere with a software engineer, who having first
    reviewed the project with Digital, went on to develop it at home and
    successfully market it (assuming there are any..). This might allay a
    few fears. This has to be a win-win situation for everybody. Digital
    should actively encourage it to nurture creativity. I doubt
    that many people are going to be so wildly successful that they pose a
    serious competitive threat to Digital. Digital should seek to enter
    into agreements with people to bring products to market any way
    possible, since it is the availability of applications that drives the
    hardware sales (if you have any difficulty swallowing that, just look
    at Microsoft, who has no intention of getting into the hardware
    market). Digital can protect its own interests while making a good deal
    with those who have the entrepreneurial spirit and creative drive to
    produce something useful. Partnering is far more productive than
    squashing. Meanwhile those people can still contribute
    to Digital in the tasks for which they were employed.
    
    I will be interested to hear the full details and outcome of this case.
           

    re -.1 There is at LEAST one I know.
    
    Dave VINO::Scheiffler, author of the INCREDIBLY good  DOOMSDAY 2000
    Adeventure game, has with DECs blessing, ported it to the Mac
    under the name Operation Thunderbolt, and is curently taking it to the
    PC.                                                    
               
      As far as I know its doing very well - having had rave reviews in
    many user mags...
    
    Winton

RE: .51, .52

Dave Scheifler's MISSION: THUNDERBOLT game for the Mac is an example "happy
situation".  Dave is a software engineer who developed a nifty computer game
on the VAX called DOOMSDAY 2000.  It was widely play-tested and enjoyed
in the company.  Dave then decided to try going commercial with it and
applied to have DEC officially relinquish any claims of ownership over it.
The whole process took a while, but in the end, since DEC isn't in the
computer games business, the company agreed to relinquish its claims, provided
that all future development of the program was entirely on Dave's own time
and no DEC-owned equipment was used in any way, and that DEC was granted
unlimited right to use the exisitng DOOMSDAY 2000 program internally.
After that agreement was reached Dave ported the program to the Macintosh,
enhanced it, and the result is MISSION: THUNDERBOLT.

Another example is my VMS Mandelbrot software.  I developed this on my own
time, albeit using DEC equipment.  After talking the issue over with my
supervisor, it was agreed that I could distribute it as freeware and that I
owned the copyright on the program.

There have been numerous examples where DEC software engineers distributed
programs that they did on their own time as freeware, usually through the
DECUS library.  In all cases, it pays to ask DEC first.

--PSW

=> Another example is my VMS Mandelbrot software.  I developed this on my own
=> time, albeit using DEC equipment.  After talking the issue over with my
=> supervisor, it was agreed that I could distribute it as freeware and that I
=> owned the copyright on the program.

PSW, does your supervisor have the authority to enter into an agreement 
between Digital and you regarding the software you developed? Doesn't the 
legal department have to get involved? Is this all in writing?

Jim

re Note 2049.54 by JMPSRV::MICKOL:

> PSW, does your supervisor have the authority to enter into an agreement 
> between Digital and you regarding the software you developed? Doesn't the 
> legal department have to get involved? Is this all in writing?
  
        A "long, long time ago" I submitted some simple software
        tools to DECUS.  At that time, the procedure was basically
        based upon your manager's approval.

        Bob

I like the arguments set forth in .51.

>This has to be a win-win situation for everybody. Digital
>should actively encourage it to nurture creativity.
>...Digital should seek to enter into agreements with people to
>bring products to market any way possible....

Obviously the sensible company would say to its employes, "Do your
work, and what you do extra we'd like first option to market it and
pay you some realistic royalties."

As it is now, one either does nothing at all on one's own, or if one
does produce something then one has to sneak it into the market or
else give it away. Even under socialism the peasants had a plot of land 
whose produce they could sell on their own. 

Is it a problem with the legal department having the final say in
things? No doubt they want to keep it simple, but this is ridiculous.

