Who, at a company, is allowed to release code under (open source) license? Suppose I wanted to release some code I wrote for my employer as an open source project, who at the company would be allowed to do that in the eyes of the law? I ask about open source, but I suppose the question is more general than that: who is allowed to license work that a company owns? My first thought is that the owner would have to do that, but then I realized that many companies don't have sole owners, and people in the company (such as managers) buy/sell assets that the company owns all the time, so it seems that employees have certain authorities to manage company property. How does that work with intellectual property?
The internal organizational documents and practices of the company would determine this in terms of actual authority and would vary from company to company even within the same jurisdiction of organization and entity type. For example, one company might give that authority to the general counsel, another to the corporate secretary, a third to the Vice President for Information Technology, and a fourth to their Chief Innovation Officer, yet another might allow any officer of the company to do so, or might allow any employee of the company to do so. Usually, the more often a company does something and the more routine it is to do that, the lower down in the organization the authority is allocated. Anyone who appeared to have the authority to do so to a reasonably third-party, however, could bind the company even if they didn't actually have the authority to do so.
Assuming none of these terms are defined elsewhere in the contract: A third party is a party (a person or company) that is neither you nor the other party to the contract (here, presumably the company that hired you). Since GitHub is neither you nor the company, it would therefore be a third party, and thus it would in fact violate that contract as written to upload the company's code there. Keep in mind that GitHub is not an autonomous system with no humans involved; it's run by a company of people, many of whom could theoretically access the code in private repositories. That said, from a practical standpoint, most companies aren't going to fire someone for a mistake made in good faith, especially if actual disclosure to any humans is rather unlikely. However, do remember that we don't know the company's rules, what training you may have received, what exactly you uploaded, or what regulatory/contractual rules they must comply with. Any of that could affect their decision-making, so you should take this as a general answer and use your own judgement when applying it to your situation.
You cannot use a patented invention without permission A patent gives the owner exclusive rights to use it: not just profit from it. The only way you can use their patent is by licensing it. You cannot make any version of the software that uses the patented method, free or otherwise. Technically, the software you have now is infringing even if you never release it. If you had published your work before they filed for the patent, you can seek to have their patent invalidated due to the existence of prior art. If you had been using it privately prior to this some jurisdictions will allow you to keep using it privately.
The requirement to make the code publicly available is binding on Olio, and on Olio's successor, Flex. Olio, by accepting the code under the GPL, had contracted with the original author of that code, one of the contract provisions being to make any modified code available publicly. If Olio fails to abide by that agreement, it is in violation of the license, and the original author could sue Olio for copyright infringement, or sue Flex as having bought the assets and liabilities. But the individual employees of Olio are not under any obligation to publish such modified code, as they were presumably not parties to the license deal -- Olio was. Therefore the NDA does not require them to violate any law or contract to which they might be parties. The NDA could probably not be used to prevent the employees from testifying if called in such a copyright suit. If the NDA did require an illegal action, it would be void. If it merely required a person to violate a civil agreement that could be settled for money, it might or might not be enforceable, depending on the exact provisions, its reasonableness under the exact circumstances, and the local law.
Unless you have a legally valid IP right related to the specification that statement is meaningless. When a software license is granted it is based on the copyright of the code. The copyright of the spec. just stops people from copying the spec - it does not protect the information in it. You can restrict copying of the spec. under copyright, you can make up a name for the spec (like USB or Bluetooth) and get a trademark and only allow the trademark use in limited cases(doesn’t stop implementation of the spec), or get a patent that would be necessarily infringed if something complying with the spec was created and used, sold, made, etc. or you can keep it secret and only show it to people who contractually agreed with your terms.
A copyright can be divided into as many pieces as the owners choose. Initially, all authors have a share m(an equal share unless they have an agreement on some other share arrangement), But each author (or later owner) can leave the copyright to multiple heirs, in equal or unequal shares. Each owner can sell all or part of the copyright (or usage rights) to one or more new owners. Under US law, any co-owner may permit a copy (or copies) to be made, or may grant a non-exclusive license. However, the co-owner doing this must account to the other co-owners for any profits made, and share them according to whatever agreement the co-owners may have (by share if there is no other agreement). But to grant an exclusive license, all co-owners must agree. The law in many other countries is different. In some countries, a majority of owners (by share usually) must agree to grant even a non-exclusive license. The co-owners may make an agreement to limit granting of licenses to some particular owner or representative or to require wider consent than a single co-owner.
Licencing agreements The company producing these has successfully negotiated a licencing agreement with the IP holder to use the IP. These are extremely common. Subcontracting They have actually been commissioned by the IP holder to make these things for the IP holder e.g. for the IP holder to sell in their own outlets. As part of that agreement, they are also allowed to sell on their own behalf. Piracy They are breaking the law and hope they will be undetected, not worth prosecuting or operate out of pirate jurisdictions which will not enforce foreign judgements.
Depends if the artist is a contractor or an employee Let's say I am the person who created Spiderman, but my artist came up with the design of the costume and everything Well, it certainly looks like you didn’t create Spider-Man - the artist did. If they are your employee then you, as their employer, own the copyright. If they are a contractor, then they own the copyright which can be transferred to you under the terms of the contract or otherwise. What if the design was written in paper and then the concept artist represented the written design graphically, does that make any difference? Not really. Here the artist has created a derivative work but since they did so with your permission, that’s fine. The derivative work is a seperate work with its own copyright owned as stated above. How can you make sure you don't face this problem if you hire an artist for your work? You set out in the contract who owns the copyright.