|
Why the gently caress do so many people (not just the reddit retards but people writing for actual gaming news sites) not understand that the ">$75,000" in all the paperwork doesn't loving mean they are looking for $75,000? I am the furthest loving thing from a lawyer and even to me that's obviously just the cutoff for some particular special brand of legal jujitsu to be applied.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
Eldragon posted:Depends on the company. I've worked under three different software firms that have a "anything you code in your spare time, we own it too" clause as part of the employment contract. I know this is getting into derail territory; but I was under the impression that much like tech non-competes, these sorts of clauses ended up being basically unenforceable. Also they can have the sorts of poo poo I code in my spare time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
History Comes Inside! posted:Why the gently caress do so many people (not just the reddit retards but people writing for actual gaming news sites) not understand that the ">$75,000" in all the paperwork doesn't loving mean they are looking for $75,000? They all seem to be really dumb, that video I linked has the guy thinking that, he also thinks Amazon completely bought Crytek.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
History Comes Inside! posted:actual gaming news sites 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SandiGardiner/status/941152874817503232
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Nyast posted:But can they afford not to settle ? If they don't then they don't have the rights to Cryengine at all, period. So they'd be forced to switch to LY. Not a slow gradual step by step upgrade, but an instant switch. There's no way they can even do that without removing access to the game from all backers during the transition period, which could take up months.. Switching engines takes the lunch break of two coders. It is canon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Eldragon posted:Depends on the company. I've worked under three different software firms that have a "anything you code in your spare time, we own it too" clause as part of the employment contract. gently caress 'em, and take it to a lawyer. They're attempting to claim copyright of everything you do. Work for Hire is covered under 17 U.S.C. chain 101 as part of copyright law. Obviously if you're not in the land of the free and the home of the brave, this is moot, but most places stop you being glorified chattels because of the whole industrial revolution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
lol at them trotting out an ex crytek employee after all this just lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Hav posted:
This should in general been nipped in the bud years ago. Not just code but any emails, yada yada on company time. Even in our archaic company with a dinosaur of a HR department that finds electricity bewildering we had clauses on social media and content created poo poo on the company's time or equipment was theirs (granted, I'm the one who wrote them). Boggles my mind it still happens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:40
|
|
C-Bangin' it 
|
https://twitter.com/Code12sMonkey/status/842082588424568832 Only we were discussing a game engine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
SoftNum posted:I know this is getting into derail territory; but I was under the impression that much like tech non-competes, these sorts of clauses ended up being basically unenforceable. I presume so, but who wants to take the chance/expense over litigating it? My most recent one they later amended it to cover only "Code in a similar manner to which you do as part of employment" (paraphrasing). The fear was that someone could take their insider knowledge, write a competing program from scratch, and go into business for themselves. And to be perfectly honest, a few of us disgruntled programmers were talking about doing exactly that. "We can rewrite this 20 year old poo poo from scratch on the weekend, then immediately steal a couple of seven figure/year accounts!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:lol at them trotting out an ex crytek employee after all this At least he looks happy about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
SPERMCUBE.ORG posted:Now that I think about it, Star Citizen reminds me a lot of the post-move, pre-return Browns. I think comparing Star Citizen and the browns is a pretty good comparison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRBDMMVctu8
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Hav posted:gently caress 'em, and take it to a lawyer. They're attempting to claim copyright of everything you do. Yeah. Anything on company time and/or equipment is fair game. But what you do on your time using your property is yours. So that sort of clause is unenforceable if not illegal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
I pledge to buy Derek Smart's book in physical form and proudly display it on my bookshelf as a penance for doubting my warlord.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Which came first, Sandi's refusal to wear her wedding ring or Chris' preoccupation with fidelity?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
...and when the wind changes you end up looking like Steve Tyler. Forever
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Mne nravitsya posted:Well, sadly, this is bad for Star Citizen BUT this is GREATfor Chris, Sandi, and Erin. The game folds and none of them need to ever answer for anythng, because (as they will echo through eternity) Don't worry, they will bankrupt themselves in no time. Sped up dramatically by Sandi taking half a week after the whale oil well is cut off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/arstechnica/status/941333463772401666
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/vyVKsgE.gifv
