Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
contract pcb layout
7 views
Skip to first unread message
John Larkin
Feb 3, 2012, 7:17:03 PM2/3/12
to
Hi,
What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
And as long as I'm asking, how about FPGA design? I'm getting quotes
in the $125 to $175/hour range.
John
**********************************
John Larkin, President
Highland Technology, Inc
jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Feb 3, 2012, 9:10:09 PM2/3/12
to
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:17:03 -0800, John Larkin
<jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>
>
>Hi,
>
>What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>
>And as long as I'm asking, how about FPGA design? I'm getting quotes
>in the $125 to $175/hour range.
I think both of us are in the wrong place! ;-)
<jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>
>
>Hi,
>
>What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>
>And as long as I'm asking, how about FPGA design? I'm getting quotes
>in the $125 to $175/hour range.
Joerg
Feb 3, 2012, 9:23:56 PM2/3/12
to
John Larkin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>
Most layouters prefer fixed bid. Eye-balling the work they sink into
>
> Hi,
>
> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>
projects I'd say $30-$40 is typical. Bay Area can be higher :-)
This assumes that the super-tough stuff such as switchers and RF
circuits are prescribed to the layouter. In other words where the
layouter does not have to be a seasoned board level design engineer.
Although one of my layouters is, he just likes doing layouts a lot (I
don't ...).
> And as long as I'm asking, how about FPGA design? I'm getting quotes
> in the $125 to $175/hour range.
>
the gate level that sounds about right.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Joerg
Feb 3, 2012, 9:27:16 PM2/3/12
to
lab gear, computers, supplies, 100% of the health care Dollars (VERY
painful expense), full FICA taxes, insurances, and so on. Oh, and there
ain't no such thing as sick days or paid vacation time for them. You get
sick, you have no income.
John Larkin
Feb 3, 2012, 9:57:12 PM2/3/12
to
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:23:56 -0800, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>>
>
>Most layouters prefer fixed bid. Eye-balling the work they sink into
>projects I'd say $30-$40 is typical. Bay Area can be higher :-)
Yikes, $30 is only the equiv of $60K, with no benefits.
>
>This assumes that the super-tough stuff such as switchers and RF
>circuits are prescribed to the layouter. In other words where the
>layouter does not have to be a seasoned board level design engineer.
>Although one of my layouters is, he just likes doing layouts a lot (I
>don't ...).
I enjoy it in small doses, like doing a little board now and then, or
doing some placement or tweaking on a big layout.
>
>
>> And as long as I'm asking, how about FPGA design? I'm getting quotes
>> in the $125 to $175/hour range.
>>
>
>For cutting edge high speed stuff where they have to juggle things at
>the gate level that sounds about right.
It's like programming: some people are five times faster than average.
--
John Larkin, President Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
wrote:
>John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>>
>
>Most layouters prefer fixed bid. Eye-balling the work they sink into
>projects I'd say $30-$40 is typical. Bay Area can be higher :-)
>
>This assumes that the super-tough stuff such as switchers and RF
>circuits are prescribed to the layouter. In other words where the
>layouter does not have to be a seasoned board level design engineer.
>Although one of my layouters is, he just likes doing layouts a lot (I
>don't ...).
doing some placement or tweaking on a big layout.
>
>
>> And as long as I'm asking, how about FPGA design? I'm getting quotes
>> in the $125 to $175/hour range.
>>
>
>For cutting edge high speed stuff where they have to juggle things at
>the gate level that sounds about right.
--
John Larkin, President Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Feb 4, 2012, 12:31:18 AM2/4/12
to
working in close proximity ("engineering is not a non-contact sport", or some
such). Almost all the jobs I've looked into are the same; on-site. None at
those sorts of rates (most now are in the $60-$65 range, with some weirdos
trying to find people for $40.
As far as "sick days" go, I haven't had such for five years[*] (PTO only).
Five years ago I had no paid days at all and I was making half that ($75/hr).
I'm "contracting" (a contract-to-hire gig) now but do get PTO (only 10d/yr).
[*] Actually, I've never had such a thing as "sick days". At IBM, if you were
sick you stayed home. Period. I can count the number of times I was sick on
one hand and I missed an average of less than two days a year (hard to get
into work when you can't walk).
Boris Mohar
Feb 4, 2012, 7:58:20 AM2/4/12
to
>Hi,
>
>What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>
$65/hr No fixed quotes. I estimate and follow up with intermediate gerber
>
>What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>
files and time spent as the design progresses. More often than not the
customer wakes up screening in the night because they realized that something
has to be changed. No biggie. The clock is ticking.
--
Boris
lang...@fonz.dk
Feb 4, 2012, 8:10:16 AM2/4/12
to
On 4 Feb., 03:57, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:23:56 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
in reality they put in many more hours than they charge
-Lasse
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:23:56 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >John Larkin wrote:
>
> >> Hi,
>
> >> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>
> >Most layouters prefer fixed bid. Eye-balling the work they sink into
> >projects I'd say $30-$40 is typical. Bay Area can be higher :-)
>
> Yikes, $30 is only the equiv of $60K, with no benefits.
>
I read Joergs comment as if they might on paper charge say $60, but
>
> >John Larkin wrote:
>
> >> Hi,
>
> >> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>
> >Most layouters prefer fixed bid. Eye-balling the work they sink into
> >projects I'd say $30-$40 is typical. Bay Area can be higher :-)
>
> Yikes, $30 is only the equiv of $60K, with no benefits.
>
in reality they put in many more hours than they charge
-Lasse
Lewis Redmond
Feb 4, 2012, 8:28:02 AM2/4/12
to
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 07:58:20 -0500, Boris Mohar
<borism...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>wakes up screening in the night
Is that Arnold's disease?
<borism...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>wakes up screening in the night
Dennis
Feb 4, 2012, 10:20:16 AM2/4/12
to
"Lewis Redmond" <LewisR...@abettermanthanyou.org> wrote in message
news:r4cqi7hh08k8eqnao...@4ax.com...
Joerg
Feb 4, 2012, 12:44:36 PM2/4/12
to
John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:23:56 -0800, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>>>
>> Most layouters prefer fixed bid. Eye-balling the work they sink into
>> projects I'd say $30-$40 is typical. Bay Area can be higher :-)
>
> Yikes, $30 is only the equiv of $60K, with no benefits.
>
Most also do small EE projects.
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:23:56 -0800, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>>>
>> Most layouters prefer fixed bid. Eye-balling the work they sink into
>> projects I'd say $30-$40 is typical. Bay Area can be higher :-)
>
> Yikes, $30 is only the equiv of $60K, with no benefits.
>
>
>> This assumes that the super-tough stuff such as switchers and RF
>> circuits are prescribed to the layouter. In other words where the
>> layouter does not have to be a seasoned board level design engineer.
>> Although one of my layouters is, he just likes doing layouts a lot (I
>> don't ...).
>
> I enjoy it in small doses, like doing a little board now and then, or
> doing some placement or tweaking on a big layout.
>
re-layouts where the EMC test was blown because of a noisy switcher or
an RF stage failed susceptibility.
>>
>>> And as long as I'm asking, how about FPGA design? I'm getting quotes
>>> in the $125 to $175/hour range.
>>>
>> For cutting edge high speed stuff where they have to juggle things at
>> the gate level that sounds about right.
>
> It's like programming: some people are five times faster than average.
>
times more than average :-)
Joerg
Feb 4, 2012, 12:52:20 PM2/4/12
to
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:27:16 -0800, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:17:03 -0800, John Larkin
>>> <jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>>>>
>>>> And as long as I'm asking, how about FPGA design? I'm getting quotes
>>>> in the $125 to $175/hour range.
>>> I think both of us are in the wrong place! ;-)
>>
>> Keep in mind that the self-employed pay for their own office space, the
>> lab gear, computers, supplies, 100% of the health care Dollars (VERY
>> painful expense), full FICA taxes, insurances, and so on. Oh, and there
>> ain't no such thing as sick days or paid vacation time for them. You get
>> sick, you have no income.
>
> Understood, if they have their own facilities. I thought John liked people
> working in close proximity ("engineering is not a non-contact sport", or some
> such). Almost all the jobs I've looked into are the same; on-site. None at
> those sorts of rates (most now are in the $60-$65 range, with some weirdos
> trying to find people for $40.
>
On-site can be different. However, major difference: Those people are
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:27:16 -0800, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:17:03 -0800, John Larkin
>>> <jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>>>>
>>>> And as long as I'm asking, how about FPGA design? I'm getting quotes
>>>> in the $125 to $175/hour range.
>>> I think both of us are in the wrong place! ;-)
>>
>> Keep in mind that the self-employed pay for their own office space, the
>> lab gear, computers, supplies, 100% of the health care Dollars (VERY
>> painful expense), full FICA taxes, insurances, and so on. Oh, and there
>> ain't no such thing as sick days or paid vacation time for them. You get
>> sick, you have no income.
>
> Understood, if they have their own facilities. I thought John liked people
> working in close proximity ("engineering is not a non-contact sport", or some
> such). Almost all the jobs I've looked into are the same; on-site. None at
> those sorts of rates (most now are in the $60-$65 range, with some weirdos
> trying to find people for $40.
>
often essentially like employees. Meaning they get paid 40h/week. True
consultants do not. We have to do our own book keeping, marketing, tax
prep, and a big one is continuing education. All considered overhead,
meaning hours spent at zero Dollars revenue. I had that a could weeks
ago where I needed to bone up on how a bus worked. That was non-billed time.
> As far as "sick days" go, I haven't had such for five years[*] (PTO only).
> Five years ago I had no paid days at all and I was making half that ($75/hr).
> I'm "contracting" (a contract-to-hire gig) now but do get PTO (only 10d/yr).
>
deemed contractor status and what is not. Can have unpleasant
consequences a few years down the road.
> [*] Actually, I've never had such a thing as "sick days". At IBM, if you were
> sick you stayed home. Period. I can count the number of times I was sick on
> one hand and I missed an average of less than two days a year (hard to get
> into work when you can't walk).
infect people with some bug. International travel has its risks in that
area. Sadly, one guy returning from Africa died from a virus. Before
they had the lab test list worked off he was gone :-(
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Feb 4, 2012, 1:56:01 PM2/4/12
to
1099. Everything I did, from the minute I got there to when I walked out the
door (usually 60-80hrs per week) was chargeable. That's the common mode,
these days. Government has made paying live-in contractors on 1099s as rare
as hen's teeth.
>> As far as "sick days" go, I haven't had such for five years[*] (PTO only).
>> Five years ago I had no paid days at all and I was making half that ($75/hr).
>> I'm "contracting" (a contract-to-hire gig) now but do get PTO (only 10d/yr).
>>
>
>Careful. The company is walking a rather fine line here between what is
>deemed contractor status and what is not. Can have unpleasant
>consequences a few years down the road.
There are dozens of contractors now and only one is what I'd call a real
"contractor" (a layout guy).
>
>> [*] Actually, I've never had such a thing as "sick days". At IBM, if you were
>> sick you stayed home. Period. I can count the number of times I was sick on
>> one hand and I missed an average of less than two days a year (hard to get
>> into work when you can't walk).
>
>
>Same here. I only bowed out if there was a serious chance that I could
>infect people with some bug.
It's usually those with children in school who are the typhoid Marys. My wife
works in a bank so gets sick fairly often (money is filthy with disease) but
if I catch a cold from her it's minor and lasts maybe a day.
>International travel has its risks in that
>area. Sadly, one guy returning from Africa died from a virus. Before
>they had the lab test list worked off he was gone :-(
on the train from Tijuana back to SD (the guy sitting across the aisle was
hacking up all sorts of uglies). That was a nasty one.
legg
Feb 4, 2012, 3:55:54 PM2/4/12
to
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:57:12 -0800, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:23:56 -0800, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>>>
>>
>>Most layouters prefer fixed bid. Eye-balling the work they sink into
>>projects I'd say $30-$40 is typical. Bay Area can be higher :-)
>
>Yikes, $30 is only the equiv of $60K, with no benefits.
>
...minus expenses...not much left over for internal revenue.
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:23:56 -0800, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>>>
>>
>>Most layouters prefer fixed bid. Eye-balling the work they sink into
>>projects I'd say $30-$40 is typical. Bay Area can be higher :-)
>
>Yikes, $30 is only the equiv of $60K, with no benefits.
>
I expect there are differences depending upon an initial review,
schedule,where the resource routing and whether there's 'agency'
overhead. The latter can double any quotation.
