CrowdStrike offers a $10 apology gift card to say sorry for outage

Post by creer » Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 4:46 PM UTC

frognumber wrote: post #38

kogus wrote: post #9

This reminds me of something that happened at a former employer. After I had been employed there for a couple of years, someone in HR or Legal noticed that the programmers had never signed any "our code belongs to the company" agreement. So they asked us to sign a paper to that effect, and gave us each a check for $20. My thought was that I always assumed the company owned this code, but if they were going to pay for…

Here's what I suspect happened: Any contract requires consideration. Without it, it's not a valid contract. It doesn't require fair consideration, so a clause giving e.g. $1 is typical for many contracts. They were nice and bumped it up to $20. I suspect your work DID belong to the company already, under work-for-hire doctrine, but an explicit contract avoids that ambiguity. Ambiguity can be bad and super-expensive,…

Post by borski » Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 4:48 PM UTC

Beijinger wrote: post #69

frognumber wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's what I suspect happened: Any contract requires consideration. Without it, it's not a valid contract. It doesn't require fair consideration, so a clause giving e.g. $1 is typical for many contracts. They were nice and bumped it up to $20. I suspect your work DID belong to the company already, under work-for-hire doctrine, but an explicit contract avoids that ambiguity. Ambiguity can be bad and super-expensive,…

"Any contract requires consideration" I am not a lawyer and I don't understand this phrase. But many legal systems require that a contract is at arm's length.

Post by rolph » Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 4:50 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #33

kogus wrote: post #9

This reminds me of something that happened at a former employer. After I had been employed there for a couple of years, someone in HR or Legal noticed that the programmers had never signed any "our code belongs to the company" agreement. So they asked us to sign a paper to that effect, and gave us each a check for $20. My thought was that I always assumed the company owned this code, but if they were going to pay for…

This is because it's a contract oddity - if they told you to sign it but offered nothing; you could challenge it in court, and the courts have often said a "one-sided contract" is not valid (e.g., you give me copyright I give you nothing). The $20 is "due consideration" - just like how some deals involve selling an item for a dollar.

Post by kmacdough » Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 4:53 PM UTC

lucianbr wrote: post #40

frognumber wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's what I suspect happened: Any contract requires consideration. Without it, it's not a valid contract. It doesn't require fair consideration, so a clause giving e.g. $1 is typical for many contracts. They were nice and bumped it up to $20. I suspect your work DID belong to the company already, under work-for-hire doctrine, but an explicit contract avoids that ambiguity. Ambiguity can be bad and super-expensive,…

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…

Post by Pesthuf » Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 4:54 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #24

Rinzler89 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crowdstrike, WHY DID YOU REDEEM IT?!

DO NOT REDEEM!