-PHiL

Any examples of non-entertainment software? What about
larger-than-tool stuff that could be considered a
genuine production application, particularly things
that would be considered too valuable to give
away as freeware? Digital has a lot of talent running
around loose, it presents a large pool of potential
third-party developers. I imagine there are a number
of people who, while being productive in their current
jobs, have additional ideas that don't quite fit in
with what their organization is doing. Letting them
develop these ideas on their own frees Digital from
the venture risk. Once they have done all the work,
Digital can then decide whether or not it wants a
piece of the action. If not, it should not stand in 
their way. As a Digital employee, I would be quite
happy to give my company first chance at something
I had done. It should be viewed as a team situation,
not an adversarial one. We have enough adversaries
in the marketplace already, we don't need to waste
energy quibbling among ourselves.

    This is the first time I've ever reformatted something to be WIDER.
    
    Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL
    
    
           <<< HUMANE::DISK$DIGITAL:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 2049.57      Digital sues for breach of employee contract          57 of 57
VCSESU::BRANAM "Steve, VAXcluster Sys Supp Eng LTN2" 20 lines  25-AUG-1992 12:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Any examples of non-entertainment software? What about larger-than-tool
    stuff that could be considered a genuine production application,
    particularly things that would be considered too valuable to give away
    as freeware? Digital has a lot of talent running around loose, it
    presents a large pool of potential third-party developers. I imagine
    there are a number of people who, while being productive in their
    current jobs, have additional ideas that don't quite fit in with what
    their organization is doing. Letting them develop these ideas on their
    own frees Digital from the venture risk. Once they have done all the
    work, Digital can then decide whether or not it wants a piece of the
    action. If not, it should not stand in  their way. As a Digital
    employee, I would be quite happy to give my company first chance at
    something I had done. It should be viewed as a team situation, not an
    adversarial one. We have enough adversaries in the marketplace already,
    we don't need to waste energy quibbling among ourselves.
    

Good Morning,

FWIW

When I worked for ESSO here in England we encourage to do such
things. The company ran a scheme call (C)oin (Y)our (I)deas.
Submit an idea on any subject related to the job of the refinery
and a committee of engineers, administrators etc would 'judge' it.
If they liked it they would 'adopt' it and pay you for your submission.
Some of the chaps I worked with were real wizzards with Control System
and made a lot of money. They were paid to maintain but were well
placed to 'make things better'. We're not talking 'pennies' here,
one chap who suggested 'body bags' for equipment left out in the open
after refurbishment got > 5,000.00 pounds ( and that was in 1973 ).

Other places I've worked could never benefit from this because of
it's 'culture'. Come out with a good idea that's unrelated to your
actual function and it's :

'Can't be a good idea as it's not ours'
'Go away, who do you think you are, it's our job to think about this'
'Thankyou, you don't mind if I steal it do you ?'

Good ideas are great but it needs someone to listen.
Ignore them and your'll stiffle creativity.
In general the UK is good on ideas but poor up developing them.
( remember the Hover-craft etc etc )
A positive approach is needed by all concerned, and if adopted, 
we would all benefit.

Chris ( I'm developing a new soap box for the short sighted )

    re .55
    Submitting things to DECUS...
    
    I can remember looking through old DECUS archives back when
    PDP-8's/-12's and -10's were popular. A significant proportion of the
    DECUS library was authored by DEC employees. Sadly, this has changed to
    the point where it is now very unusual to see something sbmitted by DEC
    employees...
    
    q
    

RE: .54

Yes, no, and no.

--PSW

    By scanning some of the entries under this base topic, I don't really
    understand what is what here.... (too much of I_think_stuff, and not
    easy to se what is facts...), but I'm
    surprised if any contract/agreement can override a law of
    intellectual property rights (given it exists is US- that was not clear
    to me, either)
    As replyed from UK, this law exist in other countries as well - and is
    ment to protect the "weak part" - which usually is not a company, an
    organization or similar, but an emplyee . Whatever contract/agreement
    is made, the law of the country will override it.
    
