5 ms·

I find this mindset totally disgusting, but I'm glad it's been summed up in such a concise way. > Being an employee of a high tech company whose product is int

by sgentle 10y ago

I find this mindset totally disgusting, but I'm glad it's been summed up in such a concise way. > Being an employee of a high tech company whose product is intellectual means that you have decided that you want to sell your intellectual output, and maybe that’s OK, and maybe it’s not, but it’s a free choice. Let's clarify that phrase, "sell your intellectual output". Keep in mind that earlier in the article we discovered that "during work hours" or "related to your work" are not limits on its scope. What are the limits? The evident conclusion is that there are none. You are selling all of your intellectual output. A situation where every idea you come up with, everything you think, every last shred of creativity is owned by someone else is one of the most profoundly dystopian things I can imagine. But this isn't a sci-fi story, this is standard business practice. Selling all your intellectual output is selling yourself, and I think it's unconscionable. If you don't even own your own thoughts, what do you have left?

platz 10y ago
my twitching due to self-restraint from posting marxist critiques of capitalism is ramping up again.
- js8 10y ago
  I was trying to explain to creative people that "intellectual property" is basically enclosure of 20th century, but they had a hard time to grasp the analogy. In both cases, it's means to create an artificial scarcity where one didn't exist before. So they are bound to repeat the same mistakes that workers did before marxism.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
yongjik 10y ago
> A situation where every idea you come up with, everything you think, every last shred of creativity is owned by someone else is one of the most profoundly dystopian things I can imagine. That's rather overdramatic. Several centuries ago, every idea you come up with, everything you think, you could probably keep as your own because no one was interested and there was no way you could sell them and make living, even if you really wanted to, which you probably did not, because such a lifestyle was out of most people's reach. "What are you saying you've been up to all this morning, thinking? Cut out the laziness and go feed the cows, or there will be no lunch for you!"
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  We are currently living in the current age, not several centuries ago. Should one accept terrible medical care, as such care would be considered revolutionary a few centuries ago? Additionally, there were people back then whose intellectual output was their own and were able to do things with that output.
  - ozim 10y ago
    Joel also wrote that as a contractor you own all the copyright by default, and it is your free will to sell it. That is your choice to sign up for contract and let the company take over. If you do not want that, simply do your buisness on your own and don't look for work for someone else.
    - ozim 10y ago
      For downwvoters, I am from Poland I live in Netherlands. I am all in for personal freedom. I cry when freedom is taken away from people. It is about beeing more educated, knowing your options. Not just signing up with big corp because you will get more money. It is about you can loose some of your money because you choose freedom. Please upvote it. Don't be like a child who wants to have cookie and eat cookie, it is You loose some money in return you get freedom. Those who want money can get all they want, but you loose something more valuable. You can't have all the money and all the freedom...
- ozim 10y ago
  That is a good point, people are inventing dystopian futures, where we had really dystopian past. Where people actually belonged to someone, were only fed for their work. Where now in first world you can quit your job and try to sell your inventions or every last shred of creativity to one that offers more. It is also that if you do not like someone you do not have to sell your ideas to him, you can sell those ideas to someone you like cheaper. Joel also wrote (I hope parent poster read the article) that as a contractor you own all the copyright by default, and it is your free will to sell it.
lerpa 10y ago
> The evident conclusion is that there are none. You are selling all of your intellectual output. The conclusion is that we either reject this kind of slavery, or at least start charging the extra hours.
zodiac 10y ago
What is the alternative though? Through the article Joel gave reasons as to why those two limits can't be placed (even if the company was nice and wanted to)
- spacelizard 10y ago
  I can think of a few: - Have the employee agree to grant a royalty-free license to all relevant inventions made in the appropriate time period - Have the employee forfeit all inventions in the event they initiate litigation - Or better, sign a mutual patent disarmament clause (probably my favorite option) Going back to the core of the issue though, I would not trust investors who insist on appropriating the rights to any and all inventions they can. The article tries to frame this as a legal protection strategy, but they don't need ownership to do this. The only reason they insist on it is to try and pressure the founders into squeezing maximum value from employees while giving back as little as they can in return. Unfortunately this behavior is quite widespread.
  - nsomaru 10y ago
    Could you elaborate on your last point, a patent disarmament clause? If there's precedent that would be great!
stevesun21 10y ago
If the author states like this, I would think that he's going to pay me salary based on 24*7 rather than just 40 hours per week.
- gaius 10y ago
  That is what being a salaried employee means - the normal hours are stipulated in the contract but also some clause like "and anything else that may be required".

