3 ms·

Another story of a big corporation using the courts to screw over an individual. I have no doubt he was trying to steal from the company, but he was caught, con

Another story of a big corporation using the courts to screw over an individual. I have no doubt he was trying to steal from the company, but he was caught, convicted and went to jail, what more do they want? For him to spend the rest of his life in jail for being as greedy and unethical as his former employer? The hypocrisy is incredible. Also, it's amazing how fast the wheels of justice move when a large financial company has been wronged, no?

avs733 8y ago
Reading through the article, they seem to geoeuve they are entitled to own people at a pretty basic level. Their argument basically comes down to 'we paid you now you can never use that knowledge anywhere else.' it's not physical ownership it's cognitive ownership and frankly the courts seem I'll preppared to make such a differentiation. To add...the deference in courts and the public is generally towards assertions by powerful people as truth. Even when we know they have no basis, the deference remains and frames inferences and interpretation. Example: >But they knew, from the tight security in the office and the imposing nondisclosure agreements they were asked to sign, that their work was extremely valuable It must be valuable because it's secured. I'm not saying it's not, but assuming it is simply because a corporation that acts in this way tries to secure it is nonsense. It's allowing them to author a narrative simply because you assume they act in good faith.
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  That's how Uk and US labour law works work you do for you employer is theirs - and work out of hours "related" to you employment. Plenty of places have secure rooms I went to an interview at an online gaming company and they had biometric locks on some rooms. And I have been to more than one interview where you leave any electronics outside the building

avs733 8y ago

Reading through the article, they seem to geoeuve they are entitled to own people at a pretty basic level. Their argument basically comes down to 'we paid you now you can never use that knowledge anywhere else.' it's not physical ownership it's cognitive ownership and frankly the courts seem I'll preppared to make such a differentiation. To add...the deference in courts and the public is generally towards assertions by powerful people as truth. Even when we know they have no basis, the deference remains and frames inferences and interpretation. Example: >But they knew, from the tight security in the office and the imposing nondisclosure agreements they were asked to sign, that their work was extremely valuable It must be valuable because it's secured. I'm not saying it's not, but assuming it is simply because a corporation that acts in this way tries to secure it is nonsense. It's allowing them to author a narrative simply because you assume they act in good faith.

C1sc0cat 8y ago
That's how Uk and US labour law works work you do for you employer is theirs - and work out of hours "related" to you employment. Plenty of places have secure rooms I went to an interview at an online gaming company and they had biometric locks on some rooms. And I have been to more than one interview where you leave any electronics outside the building