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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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."
Worst case, he has to reimburse them for the cost imposed, plus some sort of rent, plus some kind of punitive damages. No way does AOL get any sort of ownership out of this, though.
The worst case is that they argue that the company wouldn't exist without his misappropriation of AOLs resources and should be awarded X% of the company as compensation, where X is equal to the percentage of the company that equals the amount of money that he cost AOL in food, supplies, network access, etc... at the time of the misappropriation. They could argue that they were de-facto investors because of the material support they "offered".
Or they could keep him tied up in court trying to argue his way out of it.
The only reason why he is going to make it out of this okay is the bad press that AOL would get for going after him.
Does it really work that way? I thought you could be held liable for damages (including punitive), not hypothetical what-if scenarios. If I steal your laptop and use it to sell an app, then later I'm caught, I'll go to jail for theft, and you'll get your laptop back, but you won't get any ownership of the app I developed.
" 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."
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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"
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.
Only if you have an employment contract. Simply using someone else's network or power or resources or air conditioning or free beer or shower doesn't grant the owner of that resource any claim to your intellectual property. They can only make a claim for expenses, damages, loss of revenues, etc. that can be directly traced from illicit use of those resources.
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.
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.