RL
Nico Coesel
Feb 4, 2012, 4:57:31 PM2/4/12
to
John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:23:56 -0800, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>>>
>>
>>Most layouters prefer fixed bid. Eye-balling the work they sink into
>>projects I'd say $30-$40 is typical. Bay Area can be higher :-)
>
>Yikes, $30 is only the equiv of $60K, with no benefits.
Thats really low. I know some freelancers in NL charging that kind of
>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:23:56 -0800, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>>>
>>
>>Most layouters prefer fixed bid. Eye-balling the work they sink into
>>projects I'd say $30-$40 is typical. Bay Area can be higher :-)
>
>Yikes, $30 is only the equiv of $60K, with no benefits.
rates for EE work. Crazy unless you don't have to pay for mortgage or
rent.
>>> And as long as I'm asking, how about FPGA design? I'm getting quotes
>>> in the $125 to $175/hour range.
>>>
>>
>>For cutting edge high speed stuff where they have to juggle things at
>>the gate level that sounds about right.
>
>It's like programming: some people are five times faster than average.
over a piece of software is even more difficult :-) In one of my
previous jobs it was up to me to get software written by externals to
production grade (fix bugs and fix potential pointer & memory leak
issues).
--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
legg
Feb 5, 2012, 12:48:30 AM2/5/12
to
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:57:12 -0800, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:23:56 -0800, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>>>
>>
>>Most layouters prefer fixed bid. Eye-balling the work they sink into
>>projects I'd say $30-$40 is typical. Bay Area can be higher :-)
>
>Yikes, $30 is only the equiv of $60K, with no benefits.
>
>wrote:
>
>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What are you guys paying these days for contract PCB layout?
>>>
>>
>>Most layouters prefer fixed bid. Eye-balling the work they sink into
>>projects I'd say $30-$40 is typical. Bay Area can be higher :-)
>
>Yikes, $30 is only the equiv of $60K, with no benefits.
>
Joerg
Feb 7, 2012, 3:00:54 PM2/7/12
to
you have to take that amount of money and divide it by the number or
hours worked on this layout.
Even with consulting it can be and often is the case that you need to
bone up on a particular technology for an assignment. That educational
time should normally not be billed, or at least I think it shouldn't be
from an ethical viewpoint. Unless it is very specialized knowledge that
is only useful for this one particular client.
Don Y
Feb 7, 2012, 3:58:29 PM2/7/12
to
Hi Joerg,
On 2/7/2012 1:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
> Even with consulting it can be and often is the case that you need to
> bone up on a particular technology for an assignment. That educational
> time should normally not be billed, or at least I think it shouldn't be
> from an ethical viewpoint. Unless it is very specialized knowledge that
> is only useful for this one particular client.
The flip side is equally interesting! I've had clients "insist"
that I not use anything I've done for them for *future* clients
(of course, we're not talking about copying an entire design!).
They are usually taken aback when I reply, "Sure. But, then,
I shouldn't use anything I've learned or done for clients *before*
you on *your* project..."
I.e., *you* are the beneficiary of work that I've done before this...
just as others will benefit from work I will have done for *you*.
People tend not to like it when, suddenly, *their* costs skyrocket
(or, when they are forced to find someone who has NEVER previously
done what they want) as you are "forced" to come up with a TOTALLY
unique solution to their problem.
On 2/7/2012 1:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
> Even with consulting it can be and often is the case that you need to
> bone up on a particular technology for an assignment. That educational
> time should normally not be billed, or at least I think it shouldn't be
> from an ethical viewpoint. Unless it is very specialized knowledge that
> is only useful for this one particular client.
that I not use anything I've done for them for *future* clients
(of course, we're not talking about copying an entire design!).
They are usually taken aback when I reply, "Sure. But, then,
I shouldn't use anything I've learned or done for clients *before*
you on *your* project..."
I.e., *you* are the beneficiary of work that I've done before this...
just as others will benefit from work I will have done for *you*.
People tend not to like it when, suddenly, *their* costs skyrocket
(or, when they are forced to find someone who has NEVER previously
done what they want) as you are "forced" to come up with a TOTALLY
unique solution to their problem.
Joerg
Feb 7, 2012, 4:03:57 PM2/7/12
to
Don Y wrote:
> Hi Joerg,
>
> On 2/7/2012 1:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
>> Even with consulting it can be and often is the case that you need to
>> bone up on a particular technology for an assignment. That educational
>> time should normally not be billed, or at least I think it shouldn't be
>> from an ethical viewpoint. Unless it is very specialized knowledge that
>> is only useful for this one particular client.
>
> The flip side is equally interesting! I've had clients "insist"
> that I not use anything I've done for them for *future* clients
> (of course, we're not talking about copying an entire design!).
That would end my relationship with that client, or rather, it would
> Hi Joerg,
>
> On 2/7/2012 1:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
>> Even with consulting it can be and often is the case that you need to
>> bone up on a particular technology for an assignment. That educational
>> time should normally not be billed, or at least I think it shouldn't be
>> from an ethical viewpoint. Unless it is very specialized knowledge that
>> is only useful for this one particular client.
>
> The flip side is equally interesting! I've had clients "insist"
> that I not use anything I've done for them for *future* clients
> (of course, we're not talking about copying an entire design!).
never begin. Just imagine, starting Thursday I could no longer use
emitter followers on any future designs :-)
> They are usually taken aback when I reply, "Sure. But, then,
> I shouldn't use anything I've learned or done for clients *before*
> you on *your* project..."
>
> I.e., *you* are the beneficiary of work that I've done before this...
> just as others will benefit from work I will have done for *you*.
>
> People tend not to like it when, suddenly, *their* costs skyrocket
> (or, when they are forced to find someone who has NEVER previously
> done what they want) as you are "forced" to come up with a TOTALLY
> unique solution to their problem.
>
someone else. That usually cinches it.
Ok, if they pay me a flat fee of a million bucks I might agree never to
use emitter followers commercially again :-)
Phil Hobbs
Feb 7, 2012, 4:08:03 PM2/7/12
to
company. Very small and very large outfits are usually fine, but
there's a debatable zone in between where some folks want to throw their
weight around. I actually have a short document that I send to new
clients to help guide the drafting of NDAs and consulting agreements,
which explains what my vital interests are and why, and has suggested
language.
Once people understand, they're usually very reasonable--sometimes
they're willing to pay an up-front fee for the assignment of collateral
inventions, for instance. That is, stuff in the field of use, during the
contract period, but that isn't thought up on their time--contracts
rarely go less than a year, even though it may be only a week's worth of
work. Naturally it doesn't make sense to sign away a year's worth of
ideas for one week's pay. I've only had one client walk on account of
my refusing to sign their NDA as drafted.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
Don Y
Feb 7, 2012, 4:30:38 PM2/7/12
to
Hi Joerg,
On 2/7/2012 2:03 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>> Even with consulting it can be and often is the case that you need to
>>> bone up on a particular technology for an assignment. That educational
>>> time should normally not be billed, or at least I think it shouldn't be
>>> from an ethical viewpoint. Unless it is very specialized knowledge that
>>> is only useful for this one particular client.
>>
>> The flip side is equally interesting! I've had clients "insist"
>> that I not use anything I've done for them for *future* clients
>> (of course, we're not talking about copying an entire design!).
>
> That would end my relationship with that client, or rather, it would
> never begin.
When you rephrase their comment so *they* are the burdened end
of the transaction, suddenly they see why they *shouldn't* want
what they are asking for! It always amazes me how folks don't
do this analysis (with *every* such assertion) BEFORE they
voice it!
"Do you *really* object to the zoning regulations? Would you
mind if I put a MEAT RENDERING PLANT on my property adjacent
to your home?? Oh, I didn't *think* so... :> "
> Just imagine, starting Thursday I could no longer use
> emitter followers on any future designs :-)
Exactly. Or anything that *embodied* one (in another guise)
>> They are usually taken aback when I reply, "Sure. But, then,
>> I shouldn't use anything I've learned or done for clients *before*
>> you on *your* project..."
>>
>> I.e., *you* are the beneficiary of work that I've done before this...
>> just as others will benefit from work I will have done for *you*.
>>
>> People tend not to like it when, suddenly, *their* costs skyrocket
>> (or, when they are forced to find someone who has NEVER previously
>> done what they want) as you are "forced" to come up with a TOTALLY
>> unique solution to their problem.
>
> With me it's either they sign my agreement or they have to look for
> someone else. That usually cinches it.
>
> Ok, if they pay me a flat fee of a million bucks I might agree never to
> use emitter followers commercially again :-)
I find the attitude I mentioned earlier to be associated with less
"sophisticated" (avoiding using the term "mature", here) clients.
Like a young child not wanting to share their ice cream with their
siblings -- yet EXPECTING them to share *their* candy!
<shrug>
On 2/7/2012 2:03 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>> Even with consulting it can be and often is the case that you need to
>>> bone up on a particular technology for an assignment. That educational
>>> time should normally not be billed, or at least I think it shouldn't be
>>> from an ethical viewpoint. Unless it is very specialized knowledge that
>>> is only useful for this one particular client.
>>
>> The flip side is equally interesting! I've had clients "insist"
>> that I not use anything I've done for them for *future* clients
>> (of course, we're not talking about copying an entire design!).
>
> That would end my relationship with that client, or rather, it would
> never begin.
of the transaction, suddenly they see why they *shouldn't* want
what they are asking for! It always amazes me how folks don't
do this analysis (with *every* such assertion) BEFORE they
voice it!
"Do you *really* object to the zoning regulations? Would you
mind if I put a MEAT RENDERING PLANT on my property adjacent
to your home?? Oh, I didn't *think* so... :> "
> Just imagine, starting Thursday I could no longer use
> emitter followers on any future designs :-)
>> They are usually taken aback when I reply, "Sure. But, then,
>> I shouldn't use anything I've learned or done for clients *before*
>> you on *your* project..."
>>
>> I.e., *you* are the beneficiary of work that I've done before this...
>> just as others will benefit from work I will have done for *you*.
>>
>> People tend not to like it when, suddenly, *their* costs skyrocket
>> (or, when they are forced to find someone who has NEVER previously
>> done what they want) as you are "forced" to come up with a TOTALLY
>> unique solution to their problem.
>
> With me it's either they sign my agreement or they have to look for
> someone else. That usually cinches it.
>
> Ok, if they pay me a flat fee of a million bucks I might agree never to
> use emitter followers commercially again :-)
"sophisticated" (avoiding using the term "mature", here) clients.
Like a young child not wanting to share their ice cream with their
siblings -- yet EXPECTING them to share *their* candy!
<shrug>
Don Y
Feb 7, 2012, 4:47:52 PM2/7/12
to
Hi Phil,
On 2/7/2012 2:08 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> Even with consulting it can be and often is the case that you need to
>>> bone up on a particular technology for an assignment. That educational
>>> time should normally not be billed, or at least I think it shouldn't be
>>> from an ethical viewpoint. Unless it is very specialized knowledge that
>>> is only useful for this one particular client.
>>
>> The flip side is equally interesting! I've had clients "insist"
>> that I not use anything I've done for them for *future* clients
>> (of course, we're not talking about copying an entire design!).
>> They are usually taken aback when I reply, "Sure. But, then,
>> I shouldn't use anything I've learned or done for clients *before*
>> you on *your* project..."
>>
>> I.e., *you* are the beneficiary of work that I've done before this...
>> just as others will benefit from work I will have done for *you*.
>>
>> People tend not to like it when, suddenly, *their* costs skyrocket
>> (or, when they are forced to find someone who has NEVER previously
>> done what they want) as you are "forced" to come up with a TOTALLY
>> unique solution to their problem.
>
> IME the reasonableness of the NDA is a function of the size of the
NDA is another beast. It explicitly delimits what is protected.
A blanket NDA would be impractical as the nature of the document
already limits its applicability (anything that becomes public
knowledge WITHOUT your disclosure of it -- so, previous and
derived art is automatically exempted).
I find NDAs themselves to be silly. More tools of intimidation
than legitimate instruments. E.g., if the party involved doesn't
show diligence over their own "personal" ("corporate") "secrets",
then expecting them to show MORE control over yours is folly.
[I wonder what the practical fate of "personal" NDA's will be in
the future given all this "disclosure" that takes place in social
networking? "Gee, how can you expect him/her to keep OUR secrets
when he/she is telling the world about their own 'private'
activities??"]
> company. Very small and very large outfits are usually fine, but there's
> a debatable zone in between where some folks want to throw their weight
> around. I actually have a short document that I send to new clients to
> help guide the drafting of NDAs and consulting agreements, which
> explains what my vital interests are and why, and has suggested language.
