Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

And the same quality translation of a commentary by Lynwood Investments CY Ltd, the company which initiated the case, given to the online magazine The Bell [0]:

The Rambler Internet Holding (edit: it's legal name is Rambler Group LLC) company found that it's exclusive rights on NGINX web server, which was developed by it's employees with use of corporate resources, were violated by third parties. The company gave the right for infringment claims to Lynwood Investments CY Ltd (named A&NN Holdings Limited at the time of the deal), which has a competence in this type of cases.

Lynwood Investments CY Ltd had appealed to law enforcement bodies for the evalution of this situation. They recognized Rambler Internet Holding as victim of actions by unidentified violators (sic!) and initiated a criminal case.

Lynwood Investments CY Ltd would not comment the case until the court's decision. Wherein we would try to restore the justice with all ways possible and we reserve right to file lawsuits in any jurisdiction where it's needed to protect our interests.

[0]https://t.me/thebell_io/4315 (NB: yes, Telegram)

The commentary[0] of Igor Ashmanov, who was CEO of Rambler when they hired Sysoev, on the document in tweet:

Sysoev was developing in his work time, in the office, with company's equipment. (quote from the order: edit)

1. Bullshit. There isn't anything on that in our laws. You have to very accurately prove that there was an assignment on that. "In his work time" or "with company's equipment" - doesn't work. Everything's allowed - and IP is within authors.

2. Besides, when I hired Sysoev - it was in 2000 - we have talk specifically that he had his pet project and he'd have the right to work on it. It was called "mod_accel" or something, he renamed it in 2001-2002.

I can make a statement about that in court, if needed. And my partner in my companies, Dmitriy Pashko, then-CTO of Rambler, could, I think.

3. He had worked as a system administrator. Software development wasn't in his responsibilities at all.

4. I think, Rambler cannot provide any paper, more so an assignment, on development of a web server.

I asked our advocate, ..., to look what's going on. The lawyers of Runa Capital (edit: early investors of Nginx Inc.) already work in the case, so probably our help wouldn't be necessary.

I think, skunks would fail.


edit: link to the source

Thanks for providing some actual information in a thread rife with speculation.

Not sure I would buy that system administrator's don't write code and writing a webserver which is closely related to a sysads job.

Ironic thing here is that it probably doesn't matter because Russian law regarding copyright assignment is very different and much more employee-friendly than the US law. It will be interesting to see how the case develops but my understanding is that unless there was a very specific and documented work assignment from his boss to write nginx code, the copyright still belongs to Igor even if it was developed on the company equipment and on company time.

But its a trade secrets, breach of contract case.

I am surprised Russian law is that pro employee - would wreak havoc for offshoring

> I am surprised Russian law is that pro employee - would wreak havoc for offshoring

I think it only seems that way because we're so used to the US model where software you develop in your spare time at home with your own equipment might still be owned by your employer or even a university (even if you're just an undergraduate student already paying many tens of thousands in tuition fees). I read a few IP policies over the years, and, if they are to be believed, apparently, even if you're simply using WiFi to work on your student project in a university building, they may claim to own the whole copyright and patent rights to any resulting work; I don't quite understand how everyone else doesn't find it as demotivating as I do.

If you look at the actual reasons for Rambler not owning nginx — this situation is actually better for offshoring because anything developed for the client per the spec would be owned by the client, yet anything that employees work on in their own time, they could package as their own offering (e.g., separate packages and/or modules) and ramp-up work for more than one client without violating anyone's IP rights.

TBH, I don't actually understand how software craftsmanship consulting is supposed to work in the US. As an IC SWE consultant, I was negotiating a nginx consulting project with one relatively big company, and the sample MSA I got from them basically would have precluded me from ever working on nginx again had I signed it as-is. I think it's really amazing how more folk don't get sued in the US for these sorts of things; I can only imagine that it's merely for lack of trying on part of most of these corporations, not for lack of standing (unless all these terms everyone agrees to are somehow unenforceable in reality).

> would wreak havoc for offshoring

Why? I would actually expect offshore development to be the least problematic - typically there is a spec and agreed-upon set of deliverables and the rights to these deliverables are cleanly transferred. It is the common employment situation where your boss tells you your objectives in more or less vague terms which is more muddled.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact