If the employment/enmrolment/whatever contract repudiates the Statutory provision of (1), that’s all there is to it. No point discussing/arguing/debating the merits or equity of same any further. [/quote:1f4df716b9]
This is consistent with what I thought.
What I was querying was what I saw as the assertion that the employer owns IP created outside outside of the course of employment, by default, and without any mention of it in the contract.
The law will, where necessary to give business efficacy to the agreement, imply an agreement to transfer the copyright, or a licence. The implied term must be reasonable and equitable, and it must be obvious that the parties intended it. [/quote:1f4df716b9]
This is interesting.
Can I conclude from this then, that
If there is no mention of ownership of IP created outside of work
And if the employee does not intend IP created outside of work to transfer to the employer
Then the employee would retain ownership of the IP?
This is consistent with what I had thought on the matter, and is the only thing I was intending to query in my other posts.
The only contractual clause that bother me regularly is the ‘non-compete’ clause for when you leave the company. Apart from beinf difficult if not impossible to enforce, it just irks me from an ethical standpoint[/quote:1f4df716b9]
Well, it’s a similar arguement. If your going to invest time training an employee, and exposing your methodology to them, and perhaps more importantly, introducing them to your customers, then you don’t want them leaving to a competitor and taking that competitive advantage with them.
I imagine this is particularly important in areas such as Sales where contacts are very important.
I do see where your coming from though, especially given that it could prevent an employee working in the field they have specialised in after their current employment is over, or if they were let go etc. That could put them in a very vulnerable position once they’ve signed.
Surprising you dont see more of it in the games industry, actually…
Usually, it’s not that companies are setting out to abuse power/overly restrict employees – more that they are simply trying to protect their property, goodwill, etc. and to do this they apply blanket policies. [/quote:1f4df716b9]
I would say its that the legal departments of companies are completely paranoid about this sort of thing and will always make contracts as restrictive as they can manage to get away with.
Eg, the legal dept, covering their own ass, says ‘it has to be this way’ and then whoever is doing the hiring can’t negociate the contract because it goes against legal’s advice.
I also imagine, and have seen, that smaller companies tend to be a lot more flexible about this sort of thing, probably because they don’t have a detached legal team?