>
> Once people understand, they're usually very reasonable--sometimes
> they're willing to pay an up-front fee for the assignment of collateral
> inventions, for instance. That is, stuff in the field of use, during the
> contract period, but that isn't thought up on their time--contracts
> rarely go less than a year, even though it may be only a week's worth of
> work. Naturally it doesn't make sense to sign away a year's worth of
> ideas for one week's pay. I've only had one client walk on account of my
> refusing to sign their NDA as drafted.
I avoid legal instruments like the plague. I'm an engineer, not
a lawyer. If I had an interest in The Law, I wouldn't have gone
to an engineering school! So, I don't want to spend *any* time
dealing with the subtleties of legalities and their paperwork.
I don't assume responsibility for ensuring my designs are free
of patent violations. I don't *want* to be involved in patenting
"my" inventions -- whether "mine" or as "work for hire". Life is
just too short to waste on that sort of thing (IMO, YMMV).
OTOH, I realize the financial interest clients have in "their" products.
So, I just try not to *obviously* break any faith they have placed
in me.
[I also refuse to reverse engineer designs that a client won't
attest -- in writing -- to being their own property!]
But, I have been unable to come up with a rational (to me) alternative
for IP protection. It seems like current law just creates a whole
industry (lawyers) that spend resources protecting things that often
can't (realistically) be protected. E.g., some garage shop/chinese
company knocks off a popular design, floods the market with a cheap
alternative -- and "disappears". By the time you litigate, the
technology has advanced to the point that some *other* firm is
knocking off *today's* model, etc.
It seems like that would be a frustrating lifestyle -- sort of like
"mowing grass" for a living (e.g., it's never 'DONE' and you never make
any real progress against it).
OTOH, it would be "lifetime employment" :-/
Time to finish digging up the lime tree. Thank *god* shovels have
gone "off patent"!! ;-)
On 2/7/2012 2:08 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> Even with consulting it can be and often is the case that you need to
>>> bone up on a particular technology for an assignment. That educational
>>> time should normally not be billed, or at least I think it shouldn't be
>>> from an ethical viewpoint. Unless it is very specialized knowledge that
>>> is only useful for this one particular client.
>>
>> The flip side is equally interesting! I've had clients "insist"
>> that I not use anything I've done for them for *future* clients
>> (of course, we're not talking about copying an entire design!).
>> They are usually taken aback when I reply, "Sure. But, then,
>> I shouldn't use anything I've learned or done for clients *before*
>> you on *your* project..."
>>
>> I.e., *you* are the beneficiary of work that I've done before this...
>> just as others will benefit from work I will have done for *you*.
>>
>> People tend not to like it when, suddenly, *their* costs skyrocket
>> (or, when they are forced to find someone who has NEVER previously
>> done what they want) as you are "forced" to come up with a TOTALLY
>> unique solution to their problem.
>
> IME the reasonableness of the NDA is a function of the size of the
A blanket NDA would be impractical as the nature of the document
already limits its applicability (anything that becomes public
knowledge WITHOUT your disclosure of it -- so, previous and
derived art is automatically exempted).
I find NDAs themselves to be silly. More tools of intimidation
than legitimate instruments. E.g., if the party involved doesn't
show diligence over their own "personal" ("corporate") "secrets",
then expecting them to show MORE control over yours is folly.
[I wonder what the practical fate of "personal" NDA's will be in
the future given all this "disclosure" that takes place in social
networking? "Gee, how can you expect him/her to keep OUR secrets
when he/she is telling the world about their own 'private'
activities??"]
> company. Very small and very large outfits are usually fine, but there's
> a debatable zone in between where some folks want to throw their weight
> around. I actually have a short document that I send to new clients to
> help guide the drafting of NDAs and consulting agreements, which
> explains what my vital interests are and why, and has suggested language.
>
> Once people understand, they're usually very reasonable--sometimes
> they're willing to pay an up-front fee for the assignment of collateral
> inventions, for instance. That is, stuff in the field of use, during the
> contract period, but that isn't thought up on their time--contracts
> rarely go less than a year, even though it may be only a week's worth of
> work. Naturally it doesn't make sense to sign away a year's worth of
> ideas for one week's pay. I've only had one client walk on account of my
> refusing to sign their NDA as drafted.
a lawyer. If I had an interest in The Law, I wouldn't have gone
to an engineering school! So, I don't want to spend *any* time
dealing with the subtleties of legalities and their paperwork.
I don't assume responsibility for ensuring my designs are free
of patent violations. I don't *want* to be involved in patenting
"my" inventions -- whether "mine" or as "work for hire". Life is
just too short to waste on that sort of thing (IMO, YMMV).
OTOH, I realize the financial interest clients have in "their" products.
So, I just try not to *obviously* break any faith they have placed
in me.
[I also refuse to reverse engineer designs that a client won't
attest -- in writing -- to being their own property!]
But, I have been unable to come up with a rational (to me) alternative
for IP protection. It seems like current law just creates a whole
industry (lawyers) that spend resources protecting things that often
can't (realistically) be protected. E.g., some garage shop/chinese
company knocks off a popular design, floods the market with a cheap
alternative -- and "disappears". By the time you litigate, the
technology has advanced to the point that some *other* firm is
knocking off *today's* model, etc.
It seems like that would be a frustrating lifestyle -- sort of like
"mowing grass" for a living (e.g., it's never 'DONE' and you never make
any real progress against it).
OTOH, it would be "lifetime employment" :-/
Time to finish digging up the lime tree. Thank *god* shovels have
gone "off patent"!! ;-)
Joerg
Feb 7, 2012, 4:53:42 PM2/7/12
to
Don Y wrote:
> Hi Joerg,
>
> On 2/7/2012 2:03 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
>>>> Even with consulting it can be and often is the case that you need to
>>>> bone up on a particular technology for an assignment. That educational
>>>> time should normally not be billed, or at least I think it shouldn't be
>>>> from an ethical viewpoint. Unless it is very specialized knowledge that
>>>> is only useful for this one particular client.
>>>
>>> The flip side is equally interesting! I've had clients "insist"
>>> that I not use anything I've done for them for *future* clients
>>> (of course, we're not talking about copying an entire design!).
>>
>> That would end my relationship with that client, or rather, it would
>> never begin.
>
> When you rephrase their comment so *they* are the burdened end
> of the transaction, suddenly they see why they *shouldn't* want
> what they are asking for! It always amazes me how folks don't
> do this analysis (with *every* such assertion) BEFORE they
> voice it!
>
Usually it requires a chat with an attoerney at their legal department.
> Hi Joerg,
>
> On 2/7/2012 2:03 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
>>>> Even with consulting it can be and often is the case that you need to
>>>> bone up on a particular technology for an assignment. That educational
>>>> time should normally not be billed, or at least I think it shouldn't be
>>>> from an ethical viewpoint. Unless it is very specialized knowledge that
>>>> is only useful for this one particular client.
>>>
>>> The flip side is equally interesting! I've had clients "insist"
>>> that I not use anything I've done for them for *future* clients
>>> (of course, we're not talking about copying an entire design!).
>>
>> That would end my relationship with that client, or rather, it would
>> never begin.
>
> When you rephrase their comment so *they* are the burdened end
> of the transaction, suddenly they see why they *shouldn't* want
> what they are asking for! It always amazes me how folks don't
> do this analysis (with *every* such assertion) BEFORE they
> voice it!
>
That clears it all up rather quickly.
> "Do you *really* object to the zoning regulations?
> ... Would you
> mind if I put a MEAT RENDERING PLANT on my property adjacent
> to your home?? Oh, I didn't *think* so... :> "
>
All has to be done in moderation. No, I would not mind having a bakery
> to your home?? Oh, I didn't *think* so... :> "
>
across the street. Or a neighborhood pub. Heck, I have lived above one
of those.
It's like traffic. We do allow cars and trucks to drive through our
neighborhoods. But that does not mean that drag races are ok. In the
same way one can very well have a butcher shop next door but not a meat
rendering plant.
>> Just imagine, starting Thursday I could no longer use
>> emitter followers on any future designs :-)
>
> Exactly. Or anything that *embodied* one (in another guise)
>
>>> They are usually taken aback when I reply, "Sure. But, then,
>>> I shouldn't use anything I've learned or done for clients *before*
>>> you on *your* project..."
>>>
>>> I.e., *you* are the beneficiary of work that I've done before this...
>>> just as others will benefit from work I will have done for *you*.
>>>
>>> People tend not to like it when, suddenly, *their* costs skyrocket
>>> (or, when they are forced to find someone who has NEVER previously
>>> done what they want) as you are "forced" to come up with a TOTALLY
>>> unique solution to their problem.
>>
>> With me it's either they sign my agreement or they have to look for
>> someone else. That usually cinches it.
>>
>> Ok, if they pay me a flat fee of a million bucks I might agree never to
>> use emitter followers commercially again :-)
>
> I find the attitude I mentioned earlier to be associated with less
> "sophisticated" (avoiding using the term "mature", here) clients.
> Like a young child not wanting to share their ice cream with their
> siblings -- yet EXPECTING them to share *their* candy!
>
That is because their legal folks are way too far removed from real
engineering life. In smaller companies the guy who signs my consulting
agreement is often an engineer himself. So they understand how things
work in engineering.
I can see this rather clearly when small companies are bought by bigger
ones. Suddenly a consulting agreement that has worked fine for half a
decade or so becomes a "problem". Then countless hours are wasted on
their part and on mine to rion out the "problem". In the end my standard
agreement gets signed anyway.
Joerg
Feb 7, 2012, 5:03:49 PM2/7/12
to
Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 03:58 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> Hi Joerg,
>>
>> On 2/7/2012 1:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>
>>> Even with consulting it can be and often is the case that you need to
>>> bone up on a particular technology for an assignment. That educational
>>> time should normally not be billed, or at least I think it shouldn't be
>>> from an ethical viewpoint. Unless it is very specialized knowledge that
>>> is only useful for this one particular client.
>>
>> The flip side is equally interesting! I've had clients "insist"
>> that I not use anything I've done for them for *future* clients
>> (of course, we're not talking about copying an entire design!).
>> They are usually taken aback when I reply, "Sure. But, then,
>> I shouldn't use anything I've learned or done for clients *before*
>> you on *your* project..."
>>
>> I.e., *you* are the beneficiary of work that I've done before this...
>> just as others will benefit from work I will have done for *you*.
>>
>> People tend not to like it when, suddenly, *their* costs skyrocket
>> (or, when they are forced to find someone who has NEVER previously
>> done what they want) as you are "forced" to come up with a TOTALLY
>> unique solution to their problem.
>
> IME the reasonableness of the NDA is a function of the size of the
> company. Very small and very large outfits are usually fine, ...
> On 02/07/2012 03:58 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> Hi Joerg,
>>
>> On 2/7/2012 1:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>
>>> Even with consulting it can be and often is the case that you need to
>>> bone up on a particular technology for an assignment. That educational
>>> time should normally not be billed, or at least I think it shouldn't be
>>> from an ethical viewpoint. Unless it is very specialized knowledge that
>>> is only useful for this one particular client.
>>
>> The flip side is equally interesting! I've had clients "insist"
>> that I not use anything I've done for them for *future* clients
>> (of course, we're not talking about copying an entire design!).
>> They are usually taken aback when I reply, "Sure. But, then,
>> I shouldn't use anything I've learned or done for clients *before*
>> you on *your* project..."
>>
>> I.e., *you* are the beneficiary of work that I've done before this...
>> just as others will benefit from work I will have done for *you*.
>>
>> People tend not to like it when, suddenly, *their* costs skyrocket
>> (or, when they are forced to find someone who has NEVER previously
>> done what they want) as you are "forced" to come up with a TOTALLY
>> unique solution to their problem.
>
> IME the reasonableness of the NDA is a function of the size of the
My experience with very large ones is sometimes not so great with
respect to written agreements. Sometimes it's almost as if it would take
an act of Congress.
> ... but
> there's a debatable zone in between where some folks want to throw their
> weight around. I actually have a short document that I send to new
> clients to help guide the drafting of NDAs and consulting agreements,
> which explains what my vital interests are and why, and has suggested
> language.
>
> Once people understand, they're usually very reasonable--sometimes
> they're willing to pay an up-front fee for the assignment of collateral
> inventions, for instance. That is, stuff in the field of use, during the
> contract period, but that isn't thought up on their time--contracts
> rarely go less than a year, even though it may be only a week's worth of
> work. Naturally it doesn't make sense to sign away a year's worth of
> ideas for one week's pay. ...
> weight around. I actually have a short document that I send to new
> clients to help guide the drafting of NDAs and consulting agreements,
> which explains what my vital interests are and why, and has suggested
> language.
