Is a document signed using software considered legally binding? To clarify, I am asking if the following two scenarios are essentially equivalent from the legal perspective of signing an employment contract. I suspect I may be splitting hairs, but am curious nonetheless. Usual scenario: I print the contract on paper, I sign using a pen, I give a copy to the relevant company representative (and sometime later receive a copy of the contract with the company signature added). Proposed scenario: I sign the contract using software (such as PDF Annotator), print the 'signed' document and give the printout to the relevant company representative (and presumably receive a copy of the signed document later). There is nothing contentious involved nor any question about my intent to agree to terms. This would be using either California or Michigan law in the USA. The purpose is to simplify my life from a paperwork perspective. This is not about electronic signatures but about whether a signed (on the computer) and printed document is as valid as a printed and signed document. (The only relevant question I could find is Is a touch screen signature considered an electronic signature?, but this is asking if such a signature is an electronic signature, which it is not.)
Those two situations should be legally equivalent. The key thing is that you intend to agree to the contract, and are taking physical steps that are intended to manifest your agreement. If you had added an electronic signature to the PDF file, and transmitted this to the company, it should also be legally equivalent, and just as binding as the pen and paper method.
the first two highlighted parts seem to contradict each other. No, in this case they do not. The first highlighted portion refers to works or items produced "for or under the direction of the Company", whereas the second highlight refers to your creations that satisfy conditions (a) and (b). Where contradictions actually exist, the doctrine of contra proferentem entitles you (the non-draftsman of the contract) to adopt the portion or reasonable interpretation that favors your legal position. Also wondering how valid those statements actually are They are valid and become enforceable as soon as you sign the contract or your subsequent conduct reflects your acceptance thereof. it's a matter of privacy. So the question is what I can do or what the reality is of the situation The reality is that you are asked to sign a contract that is abusive and ridiculous. One vulnerability from describing your inventions (presumably in Appendix A) is that the employer gets "irrevocable, worldwide, etc" rights on them as soon as you "use or disclose any [items listed in Appendix A] when acting within the scope of [your] employment". This means that if instead of reinventing the wheel you share or apply any portion of your prior creations so as to enhance your productivity, you knowingly and irreversibly grant to the employer perpetual rights to those items. Legal disputes regarding APIs can become extremely intricate. And, since judges usually have no decent background on IT, even those few judges with integrity are unlikely to grasp the key subtleties that would lead to a correct ruling. "not useful with or related to any Company Interest" is very vague. The company could be interested in literally anything these days. Clauses which are too vague or excessively wide-encompassing are supposedly stricken as unconscionable, unenforceable, etc. However, I personally would foreclose upfront the risk of judicial hassle and decline the abusive contract. Legal issues aside, keep in mind that you are offering your expertise (in terms of supply &amp; demand, you are on the supply side). This fact has a less derogatory connotation than "asking for a job". Accordingly, the relation between the parties should be more leveled.
Short Answer Is there any realistic situation where a court decision might hinge on producing the original physical paper certificate? Yes. But there are alternative options to prove the same thing, even then. A copyright registration certificate is not like a dollar bill or an original promissory note, where a copy isn't as good as the original, even though it can be slightly convenient to have the original in hand. Or are they just souvenirs that I can safely shred? If you scan them and then shred them, nothing horrible will happen. In the rare worst case scenario where the fact of your registration is disputed by a stubborn defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit all of the way up to trial, you could get a replacement certified copy from the Copyright Registrar, or you could prove your registration with other evidence. Long Answer Registration is not required for a copyright to come into being in U.S. law. 17 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 408(a). But it is a condition precedent (i.e. a requirement that must be met prior to taking action) to certain legal remedies. 17 U.S.C. § 412. So, proving your registration is usually one element of your infringement claim in a typical copyright infringement lawsuit. In that lawsuit, if you actually go to trial, you need to prove that the copyright was registered in a timely fashion, if the other side won't stipulate to that fact. But it would be rare for a defendant who had been presented with a copy to insist that the fact of registration be proven at trial because being that stubborn is likely to piss off the judge unless they can successfully prove that you have faked your claim to have a registered copyright, which is something that almost no intelligent lawyer in a copyright infringement lawsuit wants to do, since judges have broad discretion on so many issues, even in a jury trial. The easiest way to prove the fact that your copyright was registered on a particular date is to offer up a certified government document like the ones that you have in your office into evidence as an exhibit (typically, one of your very first exhibits in your infringement case). This is because an official government certificate is exempt from the hearsay rule, is &quot;self-authenticating&quot; ,and its contents are admissible if not barred by another rule of evidence (which it almost never would be). The legal reason for keeping these paper documents is to get that evidentiary benefit at trial. See Federal Rules of Evidence 803(8) (exceptions to the hearsay rule), 902 (self-authentication) and 1005 (admissibility of public records). Of course, mostly, these fancy certificates are issued as a matter of pride and ego and customer satisfaction. Prior to an actual trial or evidentiary hearing in a copyright infringement lawsuit, a copy, supported by your declaration under penalty of perjury that the copy isn't a fake, would be the usual way to establish your registration in documents that are e-filed through the federal electronic e-filing service called CM/ECF rather than presented in person on paper anyway. Typically, pretrial document disclosure is done via an electronic transmission of scanned copies as well. In practice, it would be quite rare for a defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit to insist that you prove up your registration at trial, rather than just stipulating to it. Indeed, it is you who might not want to stipulate in a jury trial, just so you can flash an important looking document in front of the jurors right at the start of the trial for dramatic effect. But you don't have to do that. Ultimately, if the defendant really did insist on proof of your registration, you could get a new certified copy from the Copyright Registrar (which wouldn't be quite as pretty, but would have the same legal effect) for a small fee without too much advanced notice, or you could introduce your scanned copy into evidence and authenticate it through, for example, your testimony on the stand under oath that you scanned the original and that it is a true and correct copy of the original. You also might want to keep a paper copy because it will still be around if all of the relevant electronic records are destroyed or inaccessible for some reason. But if that happens, copyright infringement may be the least of your worries.
