Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Should a 'no side projects' policy be taken seriously?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 71 posts

Ask HN: Should a 'no side projects' policy be taken seriously?

#1

Post by throwaway9195 »

My employment contract says the following:

  "The rights to any intellectual property created by employee during his work shall be transferred to employer in full."
  "The employee shall shall not be allowed to provide any services to another company and not to run any other business"
And the boss is defensive about the first part applying to anything created in the spare time as well, also refusing to make exceptions.

Is this sort of thing actually enforceable?

What would the process look like if I released a "competing" app independently, and the company wanted to take it down?

Or if they wanted to claim ownership over unrelated media, like a github repository?

I'm living in Cyprus. Does this mean I should be much less afraid of getting sued than if I were in the US?

Re: Ask HN: Should a 'no side projects' policy be taken seriously?

#3

Post by iExploder »

I'm not a lawyer, but first clause and it's variations are common in contracts and it's ment to protect the rights of company for IP developed at work.

It definitely is not ment to apply to things u do in your free time. As long as you do your stuff on your own hardware, it does not relate to IP or source code your employer owns, or does not provide competing services to your employer's customers, I don't see how your boss interprets that clause in such a way.

In addition I would check how 'work' is defined in your contract, since you are in EU as I am, I believe it usually mentions place where work is performed and work time from - to, work load (how many hours) and description of work. If the contract defines 'work' as any activity you do in your life that would be pretty jaw dropping.

Re: Ask HN: Should a 'no side projects' policy be taken seriously?

#5

Post by eurasiantiger »

It’s not enforceable if the employer cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have used company resources on it. Time, hardware, IP, skills, domain knowledge.

First three are obvious but you can be put on the hook for using skills and understanding obtained on company dime, too.

Re: Ask HN: Should a 'no side projects' policy be taken seriously?

#6

Post by nopehnnope »

As an employee you have a duty of loyalty to your employer. I’m not sure about side projects generally, that is probably a Cyprus specific question. But I’d be shocked if it’s legal anywhere to release a product that competes with what you work on at your job. That’s just common sense. You would likely be violating not just your employment contract, but also trade secret, copyright, patents, etc. This is egregious enough behavior to even be criminally charged in many places.

Re: Ask HN: Should a 'no side projects' policy be taken seriously?

#7

Post by challenger-derp »

A few comments here point the OP/ hint to the OP that a lawyer be consulted. This is likely a good move.

1. Is it possible to explore obtaining an agreement from the company that the lawyer's bill (probably won't be more than two hours' worth of lawyer time) be foot by the company?

2. Independent of (1), and under general circumstances (not violent boss, etc.), should OP relate his lawyer's interpretation to his boss & company? (I'm guessing that most^ would answer this with a no -- boss is not going to follow OP around on the weekends to monitor his side project's progess).

^most who aren't bosses (hah)

Re: Ask HN: Should a 'no side projects' policy be taken seriously?

#8

Post by WheelsAtLarge »

Yes, any project that you create while you are employed by the company, company time or your time, belongs to them. That's what you agreed on when you signed the contract.

That's why you hear about some tech founders offering their side project to the company they work for before they continue with their venture. The company can decide to keep it or you can agree with the company that they don't want it and you can keep it.

In theory, they can sell you the rights to your own project if that's what they want to do. It's what you agreed to in your contract.

In short, take it very seriously. If you have a side project that you think can be a successful venture for you then get an ok from your employer to make sure they have no claim on it.

Companies can sue anywhere but the further you are from them the harder it is. Like anything, you can always take your chances that it's not worth their time to pursue. But it's much easier to just get a release of all claims on your project from them.

Re: Ask HN: Should a 'no side projects' policy be taken seriously?

#9

Post by NonEUCitizen »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #5

It’s not enforceable if the employer cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have used company resources on it. Time, hardware, IP, skills, domain knowledge. First three are obvious but you can be put on the hook for using skills and understanding obtained on company dime, too.

It depends on what state's or country's laws the contract is signed under. Some jurisdictions are more unreasonable (from engineer's perspective) than others.

Re: Ask HN: Should a 'no side projects' policy be taken seriously?

#10

Post by NonEUCitizen »

challenger-derp wrote: post #7

A few comments here point the OP/ hint to the OP that a lawyer be consulted. This is likely a good move. 1. Is it possible to explore obtaining an agreement from the company that the lawyer's bill (probably won't be more than two hours' worth of lawyer time) be foot by the company? 2. Independent of (1), and under general circumstances (not violent boss, etc.), should OP relate his lawyer's interpretation to his boss…

Presumably, the side project you want to work on is valuable. It's worth paying the lawyer out of your own pocket -- you want the lawyer to be working for you, not the employer. And the lawyer should not also be a lawyer of the company -- the lawyer should not have a conflict of interest.
Post reply on HN