>
> Once people understand, they're usually very reasonable--sometimes
> they're willing to pay an up-front fee for the assignment of collateral
> inventions, for instance. That is, stuff in the field of use, during the
> contract period, but that isn't thought up on their time--contracts
> rarely go less than a year, even though it may be only a week's worth of
> work. Naturally it doesn't make sense to sign away a year's worth of
That can be fixed. In my standard agreement it says " ... directly
related to or directly making use of the Services". So it's only stuff I
developed on their nickel. If I stumble upon the perfect recipe for the
super-duper wombombulator while billing my time to them then the patent
is theirs. I do retain some rights for no-competing use though.
I've only had one client walk on account of
> my refusing to sign their NDA as drafted.
>
stuff has really hit the fan :-)
George Herold
Feb 7, 2012, 7:48:53 PM2/7/12
to
I work a 'nominal' 40 hrs a week. But there's always weekends lost
to
trade shows, collaborators or other stuff. In some sense I'm always
'at work', in that if there's some problem it's on my mind. (How do
you value your time, when you 'figure out' what's going wrong, while
you're painting the barn?)
I love mowing the lawn. Great sense of having done something that
day.
George H.
>
> OTOH, it would be "lifetime employment" :-/
>
> Time to finish digging up the lime tree. Thank *god* shovels have
>
> - Show quoted text -
Joerg
Feb 7, 2012, 8:16:42 PM2/7/12
to
> I work a 'nominal' 40 hrs a week. But there's always weekends lost
> to
> trade shows, collaborators or other stuff. In some sense I'm always
> 'at work', in that if there's some problem it's on my mind. (How do
> you value your time, when you 'figure out' what's going wrong, while
> you're painting the barn?)
>
> I love mowing the lawn. Great sense of having done something that
> day.
>
do that outdoor chore now". I'll work in the evening instead. Try that
at a noraml job :-)
[...]
Phil Hobbs
Feb 7, 2012, 8:25:38 PM2/7/12
to
sleep half the next day. Plus, having multiple customers means that you
aren't as vulnerable to a management change or an acquisition, and you
don't have to do all that Kremlinology to try to figure out what your
management is thinking.
It does get a bit solitary sometimes, though, and it was also a bit
sporty at the beginning--there were periods when the bills kept coming
in but the phone didn't ring.
Joerg
Feb 7, 2012, 8:35:53 PM2/7/12
to
Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Joerg wrote:
>> George Herold wrote:
[...]
> Joerg wrote:
>> George Herold wrote:
>>> Nice discussion! It makes me a bit happy not to be self employed.
>>>
>> Nah, I love self-employment. Happy like a fish in the water.
>>
>>> I work a 'nominal' 40 hrs a week. But there's always weekends lost
>>> to
>>> trade shows, collaborators or other stuff. In some sense I'm always
>>> 'at work', in that if there's some problem it's on my mind. (How do
>>> you value your time, when you 'figure out' what's going wrong, while
>>> you're painting the barn?)
>>>
>>> I love mowing the lawn. Great sense of having done something that
>>> day.
>>>
>> Look at one benefit of self-employment: "Hey, it stopped raining, let's
>> do that outdoor chore now". I'll work in the evening instead. Try that
>> at a noraml job :-)
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> --
>> Regards, Joerg
>>
>> http://www.analogconsultants.com/
>
> I agree 100%. Or I can pull an all-nighter when I'm writing code, and
> sleep half the next day. Plus, having multiple customers means that you
> aren't as vulnerable to a management change or an acquisition, and you
> don't have to do all that Kremlinology to try to figure out what your
> management is thinking.
>
one contract to another. That's not my thing. I am more like a dentist.
There is a solid client base and basically they come every time
something hurts or needs to be done.
> It does get a bit solitary sometimes, though, and it was also a bit
> sporty at the beginning--there were periods when the bills kept coming
> in but the phone didn't ring.
>
miss the interaction with colleagues I had at EndoSonics and ATL.
What I will probably never do is move to a building more than 50ft from
home like you did. That takes away some of the task juggling
opportunities between biz and personal life. "Hey, Joerg, can you spare
10mins and help me disassemble the cabinet over here?". Although when I
looked at the photos of your work place that made me drool. All that space.
Oh, and I wish I'd be in a more Republican state so I could have
employees once in a while.
George Herold
Feb 7, 2012, 9:36:26 PM2/7/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh my present job is not all beer and skittles.
> - Show quoted text -
But if there's nothing pressing, then I can always take a nice day
off.
Work hard and enjoy life.
(nothing else makes sense)
George H.
George Herold
Feb 7, 2012, 9:40:31 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 8:25 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net>
wrote:
Yeah, no saftey net. If I screw up, and waste a few months, there's
enough momentum to carry things along.
George H.
wrote:
enough momentum to carry things along.
George H.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
> --
> Dr Philip C D Hobbs
> Principal Consultant
> ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
> Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
>
> 160 North State Road #203
> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
> 845-480-2058
>
> hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text -
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
> --
> Dr Philip C D Hobbs
> Principal Consultant
> ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
> Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
>
> 160 North State Road #203
> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
> 845-480-2058
>
George Herold
Feb 7, 2012, 9:47:45 PM2/7/12
to
colleagues.
Not enough people to bounce silly ideas off of.
George H.
>
> What I will probably never do is move to a building more than 50ft from
> home like you did. That takes away some of the task juggling
> opportunities between biz and personal life. "Hey, Joerg, can you spare
> 10mins and help me disassemble the cabinet over here?". Although when I
> looked at the photos of your work place that made me drool. All that space.
>
> Oh, and I wish I'd be in a more Republican state so I could have
> employees once in a while.
>
> --
> Regards, Joerg
>
Phil Hobbs
Feb 7, 2012, 10:00:38 PM2/7/12
to
petrified.
George Herold
Feb 7, 2012, 10:06:07 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 10:00 pm, Phil Hobbs
Yeah at the present my only 'debt' is paying for my kids education.
10 and 12 (5th and 7th grade) still cute as buttons!
George H.
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>
> --
> Dr Philip C D Hobbs
> Principal Consultant
> ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
> Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
>
> 160 North State Road #203
> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
> 845-480-2058
>
10 and 12 (5th and 7th grade) still cute as buttons!
George H.
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>
> --
> Dr Philip C D Hobbs
> Principal Consultant
> ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
> Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
>
> 160 North State Road #203
> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
> 845-480-2058
>
Don Y
Feb 8, 2012, 1:05:45 AM2/8/12
to
Hi Phil (et al.),
On 2/7/2012 6:25 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> Look at one benefit of self-employment: "Hey, it stopped raining, let's
>> do that outdoor chore now". I'll work in the evening instead. Try that
>> at a noraml job :-)
>
is late at night) or "having an epiphany" -- and for *exactly* as long
as I am feeling productive! Instead of "time to make the donuts"...
(it's 11P and I'm, just now, turning on machines)
But, the biggest win is not dealing with meetings, changing priorities,
office politics, etc. "My contract says *this* is what I produce. If
you've decided you no longer WANT that... <shrug> -- please pay at the
window."
And, of course, having a big "say" in what you WANT to work on. I'd
be bored at the sort of job where you are doing the same thing over
and over (lawn mowing). Not near enough "challenge" in that!
Likewise, having control over *how* something is done instead of having
a dubious design *imposed* on you and having to figure out how to give
it ANY chance of success! (I can remember the sense of dread and
foreboding the last time I was handed someone's failing project and
expected to "make it work" -- while the clock was ticking well past
the original delivery date!) I can freely try a different -- even
radical -- approach to a problem without having to get it "blessed",
first (i.e., the risk is mine!).
I recall one client's exclamation at contract signing: "You mean if we
don't do it YOUR WAY you're not going to *do* it??" <grin>
("Hey, you're free to find someone else to do this. I'm not holding a
gun to your head...")
> It does get a bit solitary sometimes, though, and it was also a bit
> sporty at the beginning--there were periods when the bills kept coming
> in but the phone didn't ring.
The biggest downside, IMO, is having to do much of your own "support".
I.e., if a machine crashes, there's no one (realistically) to whom I
can offload the repair/rebuild job. If a new piece of software needs
to be selected/purchased/installed, the hours come off *my* clock.
The parts for prototypes and initial builds don't get ordered unless
*I* order them, etc. If something isn't working quite right, there's
no one to turn to for a "second opinion".
And, of course, it's "tricky" asking questions of others without
"leaking information" that legally (or morally) you should preserve.
Often requires a fair bit of creativity coming up with "parallel"
examples that highlight the issues you want to address without
mentioning anything related specifically!
<shrug> I know it's not for everyone. There are many folks whose
personalities, I know, wouldn't adapt well to the lifestyle. But,
it works for me! :>
On 2/7/2012 6:25 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> Look at one benefit of self-employment: "Hey, it stopped raining, let's
>> do that outdoor chore now". I'll work in the evening instead. Try that
>> at a noraml job :-)
>
> I agree 100%. Or I can pull an all-nighter when I'm writing code, and
> sleep half the next day. Plus, having multiple customers means that you
> aren't as vulnerable to a management change or an acquisition, and you
> don't have to do all that Kremlinology to try to figure out what your
> management is thinking.
I find that I can work when I am "most productive" (typically, that
> sleep half the next day. Plus, having multiple customers means that you
> aren't as vulnerable to a management change or an acquisition, and you
> don't have to do all that Kremlinology to try to figure out what your
> management is thinking.
is late at night) or "having an epiphany" -- and for *exactly* as long
as I am feeling productive! Instead of "time to make the donuts"...
(it's 11P and I'm, just now, turning on machines)
But, the biggest win is not dealing with meetings, changing priorities,
office politics, etc. "My contract says *this* is what I produce. If
you've decided you no longer WANT that... <shrug> -- please pay at the
window."
And, of course, having a big "say" in what you WANT to work on. I'd
be bored at the sort of job where you are doing the same thing over
and over (lawn mowing). Not near enough "challenge" in that!
Likewise, having control over *how* something is done instead of having
a dubious design *imposed* on you and having to figure out how to give
it ANY chance of success! (I can remember the sense of dread and
foreboding the last time I was handed someone's failing project and
expected to "make it work" -- while the clock was ticking well past
the original delivery date!) I can freely try a different -- even
radical -- approach to a problem without having to get it "blessed",
first (i.e., the risk is mine!).
I recall one client's exclamation at contract signing: "You mean if we
don't do it YOUR WAY you're not going to *do* it??" <grin>
("Hey, you're free to find someone else to do this. I'm not holding a
gun to your head...")
> It does get a bit solitary sometimes, though, and it was also a bit
> sporty at the beginning--there were periods when the bills kept coming
> in but the phone didn't ring.
I.e., if a machine crashes, there's no one (realistically) to whom I
can offload the repair/rebuild job. If a new piece of software needs
to be selected/purchased/installed, the hours come off *my* clock.
The parts for prototypes and initial builds don't get ordered unless
*I* order them, etc. If something isn't working quite right, there's
no one to turn to for a "second opinion".
And, of course, it's "tricky" asking questions of others without
"leaking information" that legally (or morally) you should preserve.
Often requires a fair bit of creativity coming up with "parallel"
examples that highlight the issues you want to address without
mentioning anything related specifically!
<shrug> I know it's not for everyone. There are many folks whose
personalities, I know, wouldn't adapt well to the lifestyle. But,
it works for me! :>
Don Y
Feb 8, 2012, 1:19:56 AM2/8/12
to
Hi Joerg,
On 2/7/2012 6:35 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> I agree 100%. Or I can pull an all-nighter when I'm writing code, and
>> sleep half the next day. Plus, having multiple customers means that you
>> aren't as vulnerable to a management change or an acquisition, and you
>> don't have to do all that Kremlinology to try to figure out what your
>> management is thinking.
>
> That's key, multiple client. I know a lot of folks who are hopping from
> one contract to another. That's not my thing. I am more like a dentist.
> There is a solid client base and basically they come every time
> something hurts or needs to be done.
I think that's a function of the size (and scope) of the
projects/responsibilities. Projects for me tend to be a man-year
or more of effort. Seldom do folks want to spend more *calendar*
time -- essential if I wanted to juggle several of those projects.
The frustrating thing is having to "pass" on an interesting project
because you're too busy with a "previous commitment". Here, "maturity"
becomes an issue -- you can't go chasing after "candy" just because you
WANT it.
(I find keeping an intellectual finger in the pie -- even if it is
"on my dime" -- works well towards satisfying that "interest" without
taking it on as a *commitment*)
>> It does get a bit solitary sometimes, though, and it was also a bit
>> sporty at the beginning--there were periods when the bills kept coming
>> in but the phone didn't ring.
>
> That's the only downside, being alone a lot. I don't mind it but I do
> miss the interaction with colleagues I had at EndoSonics and ATL.
