5 ms·

He used AOL infrastructure to build his company, I'm wondering if he disclosed that to investors as he's pretty liable to them otherwise. It's lesson number #1

by vladd 14y ago

He used AOL infrastructure to build his company, I'm wondering if he disclosed that to investors as he's pretty liable to them otherwise. It's lesson number #1 (don't use your employer's computer off-hours when working on your own projects) for people that try to build something outside their company's influence.

danvideo 14y ago
Might be wrong, but isn't California law especially lenient about ownership of work produced outside of work hours? (vs. here in NYC, for example)
- bodyfour 14y ago
  Especially lenient, but not infinitely lenient.
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  I don't think that's the issue here. He wasn't an employee. The question would be more, how would CA treat non-company work produced using a work computer.
- iamgilesbowkett 14y ago
  I think you're absolutely right. I'm sorry to say it, but I also believe that all the comments to the contrary are just people who haven't bothered to learn anything about the subject.
chops 14y ago
But he's not an AOL employee and had no contractual obligation to them. He just crashed there, working on his own computer, and eating AOL's food and sleeping on their couches.
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  I don't think the story says so explicitly, but he was also probably using their network, power, etc. to do his work. I'm guessing they must have a guest wifi network or the like where a non-corporate computer connecting wouldn't raise any flags.
  - jrockway 14y ago
    Does the person in the apartment below me own my free software contributions because heat from her apartment warms mine?
    - tomkarlo 14y ago
      No, but if you steal his wifi, he might have a claim because you utilized his infrastructure (without consent) to make it. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe this has at least been raised in some situations where people used either company computers or other equipment to set up a new business.
      - jrockway 14y ago
        Why is heat any different? If the temperature was too low, my fingers would have frozen off while typing. (I think the answer in this case is: I didn't take any action to receive the heat. Now the question is: why can't I legally decrypt satellite TV that's being blasted through my brain 24/7?)
        brk 14y ago
        I believe that it has been ruled that technically you can decrypt the satellite TV legally. Provided that you do it 100% independently and do not attempt to sell plans, kits, etc. or otherwise profit from your ability to decrypt the signal. Purchasing equipment that significantly enhances your ability to decrypt the signal (eg: a pre-programmed or altered smart card) is where you run into issues.
        humbert 14y ago
        In the US, decrypting satellite TV without authorization is illegal under 47 USC 605(a)(6): "No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto." Additionally, unauthorized decryption of a copyrighted program or movie is a violation of the DMCA, 17 USC 1201(a)(1): "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
larrys 14y ago
"He used AOL infrastructure to build his company" Hard to believe that this isn't also some kind of tort or trespass of which AOL could bring charges against him or stake a claim should he have some future gain from activities done at their expense (as nominal as that is). I'm surprised they are treating it the way they are other than the obvious negative publicity that would ensue. I mean if someone stayed for months in a department store overnight I don't think they would laugh it off or it might attract others to do the same.
- bdunbar 14y ago
  I'm surprised they are treating it the way they are other than the obvious negative publicity that would ensue. Negative publicity can be a very strong motivator. It feels like not a week goes by that 'the internet' learns about some yahoo suing some other guy for shaky reasons, and becoming infamous as a result. Soon after that the yahoo has to change his name and move to Tijuana.
  - mbreese 14y ago
    I had to re-read this comment, because initially I thought you were trying to say that Yahoo! should pack up and move to Mexico after suing Facebook. But yes, I think you're right. The negative backlash that AOL would get for attacking this kid vastly outweighs any sort of benefit they'd get. Now, this is all about spin and PR.
- ktizo 14y ago
  If someone stayed for months in my department store overnight, I'd let them off with it as long as I got to borrow their tardis at the weekends.
cleaver 14y ago
AOL might have a case... don't know, IANAL. Doubtless they could tie him up in court. However, I don't imagine they would try to touch him. The kid has the makings of a modern folk-hero—it could only result in bad PR for AOL if they did go after him. The response from the AOL spokesperson makes it seem like they are taking the incident in good humour: "It was always our intention to facilitate entrepreneurialism in the Palo Alto office -- we just didn't expect it to work so well."
michael_fine 14y ago
" Simons said he was able to score $50,000 in seed funding from Ulu Ventures and Silicon Valley VC Paul Sherer. "I was aware" of Simons living at AOL, Clint Korver of Ulu Ventures told CNET. "Tenacity and commitment are key attributes of a great entrepreneur. Eric has these in spades as demonstrated by his willingness to do whatever it takes to get his company off the ground."
- Drbble 14y ago
  Sounds like Sherer is an accessory to trespassing and theft.
iamgilesbowkett 14y ago
"don't use your employer's computer off-hours when working on your own projects" California law protects individual side projects extremely well. I am not a lawyer, I could be wrong, but I believe these concerns are absolutely irrelevant in California. Relevant elsewhere, but not here.
- jayp 14y ago
  even in california, it is highly recommended that one not use work-provided resources for your side projects if you have even the smallest intentions of commercialising them.
- fizx 14y ago
  2870. (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities ... "without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities"
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Doesn't count. AOL was not his employer.
- mbreese 14y ago
  It's your employer's computer. Even in California you cannot use your employers resources for side projects and still be protected. They can't make a claim on your free time, but if you use their computer, you open yourself up to claims. I'm not a lawyer either, but that was always the advice I've been given. Now this kid was just dumb. By using AOL resources without permission he now has all sorts of potential issues. Probably the only thing that kept him out of jail was the good will of AOL.
gscott 14y ago
> He used AOL infrastructure to build his company And when his website opens up it plays "You've Got Mail" which proves it.
rexreed 14y ago
This is a red herring. If you use the business facilities in a hotel, then the hotel doesn't own the work that you produce as a result of using their computers, network, etc. An employment contract usually stipulates that all work done while being paid by the employer is work for hire, unless otherwise stipulated. In this case, no such contract exists. Intellectual property is default owned by the creator unless explicitly transferred otherwise. There's a claim to be made here on trespassing and possibly illegal use of resources, which can be recovered through small claims. But there's really very little case to be made that the IP created through the trespass and use of resources somehow transfer to AOL simply by reason of their ownership of the infrastructure.

