Well done GitHub, I've had some nasty documents thrust upon me in the past in which effectively gives a company claim to anything you create, even if not company used property. Was post employment contract so I refused. This is turning the tide and frankly I applaud it.
GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources
201–210 of 484 posts
Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone has a tendency to flatter wealthy people because the truth is that they're hoping, consciously or subconsciously, they'll get a dispensation from them somewhere down the line: a sale, a gift, or some other kind of benefit from association with a powerful individual. Unfortunately, it appears that many wealthy people forget this and begin to believe that they actually are just brilliant and special and that m…
> You basically must be wealthy to be successful in national politics [..] and this is also the case in not-America as far as I can tell. I'd say not a requirement in the Nordics. I'm sure it won't hurt though.
I'm not familiar with the politics in that area, but I would say this holds true even if the state has provided accommodation for anyone to run a competitive campaign regardless of the private resources they have available.
The talking point of "Would you rather trust someone who can't get promoted past a mid-level position in his company to play with the big boys, or someone who has managed his life such that he is in charge of things and has been able to accumulate vast personal resources?" is always going to be persuasive, IMO. "If he can't manage his own affairs..." and all that.
It's not an absolute non-starter, but I'm skeptical that any "regular Joe" would be elected for a significant national position as long as there are people who are massively more wealthy willing to compete (and there will be).
Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources
#203I work at a large law firm that represents a lot of software companies. Our standard employee agreement forms have the usual default (company owns everything you create with its resources or that relates to the scope of your employment). This default has always amused me because lawyers never sign these kinds of agreements with their own law firms . We spend most of our time writing contracts, memos, and other bits o…
It's also interesting how infrequently this is actually enforced by employers. Outside of extreme cases (like the current waymo/uber litigation) I've never heard of it being enforced -- even when it's pretty obvious that IP was transferred (e.g., foursquare / dodgeball). I feel like it's in there because it always has been. I thought about removing it for my new business, but I'm worried about diligence issues if I e…
It's not just enforcement that matters though. The threat of enforcement is far more common and has come up at every company I've worked for. That ends up creating a tense environment for employees in a similar way to how a criminal feels when they've committed a crime, but have not been caught. The threat of life-altering damage is a huge stress to carry.
Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
>because in the USA employees have the "in the course of employment" as you state but USA independent contractors retain copyright unless they assign it as part of their contract, so about 99% of contracts have a clause to assign ownership and copyright to the client. I'm not a lawyer either but this is not true in the US afaik. "Works made for hire" are automatically copyrighted by the hirer, not the contractor. Cop…
Actually, it's the opposite. Works done by independent contractors are only works for hire if they fall into a narrow range of categories and are explicitly agreed to be a work for hire. If you want copyright of contracted work, you should have the contractor explicitly assign copyright to you. From that circulation, > A work created by an independent contractor can be a work made for hire only if (a) it falls within…
The nuance here is that they're using an unconventional definition for "employee" and "independent contractor". Under the heading "Supreme Court Interpretation":
> If an employee created the work, part 1 of the definition
> above applies, and the work will generally be considered a
> work made for hire.
> But note that the term “employee” in the definition differs
> from the common understanding of the term. For copyright
> purposes, “employee” means an employee under the general
> common law of agency. See the subheading “Agency Law”
> below.
> If an independent contractor created the work, and the
> work was “specially ordered or commissioned,” part 2 of the
> definition above applies. An “independent contractor” is
> someone who is not an employee under the general common
> law of agency.
This is discussed further under the heading "Agency Law", where three points are given for consideration of whether the contractor is acting as an "agent" of the employer or whether the contractor is acting independently.
The phrasing of the law probably would've been better if it said "external vendor" instead of "independent contractor", since it seems intended to protect vendors that are providing a simple product to the employer rather than contractors that are used like temporary employees.
Regardless, a copyright assignment is a simple and important way to clear any ambiguity and prevent hairy disputes over the status of a work from going to court.
Again, I am not a lawyer.
Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
For real. I am an indie game dev who recently released his first big game on Steam. Just a week or two ago I had a prospective company tell me that, in order to hire me, I would need to sell them the entirety of my personally-developed IP and dissolve my interest in my own company. Needless to say, I decided against that job.