>
> What I will probably never do is move to a building more than 50ft from
> home like you did. That takes away some of the task juggling
> opportunities between biz and personal life. "Hey, Joerg, can you spare
> 10mins and help me disassemble the cabinet over here?". Although when I
> looked at the photos of your work place that made me drool. All that space.
I find space to be a double-edged sword. The more I set aside
for work, the more cruft accumulates *in* that space. And, more
cruft means more things that I am now "responsible for" ("Gee, I
thought I had more 20 point tape for the lettering machine" or "Damn,
I need a new fuser for the color laser printer." or "These aren't the
probes for *this* logic analyzer. Where are the correct ones?").
Of course, when you shell out *your* $$$ for a piece of kit, it's a
lot harder to just toss it aside when the project for which you
purchased it is "complete" :-/ (even if you've already expensed it)
I guess that's another "big adjustment": as an employee, you think
nothing of spending your boss' money on equipment. When you're
self-employed, it's *your* money. Being objective about decisions
takes a lot more self-discipline! :-/ (OTOH, there's ZERO red
tape involved! :> )
On 2/7/2012 6:35 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> I agree 100%. Or I can pull an all-nighter when I'm writing code, and
>> sleep half the next day. Plus, having multiple customers means that you
>> aren't as vulnerable to a management change or an acquisition, and you
>> don't have to do all that Kremlinology to try to figure out what your
>> management is thinking.
>
> That's key, multiple client. I know a lot of folks who are hopping from
> one contract to another. That's not my thing. I am more like a dentist.
> There is a solid client base and basically they come every time
> something hurts or needs to be done.
projects/responsibilities. Projects for me tend to be a man-year
or more of effort. Seldom do folks want to spend more *calendar*
time -- essential if I wanted to juggle several of those projects.
The frustrating thing is having to "pass" on an interesting project
because you're too busy with a "previous commitment". Here, "maturity"
becomes an issue -- you can't go chasing after "candy" just because you
WANT it.
(I find keeping an intellectual finger in the pie -- even if it is
"on my dime" -- works well towards satisfying that "interest" without
taking it on as a *commitment*)
>> It does get a bit solitary sometimes, though, and it was also a bit
>> sporty at the beginning--there were periods when the bills kept coming
>> in but the phone didn't ring.
>
> That's the only downside, being alone a lot. I don't mind it but I do
> miss the interaction with colleagues I had at EndoSonics and ATL.
>
> What I will probably never do is move to a building more than 50ft from
> home like you did. That takes away some of the task juggling
> opportunities between biz and personal life. "Hey, Joerg, can you spare
> 10mins and help me disassemble the cabinet over here?". Although when I
> looked at the photos of your work place that made me drool. All that space.
for work, the more cruft accumulates *in* that space. And, more
cruft means more things that I am now "responsible for" ("Gee, I
thought I had more 20 point tape for the lettering machine" or "Damn,
I need a new fuser for the color laser printer." or "These aren't the
probes for *this* logic analyzer. Where are the correct ones?").
Of course, when you shell out *your* $$$ for a piece of kit, it's a
lot harder to just toss it aside when the project for which you
purchased it is "complete" :-/ (even if you've already expensed it)
I guess that's another "big adjustment": as an employee, you think
nothing of spending your boss' money on equipment. When you're
self-employed, it's *your* money. Being objective about decisions
takes a lot more self-discipline! :-/ (OTOH, there's ZERO red
tape involved! :> )
Don Y
Feb 8, 2012, 3:14:28 AM2/8/12
to
Hi Joerg,
On 2/7/2012 2:53 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> I find the attitude I mentioned earlier to be associated with less
>> "sophisticated" (avoiding using the term "mature", here) clients.
>> Like a young child not wanting to share their ice cream with their
>> siblings -- yet EXPECTING them to share *their* candy!
>
> Actually, it's usually the bigger corporations who have such problems.
> That is because their legal folks are way too far removed from real
> engineering life. In smaller companies the guy who signs my consulting
> agreement is often an engineer himself. So they understand how things
> work in engineering.
It's often the *owner* of the company who signs my contract.
Often, they have very little engineering "awareness". In some
cases, not even a real "engineering staff" (or, maybe in the
"wrong" disciplines, etc.)
They see *their* money (not "shareholders'") going out and want to
*own* what they just "bought". For many, IP is an new concept
(e.g., I have done work for several firms who failed to realize
how important certain engineering documents were. Or, who failed
to *get* "originals" of work they had previously paid for. And,
suddenly, find themselves not able to maintain their own products!)
> I can see this rather clearly when small companies are bought by bigger
> ones. Suddenly a consulting agreement that has worked fine for half a
> decade or so becomes a "problem". Then countless hours are wasted on
> their part and on mine to rion out the "problem". In the end my standard
> agreement gets signed anyway.
My experience has been the opposite. Bigger companies tend to
understand business. It's not a "personal piggybank" for them.
It's a "business transaction". They expect both sides to gain
something. I can still hear the voice of a client who blatantly
stated, "We *want* you to make money on this deal. Otherwise,
you won't want to *do* it!" Refreshingly realistic attitude!
By contrast, many "owners" see every dollar going to me to be a
dollar *coming* from THEM!
I never "push" a deal. If you (or I) don't like the terms the
other is proposing, "walk away". Life is too short to spend it
haggling over legal documents (if we don't trust each other,
why are we *doing* this?).
I remember an experience many years ago when I "took home" some
manuals for a long weekend. Client wouldn't need them (closed for
business) so it seemed like an excellent opportunity for me to
get up to speed without interfering with *their* work.
Owner got all excited and wanted me to "sign them out" -- as if
afraid I was going to STEAL SOME PAPER! I just looked at him
and said, "You don't trust me to return these stacks of paper
(which you could always reorder from the supplier AND BILL ME!)
but you trust me to design the product that *your* name will
be on? That your company will be legally LIABLE for???"
<shrug>
The same sort of action at larger firms has often been met with
"OK, just tell the guard I said it was OK for you to take these
out of the building." (after all, they have lawyers ON STAFF
that they could use to harass me if they thought I had STOLEN
some *paper*!)
I attribute this to the lack of *personal* (financial) stake in
the transaction, on their part (vs. the owner issue). Their
(big company) concern is any *hassle* that might result IF the
items disappeared. But, they know there would be AT LEAST AS
MUCH hassle for me -- acting as a deterrent!
On 2/7/2012 2:53 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> I find the attitude I mentioned earlier to be associated with less
>> "sophisticated" (avoiding using the term "mature", here) clients.
>> Like a young child not wanting to share their ice cream with their
>> siblings -- yet EXPECTING them to share *their* candy!
>
> Actually, it's usually the bigger corporations who have such problems.
> That is because their legal folks are way too far removed from real
> engineering life. In smaller companies the guy who signs my consulting
> agreement is often an engineer himself. So they understand how things
> work in engineering.
Often, they have very little engineering "awareness". In some
cases, not even a real "engineering staff" (or, maybe in the
"wrong" disciplines, etc.)
They see *their* money (not "shareholders'") going out and want to
*own* what they just "bought". For many, IP is an new concept
(e.g., I have done work for several firms who failed to realize
how important certain engineering documents were. Or, who failed
to *get* "originals" of work they had previously paid for. And,
suddenly, find themselves not able to maintain their own products!)
> I can see this rather clearly when small companies are bought by bigger
> ones. Suddenly a consulting agreement that has worked fine for half a
> decade or so becomes a "problem". Then countless hours are wasted on
> their part and on mine to rion out the "problem". In the end my standard
> agreement gets signed anyway.
understand business. It's not a "personal piggybank" for them.
It's a "business transaction". They expect both sides to gain
something. I can still hear the voice of a client who blatantly
stated, "We *want* you to make money on this deal. Otherwise,
you won't want to *do* it!" Refreshingly realistic attitude!
By contrast, many "owners" see every dollar going to me to be a
dollar *coming* from THEM!
I never "push" a deal. If you (or I) don't like the terms the
other is proposing, "walk away". Life is too short to spend it
haggling over legal documents (if we don't trust each other,
why are we *doing* this?).
I remember an experience many years ago when I "took home" some
manuals for a long weekend. Client wouldn't need them (closed for
business) so it seemed like an excellent opportunity for me to
get up to speed without interfering with *their* work.
Owner got all excited and wanted me to "sign them out" -- as if
afraid I was going to STEAL SOME PAPER! I just looked at him
and said, "You don't trust me to return these stacks of paper
(which you could always reorder from the supplier AND BILL ME!)
but you trust me to design the product that *your* name will
be on? That your company will be legally LIABLE for???"
<shrug>
The same sort of action at larger firms has often been met with
"OK, just tell the guard I said it was OK for you to take these
out of the building." (after all, they have lawyers ON STAFF
that they could use to harass me if they thought I had STOLEN
some *paper*!)
I attribute this to the lack of *personal* (financial) stake in
the transaction, on their part (vs. the owner issue). Their
(big company) concern is any *hassle* that might result IF the
items disappeared. But, they know there would be AT LEAST AS
MUCH hassle for me -- acting as a deterrent!
Robert Macy
Feb 8, 2012, 8:39:33 AM2/8/12
to
rather has more effect on thrid parties.
I was at Fairchild when a top VP walked, went across the street
started a competitive company and went back and 'stole' other top
employees to help him. Obvously a breach of IP. Fairchild sued and
took the man to court. In court the judge looked at the situation and
essentially said, you never outlined to this man exactly what your IP
was, you never had an exit interview defining what was yours, you
never had a substantial employee agreement. You never did anything to
protect your IP, I won't either. Case DISMISSED!
Again, NDA"s and contracts aren't really for the two involved, rather
for the third parties.
George Herold
Feb 8, 2012, 9:26:33 AM2/8/12
to
to a machine shop. Telling them that they underbid this one piece,
and to look at the drawing again. It's no good getting one item at a
low cost, if the vendor is not there in the future to make more things
for you. Good vendors are just as important as good customers.
George H.
Phil Hobbs
Feb 8, 2012, 10:46:24 AM2/8/12
to
Don Y wrote:
>
> Hi Phil (et al.),
>
> On 2/7/2012 6:25 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>
> >> Look at one benefit of self-employment: "Hey, it stopped raining, let's
> >> do that outdoor chore now". I'll work in the evening instead. Try that
> >> at a noraml job :-)
> >
> > I agree 100%. Or I can pull an all-nighter when I'm writing code, and
> > sleep half the next day. Plus, having multiple customers means that you
> > aren't as vulnerable to a management change or an acquisition, and you
> > don't have to do all that Kremlinology to try to figure out what your
> > management is thinking.
>
> I find that I can work when I am "most productive" (typically, that
> is late at night) or "having an epiphany" -- and for *exactly* as long
> as I am feeling productive! Instead of "time to make the donuts"...
> (it's 11P and I'm, just now, turning on machines)
>
> But, the biggest win is not dealing with meetings, changing priorities,
> office politics, etc. "My contract says *this* is what I produce. If
> you've decided you no longer WANT that... <shrug> -- please pay at the
> window."
Collecting can be a bit of a problem then, though. And anyway, I want
>
> Hi Phil (et al.),
>
> On 2/7/2012 6:25 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>
> >> Look at one benefit of self-employment: "Hey, it stopped raining, let's
> >> do that outdoor chore now". I'll work in the evening instead. Try that
> >> at a noraml job :-)
> >
> > I agree 100%. Or I can pull an all-nighter when I'm writing code, and
> > sleep half the next day. Plus, having multiple customers means that you
> > aren't as vulnerable to a management change or an acquisition, and you
> > don't have to do all that Kremlinology to try to figure out what your
> > management is thinking.
>
> I find that I can work when I am "most productive" (typically, that
> is late at night) or "having an epiphany" -- and for *exactly* as long
> as I am feeling productive! Instead of "time to make the donuts"...
> (it's 11P and I'm, just now, turning on machines)
>
> But, the biggest win is not dealing with meetings, changing priorities,
> office politics, etc. "My contract says *this* is what I produce. If
> you've decided you no longer WANT that... <shrug> -- please pay at the
> window."
to do what's useful, not just what brings in money. Typically if
there's a change of requirements at the other end, we work it out as
hourly rate times time already spent, plus an estimate for completion of
new work.
>
> And, of course, having a big "say" in what you WANT to work on. I'd
> be bored at the sort of job where you are doing the same thing over
> and over (lawn mowing). Not near enough "challenge" in that!
in places where I could change fields every five years on average--being
able to cover a lot of territory is one of the main things I have to
offer clients.
