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 n

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.