Wow, I'd lie if I said I wasn't worried I'd someday have to take a job like that. Was this job you applied to in the gaming space? If so, is that type of ask common place in your experience? Also, a bit of an aside. What's the game you released called? I get you probably intended to avoid the plug but I'm curious. Edit: And of course, props to GitHub for this!
Hopefully you'll never have to take a job that asks this of you.
Yes, the job in question was in the gaming space, working on an unannounced virtual reality title.
This has been the only time a company has ever asked me to divest interest in my own company and/or IP before being hired. Granted, I have only recently begun looking for work, but I cannot imagine this being a common scenario.
Instead, I imagine these guys as sharks that do not have my best interests in mind; only their own.
As for my game, it's called Ethereal Legends, and is now available on Steam. To bring things back onto the topic of this thread, the code for my game is also available on GitHub!
Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree--this is excellent and very tech-talent-friendly. As an example on the other side of the spectrum: I work for a very large Silicon Valley company that is well known (you've heard of them) for secrecy and obsessively guarding its IP. Here we can't[1] work on Open Source, work on potential start-up ideas, moonlight writing software for some extra cash, publish (either academically or releasing software online,…
Your employer, of course, is Google; I know this from my own tussles with Google's OSPO, which exists primarily to ensure that engineers don't have lives outside of Google.
I haven't worked at Google since 2013, but I knew this wasn't Google because Googlers do contribute to Open Source.
Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources
#207People keep complaining about how hard and expensive it is to attract top talent. This kind of measure is exactly how you do it. Provide an environment where employees feel trusted and empowered, pay market rate, screen properly instead of having applicants jump through hoops, and you won't have much trouble hiring. Kudos to github for this, I'm impressed!
For real. I am an indie game dev who recently released his first big game on Steam. Just a week or two ago I had a prospective company tell me that, in order to hire me, I would need to sell them the entirety of my personally-developed IP and dissolve my interest in my own company. Needless to say, I decided against that job.
If the company was into anything related to gaming, my assumption would be that they were looking to buy the IP at a knocked down rate by hiring you (or that the chance to get the IP cheap was one of the differentiators between you and the next best candidate).
Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
The result is that contract forms have become a sort of IP-free zone. Exactly. One of the sleaziest tricks used by Realtors (most Realtors are not lawyers) is getting clients to sign their forms: their terms usually have the word "percent" hard-coded into the contract. Rather than opening the door to hourly or fixed dollar amounts, they insist that their forms are the "standard". I heard one recently say in a public…
>I've been trying for a long time to alter the common perception that Realtors add value; they don't. I don't know anything about the law so I hire a lawyer I trust. I don't know anything about buying a house so I hire a realtor I trust.
The type and amount of training required for those two fields isn't even remotely similar.
Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
For real. I am an indie game dev who recently released his first big game on Steam. Just a week or two ago I had a prospective company tell me that, in order to hire me, I would need to sell them the entirety of my personally-developed IP and dissolve my interest in my own company. Needless to say, I decided against that job.
Sometimes I just go with it because of how unenforceable that contract will be for them and how Ill get paid in the meantime laughing silently to myself at the absurdity
Depending on how vicious the company is when "crossed" you might find they can make it expensive for you for a while by trying to enforce it and making you put resource into fighting back.
Personally, if I don't agree with and and/or aren't willing to stand by it, I don't sign it. Of course for some less fortunate desperation means they have to compromise on such ideals.
Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
The result is that contract forms have become a sort of IP-free zone. Exactly. One of the sleaziest tricks used by Realtors (most Realtors are not lawyers) is getting clients to sign their forms: their terms usually have the word "percent" hard-coded into the contract. Rather than opening the door to hourly or fixed dollar amounts, they insist that their forms are the "standard". I heard one recently say in a public…
>I've been trying for a long time to alter the common perception that Realtors add value; they don't. I don't know anything about the law so I hire a lawyer I trust. I don't know anything about buying a house so I hire a realtor I trust.
That's fair. You can certainly make some big mistakes when buying/selling a house. E.g. neglect to have it inspected by due diligence deadline.
I used a realtor (with a discounted fee) for my first house. Now I'm buying the second by owner, because I know how the circus operates.