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Eldragon posted:My most recent one they later amended it to cover only "Code in a similar manner to which you do as part of employment" (paraphrasing). The fear was that someone could take their insider knowledge, write a competing program from scratch, and go into business for themselves. You fall into the 'derivative works' category if you do that; there's a claim, but who the hell bothers because explaining to the judge the difference between your Observer pattern and the Plaintiff's Observer pattern is an immediate loser. It's why most of this poo poo concentrates around the agreements rather than the nitty-gritty of code. In our case he lifted an entire repo that he wasn't actually supposed to have, so it was fairly easy to prosecute.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/941348685518163968 *2 weeks+
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
While I do thoroughly enjoy watching this go down (and I don't really dare to believe that CIG is going to be shut down over this until it actually happens) it feels bad that it will offer a suitable excuse for citizens to use in the future. It would feel so much better if CIG folded due to obvious idiocy from Croberts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
AP posted:https://twitter.com/Code12sMonkey/status/842082588424568832 Best version of this was from 'John dies in the end'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6J_O_BVOmU
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Hav posted:gently caress 'em, and take it to a lawyer. They're attempting to claim copyright of everything you do. In Denmark, it is not a contract thing, but actual law (in the main labor legislation governing salaried employees). Any code you write in your spare time belongs to your employer, unless you have express written permissions - if it is the same kind of software. It's never been tried in court, nor has the definition of "same-ness", but I have personally seen it being used as leverage/threat during severance negotiations ("That thing you wrote in your spare time and put on github? Accept these terms or we'll come after you"). Super bullshit law, especially as it only applies to programmers, and not authors, journalists, researchers, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Star posted:While I do thoroughly enjoy watching this go down (and I don't really dare to believe that CIG is going to be shut down over this until it actually happens) it feels bad that it will offer a suitable excuse for citizens to use in the future. It would feel so much better if CIG folded due to obvious idiocy from Croberts. You know they'd just blame something else. It was always going to be some outside boogieman that was the cause of all the problems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
History Comes Inside! posted:Why the gently caress do so many people (not just the reddit retards but people writing for actual gaming news sites) not understand that the ">$75,000" in all the paperwork doesn't loving mean they are looking for $75,000? This point is particularly funny. My elderly parents know this kind of thing because they watch Judge Judy or the People's Court where tens of millions of people are exposed to the simple concept that different types of lawsuits deal with different types of monetary amounts and when you list that you are seeking "Amounts greater than (whatever)" it's actually an explanation of the way in which you are suing them. They explain all the time that if you want to sue someone outside of the $5,000 civil limit you need to go "Seeking compensation >$5,000" which is an explanation, using the limit of their specific courts, of why you aren't suing them in their courts. Tarkaroshe basing his entire defense around "They just want $75,000  Cashgrab " is probably the stupidest thing he has ever said. He literally thinks CryTek hired a world class law firm with rates of $1,000 an hour to try and shake 3-4 days worth of lawyering out of CIG. Therefore their desperation means the lawsuit isn't a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Star posted:While I do thoroughly enjoy watching this go down (and I don't really dare to believe that CIG is going to be shut down over this until it actually happens) it feels bad that it will offer a suitable excuse for citizens to use in the future. It would feel so much better if CIG folded due to obvious idiocy from Croberts. no matter what it will never be chris's fault. even if there was a video of him dressed like the hamburgler, holding a giant bag with $ sign printed on it and cackling to himself as he jumped onto a yacht and sailed away, never to be seen again, the blame will still be pushed on to everyone besides chris.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Hav posted:We prosecuted someone who walked away with proprietary code. As a coder, I keep my code on a completely different machine from the business code, and DO NOT mix them. Likewise, OS for my company is different from me doing OS in my free time. Couple of anecdotes. I worked for a startup a while back, and leadership poached some hotshot senior guy from a competitor to work help us develop our flagship, differentiating tech. Turns out, that guy violated his NDA and shared trade secrets with our company. So one day, we got called to a surprise all-hands meeting. It was about 15 minutes of the CEO vamping, and I was like what is this bullshit, can I get back to work please? The answer: no. While we were in the conference room, lawyers and security were confiscating everyone's laptop, every server, everything. We never saw those laptops again, and they were used in a copyright infringement lawsuit. And just like that, our whole product pipeline was stillborn. We could not work on anything relating to <flagship technology> while the lawsuit was in play. Eventually it settled with my company paying millions, and that company ended up getting acquired (which was a best-case-scenario). At my current company, every single programming language, library, package, etc has to be cleared with legal. This is a Java shop, with a Node-based front-end, so... that's a lot. Every class file has to have an up-to-date copyright header. I leave comments in code reviews all the time to the tune of "please update the copyright header." Now, the punk-rear end "gently caress yeah!" skateboarder rebel in me is like "jesus christ this corporate poo poo is a stupid waste of time," but the professional adult knows that when you screw this kind of thing up, you put your company and everyone that works there at risk. My hot take, CIG thinks of themselves as this plucky hotshot hacker kid with business savvy that's going to "disrupt" the big pub stranglehold like Uber or some poo poo. Well Chris, welcome to Earf. You're not very important, you're not very smart, and you have hosed up far too hard for far too long. Hold on to your butt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