is contract text itself subject to copyright? What are my options? It largely depends on the originality of your contract. C &amp; J Management Corp. v. Anderson, 707 F.Supp.2d 858, 862 (2009) points to multiple references against preclusion of "a copyrightable interest in a contract". But you would need to prove that your competitor copied "original elements" of your contract including "a minimum degree of creativity and originality required to support a valid copyright". See Donald v. Uarco Business Forms, 478 F.2d 764, 766 (1973). Your post provides no information that would help identifying or ruling out this issue in your matter. Without realizing, you might have paid dearly for boilerplate language that your lawyer copied from somewhere else. Indeed, there is so much regurgitation and copy/pasting in the legal "profession" (judges included, as is notorious in judicial opinions they release and in the similarities --verbatim-- among the procedure law of many, many U.S. jurisdictions). That regurgitation is not bad in and of itself, though, since what matters is the expeditious administration of justice and the protection of your rights, rather than obtaining creative expressions authored by some lawyer. You might end up wasting valuable energy and money if you went after the competitor for something like this without first assessing the extent of originality in your contract. Focus instead on the much more detrimental fact that your competitor "plays dirty in general".
Contracts are generally assignable, meaning that one company can assign their rights, duties and obligations under the contract. Assignment may be specifically barred by the contract, or it may have certain terms (prior written consent, etc.) attached, but if not, a contract is likely freely assignable. Though a contract is not necessarily "automatically transferred" the reason Company C buys Company A is for its ability to earn Company C over time, which includes the contract between A &amp; B. So unless the original contract has a "no assignments clause" or if an assignment is otherwise impossible or illegal, it is likely that A can freely assign the contract to C.
Is a text message legally binding? Yes, but the terms of the message need to be clear enough to ascertain the parties' intent at the formation of that contract or agreement. A contract does not even need to be in writing. There are also oral contracts and implied contracts, the latter referring to contracts which are inferred from the parties' conduct. A contract such as the agreement you describe here is binding regardless of its form. It is just easier to prove the existence of a contract if it is in writing. You did not specify your jurisdiction. If it is in the US, the price tag --rather than the downpayment-- of the object of the contract (i.e., the puppy you intend to buy) determines whether your complaint would need to be filed in Small Claims court. Generally speaking, parties to a dispute in Small Claims court have to represent themselves. Two remarks are pertinent. First, developing writing skills is utmost important not only for litigating a dispute, but also during the process of formulating the terms and conditions of a contract/agreement. Your post indicates that you seriously need to work on that. Second, the end of your post reflects that one of your managers violated labor law(s), which to most of us would be more worrisome than the controversy about the puppy. Legislation in most or all jurisdictions outlaws the act of withholding an employee's compensation regardless of its form (salary, commissions, and so forth). You might want to gain acquaintance with the labor laws of your jurisdiction so you can assess whether or how to proceed (does legislation require the employee to "exhaust administrative remedies" prior to filing in court? are administrative remedies optional? do these exist at all?), even if only to ascertain whether the deadline for filing the corresponding claim has elapsed.
Your GPL example detracts from the question: see this recent answer. Setting aside GPL-specific conditions, the legal underpinning of software licensing is copyright law, whereby copying source code or an executable is only allowed with the permission of the copyright holder. There are two partial exceptions: "fair use" (generally not relevant to software), and a specific statutory permission to copy software in particular ways (making a backup, plus the act of executing software which requires copying from disk to memory). The latter permission only applies if you have legally acquired a copy of the software. Which explains why nobody sells copies of software, they sell a license to use software (a subtle, legalistic distinction, which is essential to modern software qua business). The terms of the license say what you may and may not do: if you violate the terms, you do not have permission to copy the software, and are liable for copyright infringement. One limit on the terms is that they cannot take away a right that you already have by copyright law (e.g. "fair use" cannot be negated by a license term). Another limit is that the terms have to be consistent with contract law, hence the license cannot include a human centipede obligation – or, "all your stuff belong to us". When a contract is ambiguous, the ambiguity is construed against the writer, and that is also so with software licenses. Also like the situation with contracts, the terms have to be legal, that is, cannot deny some right or requirement encoded in law. There is a legal requirement that disclaimers have to be "prominent", and that holds of license terms. As for "tricking" a person, that's not supposed to happen, with a proper license. If you put stuff out there and say nothing, nobody has been given permission to copy the item. You can make it available to a specific named person, but that is limited to one person, thus a license includes language allowing anyone to copy, but also requiring that the license be retained with any subsequent copies. Hence B copies from A, and sees the license; B may share with C (assuming a decent license) but must include that or substantially equivalent license; and so on. A problem arises if B redistributes without original license, substituting a bogus license. When C copies, that copying is not done with the permission (implied or express) of A, and C could be open to legal consequences. B is also clearly open to consequences, since re-distribution with the self-perpetuating license is a violation of the terms of A's condition grant of permission. Ignorance of the true ownership of copyright is no excuse, and there is no general innocent-infringement exception to copyright law in the US. However, the part of copyright law that talks about remedies for infringement, 17 USC 504(b)(2) lessens the burden on the innocent infringer: In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. Still, not zero. I don't see how adding some NOPs would make it impossible to prove that you have a copy of someone else's IP. Perhaps it's not a trivial, but still quite possible.
Yes. The license itself is really just one sentence long, and states explicitly that this is allowed. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.