> Likewise, having control over *how* something is done instead of having
> a dubious design *imposed* on you and having to figure out how to give
> it ANY chance of success! (I can remember the sense of dread and
> foreboding the last time I was handed someone's failing project and
> expected to "make it work" -- while the clock was ticking well past
> the original delivery date!) I can freely try a different -- even
> radical -- approach to a problem without having to get it "blessed",
> first (i.e., the risk is mine!).
>
> I recall one client's exclamation at contract signing: "You mean if we
> don't do it YOUR WAY you're not going to *do* it??" <grin>
>
> ("Hey, you're free to find someone else to do this. I'm not holding a
> gun to your head...")
At the point you're describing, I'd probably walk.
> > It does get a bit solitary sometimes, though, and it was also a bit
> > sporty at the beginning--there were periods when the bills kept coming
> > in but the phone didn't ring.
>
> The biggest downside, IMO, is having to do much of your own "support".
> I.e., if a machine crashes, there's no one (realistically) to whom I
> can offload the repair/rebuild job. If a new piece of software needs
> to be selected/purchased/installed, the hours come off *my* clock.
> The parts for prototypes and initial builds don't get ordered unless
> *I* order them, etc. If something isn't working quite right, there's
> no one to turn to for a "second opinion".
show me their latest gizmo. I find that helps my enthusiasm a lot,
which helps my productivity a lot.
>
> And, of course, it's "tricky" asking questions of others without
> "leaking information" that legally (or morally) you should preserve.
> Often requires a fair bit of creativity coming up with "parallel"
> examples that highlight the issues you want to address without
> mentioning anything related specifically!
>
> <shrug> I know it's not for everyone. There are many folks whose
> personalities, I know, wouldn't adapt well to the lifestyle. But,
> it works for me! :>
Joerg
Feb 8, 2012, 10:56:39 AM2/8/12
to
Don Y wrote:
> Hi Joerg,
>
> On 2/7/2012 6:35 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
>>> I agree 100%. Or I can pull an all-nighter when I'm writing code, and
>>> sleep half the next day. Plus, having multiple customers means that you
>>> aren't as vulnerable to a management change or an acquisition, and you
>>> don't have to do all that Kremlinology to try to figure out what your
>>> management is thinking.
>>
>> That's key, multiple client. I know a lot of folks who are hopping from
>> one contract to another. That's not my thing. I am more like a dentist.
>> There is a solid client base and basically they come every time
>> something hurts or needs to be done.
>
> I think that's a function of the size (and scope) of the
> projects/responsibilities. Projects for me tend to be a man-year
> or more of effort. Seldom do folks want to spend more *calendar*
> time -- essential if I wanted to juggle several of those projects.
>
> The frustrating thing is having to "pass" on an interesting project
> because you're too busy with a "previous commitment". Here, "maturity"
> becomes an issue -- you can't go chasing after "candy" just because you
> WANT it.
>
It's dangerous to rely on one client at a time. Can be done though but
> Hi Joerg,
>
> On 2/7/2012 6:35 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
>>> I agree 100%. Or I can pull an all-nighter when I'm writing code, and
>>> sleep half the next day. Plus, having multiple customers means that you
>>> aren't as vulnerable to a management change or an acquisition, and you
>>> don't have to do all that Kremlinology to try to figure out what your
>>> management is thinking.
>>
>> That's key, multiple client. I know a lot of folks who are hopping from
>> one contract to another. That's not my thing. I am more like a dentist.
>> There is a solid client base and basically they come every time
>> something hurts or needs to be done.
>
> I think that's a function of the size (and scope) of the
> projects/responsibilities. Projects for me tend to be a man-year
> or more of effort. Seldom do folks want to spend more *calendar*
> time -- essential if I wanted to juggle several of those projects.
>
> The frustrating thing is having to "pass" on an interesting project
> because you're too busy with a "previous commitment". Here, "maturity"
> becomes an issue -- you can't go chasing after "candy" just because you
> WANT it.
>
what I tell people over and over again is to keep a finacial buffer of
at least six months. Else it's a white-knuckle ride. All it takes is a
client filing for chapter 11 and that will usually come totally out of
the blue.
[...]
>
> I guess that's another "big adjustment": as an employee, you think
> nothing of spending your boss' money on equipment. When you're
> self-employed, it's *your* money. Being objective about decisions
> takes a lot more self-discipline! :-/ (OTOH, there's ZERO red
> tape involved! :> )
do not believe in micro-management but I do strongly believe in grooming
the next generation. So I gave everyone his or her own budget. When I
approached our CFO with that idea you could see his jaw drop. "WHAT?!"
Then after explaining a little he actually liked the idea a lot. That
makes a huge difference in the "not my money" assumption. Because
suddenly, it is your money.
Phil Hobbs
Feb 8, 2012, 11:00:07 AM2/8/12
to
liability.
Statements of work are pretty helpful if there's more than a couple of
people involved on the client side.
And if you've never got into an IP dispute, you're lucky. I do a lot of
expert witness work trying to straighten that sort of stuff out. It
pays well, and uses a different part of my brain than design work, but
it would be a lot more productive if folks were more careful about IP.
Don Y
Feb 8, 2012, 12:31:18 PM2/8/12
to
Hi Phil,
On 2/8/2012 8:46 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> But, the biggest win is not dealing with meetings, changing priorities,
>> office politics, etc. "My contract says *this* is what I produce. If
>> you've decided you no longer WANT that...<shrug> -- please pay at the
>> window."
>
> Collecting can be a bit of a problem then, though. And anyway, I want
> to do what's useful, not just what brings in money. Typically if
> there's a change of requirements at the other end, we work it out as
> hourly rate times time already spent, plus an estimate for completion of
> new work.
I've found that word of mouth is a great deterrent to "getting stiffed".
It behooves both parties to "act responsibly" as you can lose clients
just as quickly as clients can lose *talent*!
I push clients to *think* about what they want. I'm not interested in
open ended, T&M relationships. I want to know *what* you want from me
so I can decide if it is something I am interested in doing. If you
want a warm body that you can bark (different!) orders at each day,
get an employee.
>> And, of course, having a big "say" in what you WANT to work on. I'd
>> be bored at the sort of job where you are doing the same thing over
>> and over (lawn mowing). Not near enough "challenge" in that!
>
> Fortunately I've never had a job like that. I've been blessed to work
> in places where I could change fields every five years on average--being
> able to cover a lot of territory is one of the main things I have to
> offer clients.
I like changing more frequently. I try to pick each new project so that
it sends me in a different direction than the last. By far, the most
challenging ones are documentation -- especially user docs. If I
haven;t designed the product in question, I'm usually stuck trying to
establish an appropriate metaphor to rationalize an inconsistent design
in the user's mind. (This gets tricky as you can easily end up
stepping on toes)
And, my language skills aren't the greatest so it proves to be a
significant challenge!
>> I recall one client's exclamation at contract signing: "You mean if we
>> don't do it YOUR WAY you're not going to *do* it??"<grin>
>>
>> ("Hey, you're free to find someone else to do this. I'm not holding a
>> gun to your head...")
>
> Again, if the client feels mistreated, getting paid can be a problem.
> At the point you're describing, I'd probably walk.
This was "at contract signing". I.e., if you don't like the way I am
going to approach your problem, DON'T HIRE ME! (another example of the,
"if you want an EMPLOYEE, then HIRE AN EMPLOYEE!" mentality)
>>> It does get a bit solitary sometimes, though, and it was also a bit
>>> sporty at the beginning--there were periods when the bills kept coming
>>> in but the phone didn't ring.
>>
>> The biggest downside, IMO, is having to do much of your own "support".
>> I.e., if a machine crashes, there's no one (realistically) to whom I
>> can offload the repair/rebuild job. If a new piece of software needs
>> to be selected/purchased/installed, the hours come off *my* clock.
>> The parts for prototypes and initial builds don't get ordered unless
>> *I* order them, etc. If something isn't working quite right, there's
>> no one to turn to for a "second opinion".
>
> Yup. But even more, I miss having folks who crash through my door to
> show me their latest gizmo. I find that helps my enthusiasm a lot,
> which helps my productivity a lot.
I *never* would have stumbled into as many different application
domains at a 9-to-5. Industries tend to be too monolithic. When
you're working in gaming, you're unlikely to interact with folks
designing medical instrumentation, etc.
OTOH, meet other people "on their own" and see what *they* are
working on, the technical problems they are encountering, etc.
and you realize how wide the application space is. (I'm always
amazed when I encounter another odd-ball industry: "So *that's*
how they make M&M's!")
>> And, of course, it's "tricky" asking questions of others without
>> "leaking information" that legally (or morally) you should preserve.
>> Often requires a fair bit of creativity coming up with "parallel"
>> examples that highlight the issues you want to address without
>> mentioning anything related specifically!
>
> I haven't had that problem so far.
I'm probably overly protective/paranoid. But, I've also seen how
easily information "leaks".
A client, many years ago, used to go to lunch at a particular
restaurant -- for the express purpose of eavesdropping on the
engineers who also ate there to hear what they were working
on, etc. Wanna bet none of those engineers ever thought that
someone was ACTIVELY doing that? :<
On 2/8/2012 8:46 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> But, the biggest win is not dealing with meetings, changing priorities,
>> office politics, etc. "My contract says *this* is what I produce. If
>> you've decided you no longer WANT that...<shrug> -- please pay at the
>> window."
>
> Collecting can be a bit of a problem then, though. And anyway, I want
> to do what's useful, not just what brings in money. Typically if
> there's a change of requirements at the other end, we work it out as
> hourly rate times time already spent, plus an estimate for completion of
> new work.
It behooves both parties to "act responsibly" as you can lose clients
just as quickly as clients can lose *talent*!
I push clients to *think* about what they want. I'm not interested in
open ended, T&M relationships. I want to know *what* you want from me
so I can decide if it is something I am interested in doing. If you
want a warm body that you can bark (different!) orders at each day,
get an employee.
>> And, of course, having a big "say" in what you WANT to work on. I'd
>> be bored at the sort of job where you are doing the same thing over
>> and over (lawn mowing). Not near enough "challenge" in that!
>
> Fortunately I've never had a job like that. I've been blessed to work
> in places where I could change fields every five years on average--being
> able to cover a lot of territory is one of the main things I have to
> offer clients.
it sends me in a different direction than the last. By far, the most
challenging ones are documentation -- especially user docs. If I
haven;t designed the product in question, I'm usually stuck trying to
establish an appropriate metaphor to rationalize an inconsistent design
in the user's mind. (This gets tricky as you can easily end up
stepping on toes)
And, my language skills aren't the greatest so it proves to be a
significant challenge!
>> I recall one client's exclamation at contract signing: "You mean if we
>> don't do it YOUR WAY you're not going to *do* it??"<grin>
>>
>> ("Hey, you're free to find someone else to do this. I'm not holding a
>> gun to your head...")
>
> Again, if the client feels mistreated, getting paid can be a problem.
> At the point you're describing, I'd probably walk.
going to approach your problem, DON'T HIRE ME! (another example of the,
"if you want an EMPLOYEE, then HIRE AN EMPLOYEE!" mentality)
>>> It does get a bit solitary sometimes, though, and it was also a bit
>>> sporty at the beginning--there were periods when the bills kept coming
>>> in but the phone didn't ring.
>>
>> The biggest downside, IMO, is having to do much of your own "support".
>> I.e., if a machine crashes, there's no one (realistically) to whom I
>> can offload the repair/rebuild job. If a new piece of software needs
>> to be selected/purchased/installed, the hours come off *my* clock.
>> The parts for prototypes and initial builds don't get ordered unless
>> *I* order them, etc. If something isn't working quite right, there's
>> no one to turn to for a "second opinion".
>
> Yup. But even more, I miss having folks who crash through my door to
> show me their latest gizmo. I find that helps my enthusiasm a lot,
> which helps my productivity a lot.
domains at a 9-to-5. Industries tend to be too monolithic. When
you're working in gaming, you're unlikely to interact with folks
designing medical instrumentation, etc.
OTOH, meet other people "on their own" and see what *they* are
working on, the technical problems they are encountering, etc.
and you realize how wide the application space is. (I'm always
amazed when I encounter another odd-ball industry: "So *that's*
how they make M&M's!")
>> And, of course, it's "tricky" asking questions of others without
>> "leaking information" that legally (or morally) you should preserve.
>> Often requires a fair bit of creativity coming up with "parallel"
>> examples that highlight the issues you want to address without
>> mentioning anything related specifically!
>
> I haven't had that problem so far.
easily information "leaks".