VictorianQueerLit posted:Tarkaroshe basing his entire defense around "They just want $75,000 That's a hell of a bar you have him clearing there. I think he's said stupider things. Toops posted:Couple of anecdotes. Yeah, we used to know roughly what the executives had been up to by the things that appeared in the 'Standards of business and conduct' training that you have to sit through yearly. One year it was all about insider trading. Same on the software, but we have so many goddamned verticals that things get weird sometimes. I think we have a little of _eveything_, although I'm burning a lot of the old stuff at the moment because our technical debt goes back to the mid-90s. Hav fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
VictorianQueerLit posted:This point is particularly funny. My elderly parents know this kind of thing because they watch Judge Judy or the People's Court where tens of millions of people are exposed to the simple concept that different types of lawsuits deal with different types of monetary amounts and when you list that you are seeking "Amounts greater than (whatever)" it's actually an explanation of the way in which you are suing them. They explain all the time that if you want to sue someone outside of the $5,000 civil limit you need to go "Seeking compensation >$5,000" which is an explanation, using the limit of their specific courts, of why you aren't suing them in their courts. That was the talking point he was assigned, so he is going to hammer it, regardless of whether he actually believes it. "A lie repeated often enough becomes truth" - the propagandist creed
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
SoftNum posted:I know this is getting into derail territory; but I was under the impression that much like tech non-competes, these sorts of clauses ended up being basically unenforceable. Read my previous post. You could not be less correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Hav posted:It's going to be a very minor point, but I'm used to seeing spelling mistakes in filings. I think you’re correct. Thank you for your knowledge sharing too.  I believe Skadden is going in for a big kill. Maybe they are also going to try to get involved with the inevitable legislation that will be coming in terms of crowd funding as well? I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not sure what their angle is in the long haul. I do think their goal is to totally clean out CIG though, but I can’t help but feel like there is something else there that were all missing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
I'm getting the impression this court case punches above its weight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Toops posted:My hot take, CIG thinks of themselves as this plucky hotshot hacker kid with business savvy that's going to "disrupt" the big pub stranglehold like Uber or some poo poo. Well Chris, welcome to Earf. You're not very important, you're not very smart, and you have hosed up far too hard for far too long. Hold on to your butt. Getting the copyright headers right is also not a huge priority for disenchanted coders in constant crunch. Even if they are told to do it, there's a good chance they'll ignore that demand every chance they get. But yeah, copyright headers is a serious thing, I rejected code reviews with spelling, path or date errors in the copyright notice when I was in fintech. Obviously copy-pasted code from the net? Same deal. Messing up copyright is a no-go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Colostomy Bag posted:I'm getting the impression this court case punches above its weight. It also comes with LTI, but it's limited quantity only. Pledge more at https://www.skadden.com
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
The Titanic posted:I think you’re correct. Thank you for your knowledge sharing too. In priority order I think Skadden is after: 1. Maximum dollars 2. Another high-profile scalp to further cement their reputation in this area of litigation 3. If Amazon gets involved (they won't), then see 1. They probably care very little about their name being attached to legislation per se, only to the extent that it buffs up #2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Golli posted:2. Another high-profile scalp
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
Colostomy Bag posted:I'm getting the impression this court case punches above its weight. pretty drat stealthy too. PederP posted:Messing up copyright is a no-go. And weirdly not because it's the right thing to do, but it's the lowest hanging fruit to the motivated IP squatter. If anyone enjoys the legal side of things, you could do worse than wade through SCO Vs Red Hat. It was a multi-year case that started with the allegations that Linux was chock full of System V, and ended with SCO effectively becoming a licensing shop. Toops posted:Read my previous post. You could not be less correct. Breaching an NDA is slightly different from a non-compete. Non-competes are hard to enforce because they can't stop you doing your job and are supposed to stop you using trade secrets, so they're applied very narrowly and usually not worth the paper they're written on. An NDA is a entirely different ballgame because the NDA has to be specific and you have to reach that agreement. America plays _everything_ fast and loose, but signed contracts are difficult to get around and usually have to revolve around a perceived problem in the agreement or overreach. There's also degree; if you're expecting to make millions from the privileged communications or art, then it's more viable to prosecute compared with something with a lower value. Golli posted:In priority order I think Skadden is after: I agree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:23
|
|