News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The "Work For Hire" Doctrine Almost Never Works in Softwa... by ChuckMcM on Monday May 26, 2014 @10:57PM (#7802639)
One of the things that always amazes me is how intensely people pursue this stuff. Which presumably means they are taking the position that you are going to screw them the first chance you get. And the thing that amazes me is that many employees don't take an equivalent stance regarding the company. Wouldn't you think that if a company was that worried perhaps should worry you too?

Love patio11's advice about having the payout be dependent on the transfer of IP, very nice and very appropriate.

Re:The "Work For Hire" Doctrine Almost Never Works in Softwa... by wikwocket on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @01:20AM (#7803005)
If you see code that checks for every possible type of exception or input error, do you think that code is secretly hoping that an exception occurs? Or do you just think the programmer is trying to cover all the bases so he/she can decide what happens when an error occurs?

Contracts are just the 'source code' that define agreements. There's nothing wrong with very specific and precise language. Granted, since contracts are tied to negotiation, some people can be over-aggressive, but mostly long contracts just come from people who have gotten burned before, and have no desire to be burned again.

Re:The "Work For Hire" Doctrine Almost Never Works in Softwa... by mantrax5 on Monday May 26, 2014 @11:26PM (#7802710)
Malice is not the only way problems occur between contractor and company. Ignorance, misunderstanding, confusion, stress, poor planning, unforeseen circumstances are other very common reasons.

Contracts aren't written and signed just so you can sue each other. Contracts are written and signed as an evidence for both sides about what both sides agreed at the time, because no one's memory is that good. Contracts are written so when the proverbial s--t hits the fan, both sides are aware of what happens and are fine with the consequences.

And in all of those cases it pays to use the correct, specific, unambiguous language to express the intent of both sides. Expressing intent isn't easy. You can't go back and fix a contract easily the way you can say "Oh no, I mean X, not Y" in a casual conversation.

Lots of people, resources and time are about to be spent fulfilling a contract. A lot of problems will occur on the way to it being fulfilled.

If you think it's an option to take contracts lightly and you think it's an option to just trust fate & the goodwill of people you didn't know yesterday to sacrifice themselves in order to save your money, time, property and business, it's a sign you've not been burned enough times to learn to think otherwise.

Remember, that when stress gets high, and both sides paint themselves in a corner, even the most moral, loyal and honest of people may find themselves bending their morality, loyalty and honesty in order to survive in an impossible situation.