A client, many years ago, used to go to lunch at a particular
restaurant -- for the express purpose of eavesdropping on the
engineers who also ate there to hear what they were working
on, etc. Wanna bet none of those engineers ever thought that
someone was ACTIVELY doing that? :<
Spehro Pefhany
Feb 8, 2012, 12:38:05 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 05:39:33 -0800 (PST), the renowned Robert Macy
<robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I was at Fairchild when a top VP walked, went across the street
>started a competitive company and went back and 'stole' other top
>employees to help him. Obvously a breach of IP. Fairchild sued and
>took the man to court. In court the judge looked at the situation and
>essentially said, you never outlined to this man exactly what your IP
>was, you never had an exit interview defining what was yours, you
>never had a substantial employee agreement. You never did anything to
>protect your IP, I won't either. Case DISMISSED!
>
>Again, NDA"s and contracts aren't really for the two involved, rather
>for the third parties.
AFAIUI, courts are reluctant to enforce non-compete and IP agreements
<robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I was at Fairchild when a top VP walked, went across the street
>started a competitive company and went back and 'stole' other top
>employees to help him. Obvously a breach of IP. Fairchild sued and
>took the man to court. In court the judge looked at the situation and
>essentially said, you never outlined to this man exactly what your IP
>was, you never had an exit interview defining what was yours, you
>never had a substantial employee agreement. You never did anything to
>protect your IP, I won't either. Case DISMISSED!
>
>Again, NDA"s and contracts aren't really for the two involved, rather
>for the third parties.
when they substantially limit a party as to their ability to earn a
living. Just as well, because some NDAs are so one-sided it's almost
funny.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Spehro Pefhany
Feb 8, 2012, 12:41:29 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:31:18 -0700, the renowned Don Y
<th...@isnotme.com> wrote:
>
>And, my language skills aren't the greatest so it proves to be a
>significant challenge!
?? How do you figure that, Don? I deal several people on a daily basis
<th...@isnotme.com> wrote:
>
>And, my language skills aren't the greatest so it proves to be a
>significant challenge!
who hail respectively from Iran, mainland China, Russia and France.
Your language skills are about +120dB.
Don Y
Feb 8, 2012, 1:10:24 PM2/8/12
to
Hey Spehro! How they hanging?? :>
On 2/8/2012 10:41 AM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:31:18 -0700, the renowned Don Y
> <th...@isnotme.com> wrote:
>
>> And, my language skills aren't the greatest so it proves to be a
>> significant challenge!
>
> ?? How do you figure that, Don? I deal several people on a daily basis
> who hail respectively from Iran, mainland China, Russia and France.
> Your language skills are about +120dB.
But ENGLISH is my native tongue! :< At least *they* have an excuse!
<frown>
On a more serious note...
I find formal NON TECHNICAL writing to be very difficult. It's
easy when you are talking to someone familiar with a particular
lexicon. E.g., specifications can be incredibly *dry* and yet
"spot on" -- no ambiguity, etc.
But, when you are writing for people you will never meet and
guessing at their level of technical knowledge, you have to
find a balance between talking "down" to them and talking "above
their heads". What sort of analogy will they identify with?
Where will that analogy break down? What are they likely to
misunderstand -- and how?
How you organize the information becomes equally important.
if they don't know how -- or where -- to find what they are
looking for, the documentation has failed to meet its purpose.
(creating an effective index requires lots of imagination!
"What might a person WHO HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS <widget>
go hunting for and what terms would he/she likely use?")
And, finally, ensuring that the documentation is 100.000%
accurate and up-to-date. E.g., ensuring that all the examples
work as described, that any "screen shots" represent what
*really* is displayed in that SPECIFIC example, illustrations
agree with reality, etc.
One of the nicest compliments I got was a documentation client
stating that he'd never found a question (cust support) that
WASN'T answered in my docs!
On 2/8/2012 10:41 AM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:31:18 -0700, the renowned Don Y
> <th...@isnotme.com> wrote:
>
>> And, my language skills aren't the greatest so it proves to be a
>> significant challenge!
>
> ?? How do you figure that, Don? I deal several people on a daily basis
> who hail respectively from Iran, mainland China, Russia and France.
> Your language skills are about +120dB.
<frown>
On a more serious note...
I find formal NON TECHNICAL writing to be very difficult. It's
easy when you are talking to someone familiar with a particular
lexicon. E.g., specifications can be incredibly *dry* and yet
"spot on" -- no ambiguity, etc.
But, when you are writing for people you will never meet and
guessing at their level of technical knowledge, you have to
find a balance between talking "down" to them and talking "above
their heads". What sort of analogy will they identify with?
Where will that analogy break down? What are they likely to
misunderstand -- and how?
How you organize the information becomes equally important.
if they don't know how -- or where -- to find what they are
looking for, the documentation has failed to meet its purpose.
(creating an effective index requires lots of imagination!
"What might a person WHO HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS <widget>
go hunting for and what terms would he/she likely use?")
And, finally, ensuring that the documentation is 100.000%
accurate and up-to-date. E.g., ensuring that all the examples
work as described, that any "screen shots" represent what
*really* is displayed in that SPECIFIC example, illustrations
agree with reality, etc.
One of the nicest compliments I got was a documentation client
stating that he'd never found a question (cust support) that
WASN'T answered in my docs!
Joerg
Feb 8, 2012, 1:28:40 PM2/8/12
to
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:31:18 -0700, the renowned Don Y
> <th...@isnotme.com> wrote:
>
>> And, my language skills aren't the greatest so it proves to be a
>> significant challenge!
>
> ?? How do you figure that, Don? I deal several people on a daily basis
> who hail respectively from Iran, mainland China, Russia and France.
> Your language skills are about +120dB.
>
The real challenge comes when comments in source code are in another
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:31:18 -0700, the renowned Don Y
> <th...@isnotme.com> wrote:
>
>> And, my language skills aren't the greatest so it proves to be a
>> significant challenge!
>
> ?? How do you figure that, Don? I deal several people on a daily basis
> who hail respectively from Iran, mainland China, Russia and France.
> Your language skills are about +120dB.
>
language. I've had my share there. OTOH "programas la fuente de
corriente" sound a lot nicer than "sets the current source level".
Joerg
Feb 8, 2012, 1:37:27 PM2/8/12
to
What is so obvious about that? He offered people a job, presumably with
juicier remuneration. That's not stealing IP. Fairchild could have said
to those employees "Look, how about we'll give you $xx,xxx a year more?"
> ... Fairchild sued and
> took the man to court. In court the judge looked at the situation and
> essentially said, you never outlined to this man exactly what your IP
> was, you never had an exit interview defining what was yours, you
> never had a substantial employee agreement. You never did anything to
> protect your IP, I won't either. Case DISMISSED!
>
Even if they had done all that the case should have been dismissed.
> essentially said, you never outlined to this man exactly what your IP
> was, you never had an exit interview defining what was yours, you
> never had a substantial employee agreement. You never did anything to
> protect your IP, I won't either. Case DISMISSED!
>
Unless there was an explicit clause in some sort of retention agreement
with this top VP prohibiting him from hiring folks away.
There is, of course, a moral obligation. But the judge has to strictly
look at the legal one and nothing more.
> Again, NDA"s and contracts aren't really for the two involved, rather
> for the third parties.
divulge anything they tell me. Some details such as "Well, things really
hit the fan with this XYZ gizmo and here's what happened ..." would
become very damaging if a competitor got wind of this. So the NDA makes
sure this doesn't happen.
Phil Hobbs
Feb 8, 2012, 3:01:11 PM2/8/12
to
must be so marked, or if it's visual or oral, that I receive written
notification within 15 days. Otherwise I can't be sure that I'm abiding
by the agreement.
Passing on tittle-tattle like that is always bad news anyway.
Joerg
Feb 8, 2012, 3:44:28 PM2/8/12
to
Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 02/08/2012 01:37 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> Robert Macy wrote:
[...]
> On 02/08/2012 01:37 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> Robert Macy wrote:
>>
>>> Again, NDA"s and contracts aren't really for the two involved, rather
>>> for the third parties.
>>
>>
>> Not really. If I sign an NDA, which I do a lot, I am obliged not to
>> divulge anything they tell me. Some details such as "Well, things really
>> hit the fan with this XYZ gizmo and here's what happened ..." would
>> become very damaging if a competitor got wind of this. So the NDA makes
>> sure this doesn't happen.
>>
>
> I always insist that in order to be considered confidential, information
> must be so marked, or if it's visual or oral, that I receive written
> notification within 15 days. Otherwise I can't be sure that I'm abiding
> by the agreement.
>
> Passing on tittle-tattle like that is always bad news anyway.
>
hit the fan, big time, and my phone rings. Then it becomes inevitable
that tons of info cross the table. Essentially I have to (virtually) sit
down with the guys and quizz them just like an investigator. In order
to get to the ground of things. Without such info I can't help them and
they know that. It is totally impractical to mark individual snippets of
such information confidential. Why should we even have to if there's an
NDA in place?
If you talk with your attorney it's the same thing. He'll ask you a lot
of sometimes personal questions and you trust that absolutely nothing
leaves that room. My clients trust me that way as well.
Phil Hobbs
Feb 8, 2012, 4:11:13 PM2/8/12
to
Being trustworthy is one thing, and being vulnerable to a lawsuit is
another. I won't sign an NDA without that provision, unless it's in an
area I have no interest in (such as the courts' protective orders for
expert witness gigs).
I don't blab my clients' info, so they're safe as far as I'm concerned,
but if they insist that everything they tell me be confidential, it puts
me in the position of having to prove that I already knew anything that
I subsequently write about. For an author, that's just about like your
emitter follower example.
Spehro Pefhany
Feb 8, 2012, 6:41:44 PM2/8/12
to
Venezuelan programmer (and I know almost no Spanish). Fortunately, his
coding style was similar to mine, and I understood the functionality,
so I could pretty much guess what he was going to say.
Joerg
Feb 8, 2012, 6:45:36 PM2/8/12
to
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:28:40 -0800, the renowned Joerg
> <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:31:18 -0700, the renowned Don Y
>>> <th...@isnotme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And, my language skills aren't the greatest so it proves to be a
>>>> significant challenge!
>>> ?? How do you figure that, Don? I deal several people on a daily basis
>>> who hail respectively from Iran, mainland China, Russia and France.
>>> Your language skills are about +120dB.
>>>
>> The real challenge comes when comments in source code are in another
>> language. I've had my share there. OTOH "programas la fuente de
>> corriente" sound a lot nicer than "sets the current source level".
>
> Yup, a couple years ago I had to update some cryptic code written by a
> Venezuelan programmer (and I know almost no Spanish). Fortunately, his
> coding style was similar to mine, and I understood the functionality,
> so I could pretty much guess what he was going to say.
>
Sometimes it gets tougher. A long time ago I had to plow through a thick
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:28:40 -0800, the renowned Joerg
> <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:31:18 -0700, the renowned Don Y
>>> <th...@isnotme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And, my language skills aren't the greatest so it proves to be a
>>>> significant challenge!
>>> ?? How do you figure that, Don? I deal several people on a daily basis
>>> who hail respectively from Iran, mainland China, Russia and France.
>>> Your language skills are about +120dB.
>>>
>> The real challenge comes when comments in source code are in another
>> language. I've had my share there. OTOH "programas la fuente de
>> corriente" sound a lot nicer than "sets the current source level".
>
> Yup, a couple years ago I had to update some cryptic code written by a
> Venezuelan programmer (and I know almost no Spanish). Fortunately, his
> coding style was similar to mine, and I understood the functionality,
> so I could pretty much guess what he was going to say.
>
write-up about a DSP circuit. Someone was supposed to re-write it in
English but they hadn't gotten around to it yet. It was all in Norwegian.
Don Y
Feb 8, 2012, 6:45:48 PM2/8/12
to
Hi Joerg,
On 2/8/2012 11:28 AM, Joerg wrote:
> The real challenge comes when comments in source code are in another
> language. I've had my share there. OTOH "programas la fuente de
> corriente" sound a lot nicer than "sets the current source level".
Read the code, not the comments! Never trust the comments to
actually agree with the code :-/
"*This* is what the code is doing -- regardless of what you
*claim* it SHOULD be doing!" :>
On 2/8/2012 11:28 AM, Joerg wrote:
> The real challenge comes when comments in source code are in another
> language. I've had my share there. OTOH "programas la fuente de
> corriente" sound a lot nicer than "sets the current source level".
actually agree with the code :-/
"*This* is what the code is doing -- regardless of what you
*claim* it SHOULD be doing!" :>
Spehro Pefhany
Feb 8, 2012, 6:51:20 PM2/8/12
to
..and it doesn't even have to be someone else's code.
