[jamesaguilar]

It seems like a lot of engineers, both here and elsewhere, have a very simplistic view of what other departments do. I've seen similar simplistic statements about design and management. I guess that's just part of human nature, to develop the view that only your work is complex or nuanced.

[brazzy]

It's not just work, and there's a name for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgroup_homogeneity_bias

[anthonyb]

In this particular case though, there's not a lot of complexity or nuance, is there? It's a blanket "We own all your IP" clause in a contract.

[jamesaguilar]

Maybe . . . are you OK with the legal department assuming you are a lazy simpleton if you launch software with any bugs? Especially considering any misfeatures may have been implemented under management's direction?

[anthonyb]

I'm not sure that I see your point. Adding extra bits is more work for the legal team, and might lead to 'bugs', but a clause like this is going to lead to pissed off engineers who might leave.

To further mangle the analogy, what if I release bug free code that doesn't do what it's supposed to do?

[001sky]

Lawyers see a "mistake" and go for a landgrab. FB/Instagram TOS update was probably a similar dynamic. Legal likes to err on the side of over-reach, all other things equal.

[inerte]

But contracts itself are bound by city, state, and federal law, including civil, labor, IP, patent, etc...

Or you might get a bad lawyer or a favorable judge.

[anthonyb]

So? Contracts should be as close to your agreement as possible, and be within city/state/federal laws.

If your contract isn't accurate, it's like programming by hammering some shoddy crap together and letting the testers/users sort it out.