3 ms·
"Ah, boss, that thing you're asking me to do is, technically speaking, theft. In addition to exposing us both to liability, if it is ever discovered, for examp
by patio11 15y ago
"Ah, boss, that thing you're asking me to do is, technically speaking, theft. In addition to exposing us both to liability, if it is ever discovered, for example when a potential acquirer or large corporate customer does a line-by-line source code audit like they frequently do, our company is finished."
Boss plays ball: "Great, glad we're on the same page."
Boss directs you to steal it anyway Option A: "OK boss, if you're sure it's OK, I'd like you to send me a written email or memo instructing me to copy this code from their computers to our computers. You should CC it to $OWNER so that he knows we've taken action on the IP agreement we made with him, or if you'd prefer I can forward him a copy."
Boss directs you to steal it anyway Option B: "Alright boss, push or shove time. You can, probably, convince someone here to copy that code for you. If you do, I will hand in my resignation immediately. Think it over."
Boss directs you to steal it anyway Option C: "I quit, effective immediately."
n.b. In many US states you can get fired for just about anything, including "no reason at all." Regardless, the market for engineers is super hot right now. Work for someone who isn't an abusive jerk, because you're highly likely to find that he is not solely abusive to business partners.
n.b. #2: It is almost impossible in the US to get away with withholding salary for work already performed. One complaint to your state's labor relations board and he'll wish he had never been born. This assumes you have an employment relationship with the new evil boss. If you're working without a contract (don't ever work without a contract), you're probably best served by just writing off the three days or whatever you have invested in this job.
- dalke 15y agoTechnically speaking, and in the US, it's copyright infringement and not theft. Dowling v. United States (1985) says "Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud.
- pestaa 15y agoYou are correct, but to me it seems copyright infringement is a bigger crime than anything else lately. A little exaggeration used, of course.
- patio11 15y agoI know you want to make a statement about piracy not being bad as theft, but you're wrong here. The Economic Espionage Act makes theft of trade secrets a federal crime. The act defines a trade secret as "all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if the owner has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret, and the information derives independent economic value (actual or potential) from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, the public. The act defines owner as "the person or entity in whom or in which rightful legal or equitable title to, or license in, the trade secret is reposed. So: regardless of what sophomoric opinions you have about copying music, copying trade secrets really is, in black letter federal law, theft.
- dalke 15y agoHuh? Where did I ever imply "not as bad"? The previous poster said "technically" and I thought I would be a smart-ass by saying "well technically ...". In any case, given the description here, how do you determine that theft of trade secrets is also involved? Pretend I'm a sophomore who doesn't know better and who can quote Wikipedia that a trade secret "confers some sort of economic benefit on its holder (where this benefit must derive specifically from its not being generally known, not just from the value of the information itself)". :) What's the implied trade secret above and beyond that of the copyright? (Also, have you established that this crosses interstate lines? Otherwise the Economic Espionage Act does not apply and you need to deal with state trade secrets laws. OTOH, given the federal reach of the interstate commerce clause in Gonzales v. Raich, I realize that this is not a strong counter question.)
- dalke 15y agoOkay, how is this worth -2? 0 I can see, but several others downvoted as well. I seriously don't see how trade secret law applies to this case. Trade secret law rarely comes up in the context of software, so please treat this as a chance for education, not downvoting.