4 ms·

You think the $20 was consideration, and yet you think they were not paying for the code? Aren't these the same thing? > Ambiguity can be bad and super-expensi

You think the $20 was consideration, and yet you think they were not paying for the code? Aren't these the same thing? > Ambiguity can be bad and super-expensive If the corporation had some ambiguity in their favor, I expect they would call it "value" and ask for as much as they could get to remove it. But if the ambiguity is in favor of an employee or client, let's remove it for a token $20. Ugly society this one is.

kmacdough 2y ago
$20 consideration for reducing legal ambiguity around code they already own. Even if it's almost guaranteed to roll in favor of the employer, simply having to litigate it is enormously expensive. Such litigation would be detrimental to everyone but the lawyers, but that won't stop people from thinking they have a case. I'm with you, companies will always look out for their own interests, but when clarification minimizes logistical waste, it's possible to benefit everyone.
- einhverfr 2y ago
  "Bulls do not win bullfights. People do. People do not win people fights. Lawyers do." -- Norman Augustine, "Augustine's Laws" 1985.
frognumber 2y ago
The ambiguity is not in the favor of anyone except lawyers. As an employee, you can: 1) Spend $100k in litigation to discover your boss owns the code 2) Get $20 Fights don't benefit anyone. Some companies would act like dicks and "ask for as much as they could get to remove it," but in most cases, that's not what happens either. A company like that would never get repeat business. Coincidentally, some employees do the same, with similar consequences. And there are employers everyone knows not to work for. Resolving this sort of thing for a buck -- in the way a court would rule -- is really standard common-sense practice.