That's… horrible. It feels like he's under a gag order. I wager this stuff could be useful to all of us, but Apple just clings on this "Intellectual Property" like, like… Well, like any corporation.

Huh...?

He worked for a company out of his own will, and that company paid him in exchange for his work, with the full understanding that all ownership of the work would go to them. I mean, it's not even as if Apple hides that about them- that's one thing they tell you OVER and OVER when you interview with them.

He knew exactly what he was getting into when he accepted to work for them (and did so for many years), and he definitely doesn't seem to mind what he got out of it (salary + the ability to call himself an "ex-Apple employee" and extract the social proof/appeal to authority that comes with it).

I love Bret's work, but this page on his website is very distasteful and comes across as fairly petty.

> He worked for a company out of his own will

Did he?

I understand a guy like Brett Victor has more options than most people, but think of the statistics for a second. Most of us work for corporations. The only real choice here is which corporation. (There are other ways, but they often amount to helping corporations, or building your own. That doesn't exactly solve the problem.)

At the end of the day, one's gotta eat. Are you willing to starve to save your own soul? Neither am I. But I'd like to have my cake and eat it too anyway.

---

Background: I side with Noam Chomsky and most classical anarchists here: corporations are a systemic problem: they just concentrate too much power. We should dissolve them. As for the problems they solve (like shiny graphic cards), I'm sure we can think of a better way than corporate capitalism (no, I'm not thinking of command economies that are often associated with "socialism" —yet are anything but).

Maybe he once had a hope more ideas would see the light of day?

Maybe that hope was crushed and he realized he made a mistake.

The contract theory of morality does not admit well to asymmetry of information. Most organizations preach about the impact one will have, not exclusively about compensation. Certainly Apple would have, certainly Bret would have been looking for impact. Bret was at the informational disadvantage there.

In general, it seems, at least, that if employers decide not to do something with creative works, that they at least have some other life raft they can escape upon.

   he got out of it (salary ...

This is an argument I've heard many employers use that is factually incorrect.

Every month, employees freely give their time to a company. The company is in debt to the employee. At the end of that month there is a financial reckoning and the debt is repaid. The moment the employee comes to work the following day the company is debt to the employee again.

I cannot stress this enough - for the whole month it is the Company that is in debt and should call itself lucky, not the employee.

It is employees that keep the economy going - not employers - as, at the end of each month billions have been lent to Companies by those who work there.

Not necessarily; that depends on one's particular arrangements. I, for example, get paid approximately mid-month, so I start out indebted to the company each month and the balance gradually shifts over time.

I believe only the USA pays bi-monthly; elsewhere you usually only get paid monthly.

I'm an exempt employee in the US and get paid monthly. The classified employees at my organization get paid weekly.

Is this your own opinion, or is there some books/articles/etc. backing it? I'm asking this because this stance you depict seems really correct and I'd like to find out more on it if possible.

There are exceptions, but most people are indeed paid like this, at the end of the month (or the end of the week). But this is more an outlook than a hard fact.

Another outlook is, the employee should count herself lucky to be authorized to work for a company. The company provide money to the employee, which means it feeds her. If it didn't the employee would have to find another benevolent corporation, or starve. Now there is still the occasional maverick who tries to start her own business, but mostly, employees rely on companies to eat.

Yet another outlook is, the company don't feed the employee. The customers of the company feed the employee. Which is why the customer is king: piss him off, and you won't see him again. Do that too much, and you your employees will starve. It will be your fault, and maybe the fault of some of your employees. It's certainly not the fault of the customer, who has every right to choose what to consume.

I personally find these three views (the one you awnsered to, an the two I mentioned) a bit extreme. But they're not strawmen either. Some people really do believe that. In my opinion, this is the sign of a deep problem. I don't know what exactly, but something is off with the current customer/employer/employee arrangement.

I don't think it's distasteful. He lays the blame where appropriate: it was his own "terrible mistake".

Nah, the companies pushing these contracts are the ones exhibiting distasteful behavior. That page is very tasteful.

> He knew exactly what he was getting into

> he definitely doesn't seem to mind what he got out of it

you might have glossed over the second entry in the FAQ, where he calls it a "mistake".

sounds to me he made an error in judgement that he would have liked to make differently, in hindsight.

IMO, in such circumstances it seems a bit cold to side with the corporation for the sole reason that they happen to be legally in the right. but maybe that's just me, being all compassionate and silly.

The really sad thing is how many great ideas must get forgotten because they were developed in secret and didn't align with the commercial interests of the company paying for it.