    What is good - or not-so-good moral, is a different topic....
    
    britt
                                                                 

    
    lets assume I developed a product using my own personal resources
    (hardware, software, time, etc...) not using any of Digital's
    resources (notes, documentation, hardware, network)
    
    lets also assume that this product is software, say a word processor
    (so it might compete with DECWrite for Windows)
    
    Does Digital ~own~ this software?  
    
    Or the real question:  Am I a slave to Digital because they employ me?
    
    Thats what some of the previous replies assert, that because we work
    for Digital, they own everything we do.
    
    Now if I did use Digital resources, Digital should be compensated.
    I also believe that talking to my management is the right thing to
    do.  
    
    any comments??
    
    ...gene
    dumping a 200 year old can of worms...
    

>    Does Digital ~own~ this software?  

	I believe that Digital owns the rights to the software. Not sure exactly
	how that is different from owning the software. I believe it means they
	can use or sell copies. Other parts of the agreement prohibit you from
	selling copies. I'm not sure what it all means if you leave Digital's
	employee.

			Alfred

I wonder if the employee agreement needs updating?  After all, it
was written back when it was unusual for people to own computers.
Therefore, it was highly likely that, if you developed a program,
then you'd have used DEC-owned computers on which to do it.

    An excellent point.  However, my more cynical side reminds me that the
    law is usually many years behind technology, even in technology-driven
    fields. 
    

    The Employee Agreement says in principal, that DEC OWNS ANYTHING and
    EVERYTHING of an "Intellectual Property" nature developed by you while
    you are employed by Digital, at least that's what it said when I signed
    my version of the agreement 17 years ago. I think a word or two may
    have softened that ever so slightly in later forms of the agreement.
    That includes the great novel you always wanted to write, a treatise on
    kite flying, or the proverbial "better mousetrap".

    Although I was able to negotiate a few changes to the agreement
    wording, that was one area in which the Corporation wouldn't give an
    angstrom. The personnel folks started making not to subtle noises that
    if I didn't sign it with that wording that I would be back out on the
    street looking in (that was a couple of months after I started work).

Re: .63, .67

Of course DEC owns everything that you do. Based on current vernacular, we
are all company 'resources' and anything developed using 'company resources'
(read 'us') belongs to DEC.

Lee


        = =
        o -
         ^
        \_/
     
    (this is a smiley with a wink)

	Most software writers I know aren't on the clock. Digital
	has "bought our brains". If we think up something, whether
	we thought it up between 8:15am and 5:00 pm, or at 2:00am
	isn't particularly relevant. As hired professionals, we owe
	our employer first crack...

						Tom_K

    re last many
    
    All this just confirms a personal decision I have made.  When I leave
    Digital in March, I will never become a "permanent employee" (now there's
    an oxymoron for you) of anybody again.  From now on, I will contract
    with whomever to do whatever, but with well defined deliverables and no
    long lasting commitments.
    
    Dick

    
    re: .69
    >	Most software writers I know aren't on the clock. Digital
    >	has "bought our brains". If we think up something, whether
    >	we thought it up between 8:15am and 5:00 pm, or at 2:00am
    >	isn't particularly relevant. As hired professionals, we owe
    >	our employer first crack...
    
    First: just try sending in status reports that are generally
           less than 40 hrs a week.  remember our status is r40,
    	   that is we are 40hrs a week employees.
    
    but the question still stands: 
    
    Are we slaves to Digital because we are employees of Digital?
    
    ...gene
    

>    First: just try sending in status reports that are generally
>           less than 40 hrs a week.  remember our status is r40,
>    	   that is we are 40hrs a week employees.

	Could you give me a clue about what you are talking about?

				Tom_K

Clearly we're not slaves.  Slaves can't quit.

    If you *think* you are a slave...you are.
    