by sgentle 10y ago

platz 10y ago

my twitching due to self-restraint from posting marxist critiques of capitalism is ramping up again.

js8 10y ago
I was trying to explain to creative people that "intellectual property" is basically enclosure of 20th century, but they had a hard time to grasp the analogy. In both cases, it's means to create an artificial scarcity where one didn't exist before. So they are bound to repeat the same mistakes that workers did before marxism.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

yongjik 10y ago

> A situation where every idea you come up with, everything you think, every last shred of creativity is owned by someone else is one of the most profoundly dystopian things I can imagine. That's rather overdramatic. Several centuries ago, every idea you come up with, everything you think, you could probably keep as your own because no one was interested and there was no way you could sell them and make living, even if you really wanted to, which you probably did not, because such a lifestyle was out of most people's reach. "What are you saying you've been up to all this morning, thinking? Cut out the laziness and go feed the cows, or there will be no lunch for you!"

dwaltrip 10y ago
We are currently living in the current age, not several centuries ago. Should one accept terrible medical care, as such care would be considered revolutionary a few centuries ago? Additionally, there were people back then whose intellectual output was their own and were able to do things with that output.
- ozim 10y ago
  Joel also wrote that as a contractor you own all the copyright by default, and it is your free will to sell it. That is your choice to sign up for contract and let the company take over. If you do not want that, simply do your buisness on your own and don't look for work for someone else.
  - ozim 10y ago
    For downwvoters, I am from Poland I live in Netherlands. I am all in for personal freedom. I cry when freedom is taken away from people. It is about beeing more educated, knowing your options. Not just signing up with big corp because you will get more money. It is about you can loose some of your money because you choose freedom. Please upvote it. Don't be like a child who wants to have cookie and eat cookie, it is You loose some money in return you get freedom. Those who want money can get all they want, but you loose something more valuable. You can't have all the money and all the freedom...
ozim 10y ago
That is a good point, people are inventing dystopian futures, where we had really dystopian past. Where people actually belonged to someone, were only fed for their work. Where now in first world you can quit your job and try to sell your inventions or every last shred of creativity to one that offers more. It is also that if you do not like someone you do not have to sell your ideas to him, you can sell those ideas to someone you like cheaper. Joel also wrote (I hope parent poster read the article) that as a contractor you own all the copyright by default, and it is your free will to sell it.

lerpa 10y ago

> The evident conclusion is that there are none. You are selling all of your intellectual output. The conclusion is that we either reject this kind of slavery, or at least start charging the extra hours.

zodiac 10y ago

What is the alternative though? Through the article Joel gave reasons as to why those two limits can't be placed (even if the company was nice and wanted to)

spacelizard 10y ago
I can think of a few: - Have the employee agree to grant a royalty-free license to all relevant inventions made in the appropriate time period - Have the employee forfeit all inventions in the event they initiate litigation - Or better, sign a mutual patent disarmament clause (probably my favorite option) Going back to the core of the issue though, I would not trust investors who insist on appropriating the rights to any and all inventions they can. The article tries to frame this as a legal protection strategy, but they don't need ownership to do this. The only reason they insist on it is to try and pressure the founders into squeezing maximum value from employees while giving back as little as they can in return. Unfortunately this behavior is quite widespread.
- nsomaru 10y ago
  Could you elaborate on your last point, a patent disarmament clause? If there's precedent that would be great!

stevesun21 10y ago

If the author states like this, I would think that he's going to pay me salary based on 24*7 rather than just 40 hours per week.

gaius 10y ago
That is what being a salaried employee means - the normal hours are stipulated in the contract but also some clause like "and anything else that may be required".