by vladd 14y ago

danvideo 14y ago

Might be wrong, but isn't California law especially lenient about ownership of work produced outside of work hours? (vs. here in NYC, for example)

bodyfour 14y ago
Especially lenient, but not infinitely lenient.
tomkarlo 14y ago
I don't think that's the issue here. He wasn't an employee. The question would be more, how would CA treat non-company work produced using a work computer.
iamgilesbowkett 14y ago
I think you're absolutely right. I'm sorry to say it, but I also believe that all the comments to the contrary are just people who haven't bothered to learn anything about the subject.

chops 14y ago

But he's not an AOL employee and had no contractual obligation to them. He just crashed there, working on his own computer, and eating AOL's food and sleeping on their couches.

tomkarlo 14y ago
I don't think the story says so explicitly, but he was also probably using their network, power, etc. to do his work. I'm guessing they must have a guest wifi network or the like where a non-corporate computer connecting wouldn't raise any flags.
- jrockway 14y ago
  Does the person in the apartment below me own my free software contributions because heat from her apartment warms mine?
  - tomkarlo 14y ago
    No, but if you steal his wifi, he might have a claim because you utilized his infrastructure (without consent) to make it. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe this has at least been raised in some situations where people used either company computers or other equipment to set up a new business.
    - jrockway 14y ago
      Why is heat any different? If the temperature was too low, my fingers would have frozen off while typing. (I think the answer in this case is: I didn't take any action to receive the heat. Now the question is: why can't I legally decrypt satellite TV that's being blasted through my brain 24/7?)
      - brk 14y ago
        I believe that it has been ruled that technically you can decrypt the satellite TV legally. Provided that you do it 100% independently and do not attempt to sell plans, kits, etc. or otherwise profit from your ability to decrypt the signal. Purchasing equipment that significantly enhances your ability to decrypt the signal (eg: a pre-programmed or altered smart card) is where you run into issues.
        humbert 14y ago
        In the US, decrypting satellite TV without authorization is illegal under 47 USC 605(a)(6): "No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto." Additionally, unauthorized decryption of a copyrighted program or movie is a violation of the DMCA, 17 USC 1201(a)(1): "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."