    Marc H.

    
    re:-1
    
    The real meaning of the comment is to just see what happens if you
    don't average the acceptable 40 hr/wk.  Either you'll be told to do
    more or you're work load will be increased.  I'll bet there are very
    few of us who put in as little as 40....
    
    hum..  I believe the IRS has explicit definitions of what an exempt
    employee is and how continued exempt status is maintained.  Anyone
    know for sure?
    
    The other part of the comment was to answer the claim that Digital
    bought our minds.  If that were true, than we really are slaves.
    And yes I do solve work issues all day (and night) as they strike me.
    
    The point is, is everything I do owned by my employer?  
    
    How 'bout this...
    
    I build a word processor and begin to sell it.  Digital gets mad
    and sues.  Now the word processor has a very fatal bug that has
    the potential of costing users $$$$.  Who's liable? Digital or me?
    
    ...gene
    
                  

    Here's what Robert Townsend has to say about "moonlighting":
    
    "Like sleeping around, it scatters energy. It usually means that the
    salary isn't enough to cover the living expenses or the pschic income
    is below the subsistence line. If there's a lot of it going on, it may
    be a sign that the system has defeated the people again. If they can't
    release their spare energies toward your goals, they'll moonlight for
    somebody who doesn't have job descriptions and policy manuals."
    
    Food for thought there I think.
    
    Robert Townsend is the man who in three years (1962-65) took Avis from
    nowhere to being No. 2 in the car rental business. This extract is from
    his highly readable 1970 book, "Up the Organisation" (ISBN
    0-340-14986-8 on the copy I've borrowed). My local bookshop says it's
    out of print, sadly. There are lots more good bits in it. 
    
    regards
    john

    A copy of one version of the employee agreement is below.  It
    explicitly excludes inventions etc. made by employees on their own
    time, without Digital equipment, that are not for Digital business.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
				DIGITAL

			  EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT

In consideration of my employment by Digital Equipment Corporation (DIGITAL),
its successors and assigns, a Massachusetts corporation, I hereby agree as
follows:

1. I will make full and prompt disclosure to DIGITAL of all inventions,
improvements, modifications, discoveries, methods and developments (all of
which are collectively termed "developments" hereinafter), whether patentable
or not, made or conceived by me or under my direction during my employment,
whether or not made or conceived during normal working hours or on the premises
of DIGITAL.

2. Upon request by DIGITAL, I agree to assign to DIGITAL all developments
covered by Paragraph 1 and any patents or patent applications covering such
developments and to execute and deliver such assignments, patents and
applications, and other documents as DIGITAL may direct and to fully
cooperate with DIGITAL to enable DIGITAL to secure and patent or otherwise
protect such developments in any and all countries.  However, this Paragraph
2 shall not apply to developments which do not relate to the actual or
anticipated business or research and development of DIGITAL or its subsidiary
or affiliated corporations, provided that such developments are made or
conceived by me entirely during other than DIGITAL working hours, and not on
DIGITAL's premises and not with the use of DIGITAL's equipment, supplies,
facilities, tools, devices, or trade secret information.

3. I hereby represent that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no present
obligation to assign to any former employer or any other person, corporation
or firm, any developments covered by Paragraph 2.  I also represent that, to
the best of my knowledge, there is no legal prohibition including but not
limited to an agreement with any former employer that might prevent me from
performing my duties of employment with DIGITAL.

4. I will also assign to DIGITAL any and all copyrights and reproduction rights
to any material prepared by me in connection with my employment.

5. I will not disclose to DIGITAL, or induce DIGITAL to use, any confidential
information of other persons, corporations or firms, including my former
employers (if any).

6. During the course of employment by DIGITAL, I may learn of DIGITAL's
confidential information or confidential information entrusted to DIGITAL by
other persons, corporations or firms.  DIGITAL's confidential information
includes matters not generally known outside DIGITAL, such as developments
relating to existing and future products and services marketed or used by
DIGITAL and also data relating to the general business operations of DIGITAL
(e.g., concerning sales, costs, profits, organizations, customer lists, pricing
methods, etc.).  I agree not to disclose any confidential information of
DIGITAL or of such other persons, corporations or firms to others or to make
use of it, except on DIGITAL's behalf, whether or not such information is
produced by my own efforts.  Also, I may learn of developments, ways of
business, etc., which in themselves are generally known but whose use by
DIGITAL is not generally known, and I agree not to disclose to others such
use, whether or not such use is due to my own efforts.