Don Y
Feb 8, 2012, 6:55:39 PM2/8/12
to
Hi Spehro,
On 2/8/2012 4:51 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> Read the code, not the comments! Never trust the comments to
>> actually agree with the code :-/
>>
>> "*This* is what the code is doing -- regardless of what you
>> *claim* it SHOULD be doing!" :>
>
> LOL. Yeah, knowing _english_ has bitten me a few times that way.
>
> ...and it doesn't even have to be someone else's code.
Caught "debugging the comments"... :<
"Gee, and it *still* doesn't work..."
On 2/8/2012 4:51 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> Read the code, not the comments! Never trust the comments to
>> actually agree with the code :-/
>>
>> "*This* is what the code is doing -- regardless of what you
>> *claim* it SHOULD be doing!" :>
>
> LOL. Yeah, knowing _english_ has bitten me a few times that way.
>
Caught "debugging the comments"... :<
"Gee, and it *still* doesn't work..."
Joerg
Feb 8, 2012, 7:07:08 PM2/8/12
to
diagnostic purposes. It kind of helps to know comments such as "this
controls clutch #3 after piston #2 has built up 60psi", without having
to reverse engineer a barrage of intertwined variables.
Don Y
Feb 8, 2012, 7:23:18 PM2/8/12
to
Hi Joerg,
On 2/8/2012 5:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>> The real challenge comes when comments in source code are in another
>>> language. I've had my share there. OTOH "programas la fuente de
>>> corriente" sound a lot nicer than "sets the current source level".
>>
>> Read the code, not the comments! Never trust the comments to
>> actually agree with the code :-/
>>
>> "*This* is what the code is doing -- regardless of what you
>> *claim* it SHOULD be doing!" :>
>
> I am not a code writer or firmware guy so I only need to look at it for
> diagnostic purposes. It kind of helps to know comments such as "this
> controls clutch #3 after piston #2 has built up 60psi", without having
> to reverse engineer a barrage of intertwined variables.
Understood. Just be KEENLY aware that you are at the mercy of
the coder's diligence in ensuring the code actually does what
the comments *claim*! I can't count the number of times
Ive been asked to help someone figure out why there code isn't
working -- only to end up informing them that the comments
that they are "following" don't describe what the code is
actually *doing*.
("I know what you *think* it's doing -- but that's not what you
*told* it to do!")
Then, of course, you get the ridiculous comments like:
count++; // add one
<frown>
On 2/8/2012 5:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>> The real challenge comes when comments in source code are in another
>>> language. I've had my share there. OTOH "programas la fuente de
>>> corriente" sound a lot nicer than "sets the current source level".
>>
>> Read the code, not the comments! Never trust the comments to
>> actually agree with the code :-/
>>
>> "*This* is what the code is doing -- regardless of what you
>> *claim* it SHOULD be doing!" :>
>
> I am not a code writer or firmware guy so I only need to look at it for
> diagnostic purposes. It kind of helps to know comments such as "this
> controls clutch #3 after piston #2 has built up 60psi", without having
> to reverse engineer a barrage of intertwined variables.
the coder's diligence in ensuring the code actually does what
the comments *claim*! I can't count the number of times
Ive been asked to help someone figure out why there code isn't
working -- only to end up informing them that the comments
that they are "following" don't describe what the code is
actually *doing*.
("I know what you *think* it's doing -- but that's not what you
*told* it to do!")
Then, of course, you get the ridiculous comments like:
count++; // add one
<frown>
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Feb 8, 2012, 8:05:52 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:38:05 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 05:39:33 -0800 (PST), the renowned Robert Macy
><robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I was at Fairchild when a top VP walked, went across the street
>>started a competitive company and went back and 'stole' other top
>>employees to help him. Obvously a breach of IP. Fairchild sued and
>>took the man to court. In court the judge looked at the situation and
>>essentially said, you never outlined to this man exactly what your IP
>>was, you never had an exit interview defining what was yours, you
>>never had a substantial employee agreement. You never did anything to
>>protect your IP, I won't either. Case DISMISSED!
>>
>>Again, NDA"s and contracts aren't really for the two involved, rather
>>for the third parties.
>
>AFAIUI, courts are reluctant to enforce non-compete and IP agreements
>when they substantially limit a party as to their ability to earn a
>living.
AIUI, unless there is some consideration (lotsa $$) for the non-compete,
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 05:39:33 -0800 (PST), the renowned Robert Macy
><robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I was at Fairchild when a top VP walked, went across the street
>>started a competitive company and went back and 'stole' other top
>>employees to help him. Obvously a breach of IP. Fairchild sued and
>>took the man to court. In court the judge looked at the situation and
>>essentially said, you never outlined to this man exactly what your IP
>>was, you never had an exit interview defining what was yours, you
>>never had a substantial employee agreement. You never did anything to
>>protect your IP, I won't either. Case DISMISSED!
>>
>>Again, NDA"s and contracts aren't really for the two involved, rather
>>for the third parties.
>
>AFAIUI, courts are reluctant to enforce non-compete and IP agreements
>when they substantially limit a party as to their ability to earn a
>living.
courts simply won't enforce a non-compete for anyone other than senior
management or owners, and then it's a toss-up (mainly because of the $$
involved).
>Just as well, because some NDAs are so one-sided it's almost funny.
Spehro Pefhany
Feb 8, 2012, 9:15:54 PM2/8/12
to
regarding this sort of thing and a contractor .. "<chortle> he
actually signed it!".. then the technical guys wonder why real
companies won't bother returning their phone calls.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Feb 8, 2012, 9:46:28 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:15:54 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
A contract that is completely one-sided is not a contract at all (by
definition). It wouldn't have a chance of standing up in court. Until it
gets thrown out by a judge, it is a piece of paper though.
definition). It wouldn't have a chance of standing up in court. Until it
gets thrown out by a judge, it is a piece of paper though.
Phil Hobbs
Feb 8, 2012, 9:56:37 PM2/8/12
to
butterfly effect.
Spehro Pefhany
Feb 8, 2012, 10:00:20 PM2/8/12
to
not sure that the consideration has to be in any way reasonable.. if
it's not made under duress and made with a competent party... think of
all those agreements that involve the payment of just $1. But IANAL.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Feb 8, 2012, 10:40:36 PM2/8/12
to
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Feb 8, 2012, 10:43:03 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:00:20 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:46:28 -0500, the renowned
>"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>
>>A contract that is completely one-sided is not a contract at all (by
>>definition). It wouldn't have a chance of standing up in court. Until it
>>gets thrown out by a judge, it is a piece of paper though.
>
>There's a quid pro quo requirement for a contract to be valid, but I'm
>not sure that the consideration has to be in any way reasonable.. if
>it's not made under duress and made with a competent party... think of
>all those agreements that involve the payment of just $1. But IANAL.
It does have to be "reasonable" (if it isn't, there couldn't have been a
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:46:28 -0500, the renowned
>"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>
>>A contract that is completely one-sided is not a contract at all (by
>>definition). It wouldn't have a chance of standing up in court. Until it
>>gets thrown out by a judge, it is a piece of paper though.
>
>There's a quid pro quo requirement for a contract to be valid, but I'm
>not sure that the consideration has to be in any way reasonable.. if
>it's not made under duress and made with a competent party... think of
>all those agreements that involve the payment of just $1. But IANAL.
"meeting of the minds"; one side had an unreasonable advantage. That (the
interpretation of "reasonable"), in itself, is the problem, though.
Michael A. Terrell
Feb 9, 2012, 4:58:29 AM2/9/12
to
Joerg wrote:
>
> That's key, multiple client. I know a lot of folks who are hopping from
> one contract to another. That's not my thing. I am more like a dentist.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
Joerg
Feb 9, 2012, 11:03:45 AM2/9/12
to
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> Joerg wrote:
>> That's key, multiple client. I know a lot of folks who are hopping from
>> one contract to another. That's not my thing. I am more like a dentist.
>
>
> You make shrill noises and love to cause pain? )
>
Sometimes I do make shrill noises, with the Dremel on tough EMC cases.
> Joerg wrote:
>> That's key, multiple client. I know a lot of folks who are hopping from
>> one contract to another. That's not my thing. I am more like a dentist.
>
>
> You make shrill noises and love to cause pain? )
>
But no pain. Dentists don't like to cause pain either, ours actually
always offers a prescription after major work, where he thinks some
serious pain may linger after the numbing wears off. But I usually decline.
John Larkin
Feb 9, 2012, 11:36:43 AM2/9/12
to
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:03:45 -0800, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
My dentist told me that, without novacaine, he couldn't be a dentist.
Opiates are wonderful drugs. They really make pain go away.
--
John Larkin, President Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
wrote:
Opiates are wonderful drugs. They really make pain go away.
--
John Larkin, President Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
Michael A. Terrell
Feb 9, 2012, 6:00:40 PM2/9/12
to
John Larkin wrote:
>
> My dentist told me that, without novacaine, he couldn't be a dentist.
>
> Opiates are wonderful drugs. They really make pain go away.
mouth? ;-)
Phil Hobbs
Feb 9, 2012, 6:02:25 PM2/9/12
to
On 02/09/2012 06:00 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> My dentist told me that, without novacaine, he couldn't be a dentist.
>>
>> Opiates are wonderful drugs. They really make pain go away.
>
>
> Do you really want a thoroughly numbed dentist drilling in your
> mouth? ;-)
>
>
Those ones are okay. It's the ones wearing trifocals that you have to
>
> John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> My dentist told me that, without novacaine, he couldn't be a dentist.
>>
>> Opiates are wonderful drugs. They really make pain go away.
>
>
> Do you really want a thoroughly numbed dentist drilling in your
> mouth? ;-)
>
>
worry about. :(
Michael A. Terrell
Feb 9, 2012, 6:03:01 PM2/9/12
to
after. Or multiple four hour sessions of oral surgery, then going on to
work an eight hour shift while spitting blood at regular intervals. You
can't take them if you are driving, and you sure don't want to be
working wirh HV on painkillers.
John Larkin
Feb 9, 2012, 7:36:08 PM2/9/12
to
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:00:40 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> My dentist told me that, without novacaine, he couldn't be a dentist.
>>
>> Opiates are wonderful drugs. They really make pain go away.
>
>
> Do you really want a thoroughly numbed dentist drilling in your
>mouth? ;-)
I did hear of one dentist that pushed the needle clear out a patient's
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> My dentist told me that, without novacaine, he couldn't be a dentist.
>>
>> Opiates are wonderful drugs. They really make pain go away.
>
>
> Do you really want a thoroughly numbed dentist drilling in your
>mouth? ;-)
cheek and anathsesized his own thumb.
--
John Larkin, President
Highland Technology, Inc
jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation
Michael A. Terrell
Feb 9, 2012, 10:17:46 PM2/9/12
to
Phil Hobbs wrote:
>
> On 02/09/2012 06:00 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> > John Larkin wrote:
> >>
> >> My dentist told me that, without novacaine, he couldn't be a dentist.
> >>
> >> Opiates are wonderful drugs. They really make pain go away.
> >
> >
> > Do you really want a thoroughly numbed dentist drilling in your
> > mouth? ;-)
> >
> >
>
> Those ones are okay. It's the ones wearing trifocals that you have to
> worry about. :(
your mouth?
Michael A. Terrell
Feb 9, 2012, 10:18:20 PM2/9/12
to
John Larkin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:00:40 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Larkin wrote:
> >>
> >> My dentist told me that, without novacaine, he couldn't be a dentist.
> >>
> >> Opiates are wonderful drugs. They really make pain go away.
> >
> >
> > Do you really want a thoroughly numbed dentist drilling in your
> >mouth? ;-)
>
> I did hear of one dentist that pushed the needle clear out a patient's
> cheek and anathsesized his own thumb.
Robert Macy
Feb 10, 2012, 11:55:44 AM2/10/12
to
On Feb 9, 8:17 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
An extremely useful reference book, Westinghouse Lighting Handbook ...
For comparison
surgery lighting is around 2,000 lumens and a 'bright' office for
drafting is around 200 lumens.
wrote:
For comparison
surgery lighting is around 2,000 lumens and a 'bright' office for
drafting is around 200 lumens.
Phil Hobbs
Feb 10, 2012, 12:20:46 PM2/10/12
to
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
(*) Everybody seems to be raving about the Samsung LED bulb that
produces 550 lumens for $20 and 10 watts. A good quality 100W
soft-white tungsten bulb produces 1690 lumens, so I'd need three of the
LED bulbs per lamp to get the same amount of light to read by. That's
$60 and 30 watts, besides needing big clunky lamps. Not quite so
compelling as the fanfolk would have us believe.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Feb 10, 2012, 8:34:34 PM2/10/12
to
0 new messages