larrys 14y ago

"He used AOL infrastructure to build his company" Hard to believe that this isn't also some kind of tort or trespass of which AOL could bring charges against him or stake a claim should he have some future gain from activities done at their expense (as nominal as that is). I'm surprised they are treating it the way they are other than the obvious negative publicity that would ensue. I mean if someone stayed for months in a department store overnight I don't think they would laugh it off or it might attract others to do the same.

bdunbar 14y ago
I'm surprised they are treating it the way they are other than the obvious negative publicity that would ensue. Negative publicity can be a very strong motivator. It feels like not a week goes by that 'the internet' learns about some yahoo suing some other guy for shaky reasons, and becoming infamous as a result. Soon after that the yahoo has to change his name and move to Tijuana.
- mbreese 14y ago
  I had to re-read this comment, because initially I thought you were trying to say that Yahoo! should pack up and move to Mexico after suing Facebook. But yes, I think you're right. The negative backlash that AOL would get for attacking this kid vastly outweighs any sort of benefit they'd get. Now, this is all about spin and PR.
ktizo 14y ago
If someone stayed for months in my department store overnight, I'd let them off with it as long as I got to borrow their tardis at the weekends.

cleaver 14y ago

AOL might have a case... don't know, IANAL. Doubtless they could tie him up in court. However, I don't imagine they would try to touch him. The kid has the makings of a modern folk-hero—it could only result in bad PR for AOL if they did go after him. The response from the AOL spokesperson makes it seem like they are taking the incident in good humour: "It was always our intention to facilitate entrepreneurialism in the Palo Alto office -- we just didn't expect it to work so well."

michael_fine 14y ago

" Simons said he was able to score $50,000 in seed funding from Ulu Ventures and Silicon Valley VC Paul Sherer. "I was aware" of Simons living at AOL, Clint Korver of Ulu Ventures told CNET. "Tenacity and commitment are key attributes of a great entrepreneur. Eric has these in spades as demonstrated by his willingness to do whatever it takes to get his company off the ground."

Drbble 14y ago
Sounds like Sherer is an accessory to trespassing and theft.

iamgilesbowkett 14y ago

"don't use your employer's computer off-hours when working on your own projects" California law protects individual side projects extremely well. I am not a lawyer, I could be wrong, but I believe these concerns are absolutely irrelevant in California. Relevant elsewhere, but not here.

jayp 14y ago
even in california, it is highly recommended that one not use work-provided resources for your side projects if you have even the smallest intentions of commercialising them.
fizx 14y ago
2870. (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities ... "without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities"
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- ktizo 14y ago
  Doesn't count. AOL was not his employer.
mbreese 14y ago
It's your employer's computer. Even in California you cannot use your employers resources for side projects and still be protected. They can't make a claim on your free time, but if you use their computer, you open yourself up to claims. I'm not a lawyer either, but that was always the advice I've been given. Now this kid was just dumb. By using AOL resources without permission he now has all sorts of potential issues. Probably the only thing that kept him out of jail was the good will of AOL.

gscott 14y ago

> He used AOL infrastructure to build his company And when his website opens up it plays "You've Got Mail" which proves it.

rexreed 14y ago

This is a red herring. If you use the business facilities in a hotel, then the hotel doesn't own the work that you produce as a result of using their computers, network, etc. An employment contract usually stipulates that all work done while being paid by the employer is work for hire, unless otherwise stipulated. In this case, no such contract exists. Intellectual property is default owned by the creator unless explicitly transferred otherwise. There's a claim to be made here on trespassing and possibly illegal use of resources, which can be recovered through small claims. But there's really very little case to be made that the IP created through the trespass and use of resources somehow transfer to AOL simply by reason of their ownership of the infrastructure.