7. At the time I begin my employment and during the term of my employment by
DIGITAL, I will not engage in or become employed by or act on behalf of any
other person, corporation or firm which is engaged in any business or activity
similar to or competitive with that of DIGITAL, unless such employment has
been approved by DIGITAL in writing and signed by an appropriate personnel
manager of DIGITAL.

8. In the event that my employment is transferred by DIGITAL to a subsidiary
or affiliated company (as the case may be), my employment by such company will,
for the purposes of this agreement, be considered as continued employment by
DIGITAL, unless and until I execute an agreement, substantially similar in
substance to this agreement, then in force in any such company for which I
become employed.

9. I hereby give DIGITAL permission to use photographs of me, either during or
after my employment, with or without using my name, for whatever purposes it
deems necessary.

10. Upon termination of my employment, unless my employment is transferred to
a subsidiary or affiliated company of DIGITAL, I agree to leave with DIGITAL
all records, drawings, notebooks and other documents pertaining to DIGITAL's
confidential information, whether prepared by me or others, and also any
equipment, tools or other devices in my possession which are owned by DIGITAL.

11. My obligations under this agreement shall survive the termination of my
employment regardless of the manner of such termination, and shall be binding
upon my heirs, executors and administrators.

							WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL

			Signature_________________________________________(Seal)

			Date___________________________


WITNESS____________________________

EN-01078-06-REVB(646) (machine copy transcribed by JRC)

    
    Aha, there is a catch:
    
    > shall not apply to developments which do not relate to the actual or
    > anticipated business or research and development of DIGITAL or its 
    > subsidiary ...
    
    	How in the world would you declare that something was not related
    to DECs 'anticipated business' when they publicly say they're into
    everything from 'Desktop to Datacenter' and they never seem to turn down
    any kind of business.  Where would you even find a strategy statement
    that said that they're NOT going to do some type of business.  It's sort
    of like 'anything that's not in the Sears catalog'.  
    
    	About the only thing left is business management and employee
    motivation. ;^)
    
    JN

    
    > shall not apply to developments which do not relate to the actual or
    > anticipated business or research and development of DIGITAL or its 
    > subsidiary ...


One hopefully could argue that at the time the agreement was signed,  the
term 'anticipated business' had specific meaning.  For instance, if you
signed this agreement back in the pre-PRO days, the anticipated business
did not include PCs (in fact, you could probably dig up any number of public
statements by corporate officials stating specifically that PCs were NOT
what Digital would get into).  So, if you now start selling PC based software,
does that violate the agreement as it was signed?  

A related question deals with a suggestion in a previous note:  Update the
agreement.  Would that not require everyone to re-sign it?  Or is there
something somewhere that says any new agreements are automagically in effect?

    I think the employee agreement is the company's starting point.  I know
    of at least one individual who developed s/w on a VAX (game). It
    became so popular that the developer wanted to go commercial.  He went
    before *a committee* and they declared they had no interest, have a
    good time.  The original code was developed on a DEC owned VAX after
    hours.

    Remember the base note.  Said individual stepped way, way over the
    line.

    In cases, other than Digital, I have read about in the Wall Street
    Journal, managers or committees are reluctant to say "yeah, it wasn't
    part of your job, but we own the intellectural property, and we'll
    market it."
    
    From that point on, the employee will have the expectation that he or
    she will see the intellectual property productized and marketed.
    
    That expectation may become the basis for a legal action by the
    employee, "You denied me income from this, I agreed, and you sat on it"
    
    Of course, this reasoning may or may not apply to Digital.