Re:DOJ: We don't need warrants for e-mail, Facebook chats
by rhizome on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @12:26PM
(#5675109)
Are you sure about that?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:DOJ: We don't need warrants for e-mail, Facebook chats
by sp332 on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @12:33PM
(#5675157)
Yeah, because you would actually read & physically sign an employment agreement, and that agreement actually has some bearing on how you relate to your job. OTOH an EULA is not read by most people, and their enforceability has been challenged in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Enf...
Re:DOJ: We don't need warrants for e-mail, Facebook chats
by rhizome on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @05:10PM
(#5676972)
You can't sign your rights away, and "we own all of IP you produce past, present and future," is a forsaking of rights that would naturally be exercisable by the person signing the contract.
Employment agreements are also subject to contract law concepts such as consideration[1], which would come into play when someone stops and asks "what's in it for me?" A single job as described at the beginning of the relationship through the employment agreement is probably not going to be seen as valuable enough for someone to have legitimately signed away his future productivity.
Re:DOJ: We don't need warrants for e-mail, Facebook chats
by sp332 on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @05:22PM
(#5677047)
Your interpretation of "consideration" is, according to the article you linked, the minority position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration#Monetary_value_o...
I'm not sure what you mean by "you can't sign your rights away". IP is of course transferable.