Live data from Hacker News

GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources

qz.com

271–280 of 484 posts

Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources

#271
post #200

Earlier 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…

Nit: one fell swoop. It's from Macbeth.

One swell foop.

Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources

#272

Earlier 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

No - these contracts are usually enforceable. But even if parts of them are not - it doesn't matter because the IP risk is just too high.

You're making a video game 'on the side' while working at a gaming company?

Then you want to 'raise money' - now the VC's say 'hey, you made this while you were at XYZ, weren't there contractual issues' - you say 'oh, it's not enforceable'. The VC says uh, no thanks, not looking forward to having all of our property owned by the company.

Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources

#273
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not arguing against there being value, but there are credit rehab companies that would have probably cost you a lot less than the realtor's commission. Many basic credit consulting services are free. I bought a home recently and work in the mortgage industry. My opinion: the buyer's agent should be a flat negotiated fee, maybe an hourly rate. There is very little that most do that the buyer can't do themselves. If th…

The seller's agents are indeed salesman but their incentives don't end up quite aligned with the seller's. For example let's say a selling agent is getting 6% on a house listed at $500k. If it sells at $500k he gets $30k, if it sells at $520k he gets $31k. If he were to get a $500k offer it probably isn't worth his time to put in a lot of extra effort to try to get that extra $1k, but to you that extra $19k is a lot…

I wanted to do this the last time I sold a house -- I was thinking something like, the commission should be 1/3 of the difference between the sale price and an agreed-on minimum price. Stupidly, I didn't stick to it when the first agent I started talking to told me she wasn't empowered to negotiate such terms.

That agent was very helpful in a lot of ways, but didn't get me a particularly good price -- another, nearly identical unit in the same condo complex sold around the same time for about $30k more.

I think the next time, I will stick to my guns on the terms. That probably means I'll have to find an independent agent. This is not necessarily a bad thing; I think the agent who sold that other unit in my complex was independent.

Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

all of that you either could have done yourself, or your inspector would have done for you. I don't begrudge anyone who wants to pay someone else to take a task off their hands, I do it all the time with various things like my lawn service, housekeeper, etc. But was the time they saved you worth the commission they made? When you're making 7% of the selling price, the answer to that seems likely to be no in many case…

I think the problem here is not that they don't add value, but that since the value is tied to a percentage of cost, and cost has gone way up as a percentage of income, it no longer appears to be worth the value in many cases. For a $100k home, it's fairly easy for the value added to surpass the amount paid. For a $500k home, the value added needs to be much higher. Then again, if you think of it as less value added…

I think this is spot-on.

Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources

#275
Thank you Github for being so smart and awesome! I have more respect for Github, now!

For those who disagree, saying but why?, how?, the company owns that time...

Programmers should get paid for their contribution to a project! Not for their time!

For the love of sanity, in software, there is no correlation between the time you put in and your output! Someone's input about how to solve a specific problem could be more powerful and important than my 40/week of programming for a year (solving it the wrong way)! And those who disagree are topically the ones who measure the progress of a project by number of lines of code!

This policy motivates the hell out of the employees and also can attract smart developers who have other projects! And, you want to hire those who have other projects!!!

Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources

#276
Once upon a time, I was looking for a job, in straightened circumstances. I found a so-so match, and since I was in danger of missing a mortgage payment, I decided to accept their offer. Pragmatism and all that.

Well, I went in and picked up the documents, and told them I needed to read them before signing and returning them to the company. I looked at the IP clause, and it said the company owned anything and everything I created or invented while an employee, in any field of endeavor.

I called the founder to renegotiate.

"What if," I posited, "I write a blog post. The way I read this, the company owns the copyright on my blog post."

  > Yes.
"Or if I take a video of a climbing trip, the company owns that video."

  > We'd never exercise that right. But we reserve the right.
"Well, I'm not sure I want to agree that anything I create, even on my own time and property and with my own equipment, belongs to you."

  > Now that you mention it, I'm not sure I want to employ
  > someone who uses their creative energy for anything except
  > the company's business.
"Thanks for the clarification!"

My next call was to a realtor, I put my house up for sale. There was no way I wanted to be in a position where I would feel like I had no choice but to accept an offer like this.

I went through some hard times, but as it turned out, that blog that I did end up writing on-and-off over the years turned out to be valuable. Not directly in money, but in satisfaction. It lead to some work, but even more importantly, it led to communities like Hacker News and meeting programmers around the world.

If I'd agreed to that contract, there might not be a "raganwald" today.

Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources

#277
Honest question for those more legally-versed than me.

CA labor code protects inventions developed on one's own time without using the employer's "equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information." [1]

Would "supplies" cover incidental food/drink provided by the employer? e.g. I grab a bottled water on my way out of the office, and drink it at home while I hack on my app after-hours on personal equipment. Does that mean my app is developed with my employer's supplies?

That would seem pretty crazy, however on the extreme end if I was subsisting entirely on work snacks while developing my app then maybe that's different?

[1] http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-2870.html

Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources

#278
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not arguing against there being value, but there are credit rehab companies that would have probably cost you a lot less than the realtor's commission. Many basic credit consulting services are free. I bought a home recently and work in the mortgage industry. My opinion: the buyer's agent should be a flat negotiated fee, maybe an hourly rate. There is very little that most do that the buyer can't do themselves. If th…

The seller's agents are indeed salesman but their incentives don't end up quite aligned with the seller's. For example let's say a selling agent is getting 6% on a house listed at $500k. If it sells at $500k he gets $30k, if it sells at $520k he gets $31k. If he were to get a $500k offer it probably isn't worth his time to put in a lot of extra effort to try to get that extra $1k, but to you that extra $19k is a lot…

I can only agree. Having had to sell a home via a realtor recently due to distance my (totally anecdotal) experience was that his incentive was to find anyone who would bid at least some amount within my price range. Not the best deal. He didn't exactly market it. And after signing all paperwork and visiting the house with the new owners I realized what positive aspects of the house were all unknown to them.

Lots of things like that. And then both parties having to pay 5.1k for his 'service'.

Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The type and amount of training required for those two fields isn't even remotely similar.

It doesn't take a lot of time to learn how to change your oil, but i still pay a guy to do it.

But would you pay him $1,000 to do it? At some point, you would do it yourself. I think when people say they add no value, what they mean is, they don't add $35k of value on a $500k home purchase.

Re: GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you get a lawyer for your house transactions, you will pay a flat fee of less than $1000 and still get the advice to always have it inspected.

A lawyer? Geez, why a lawyer? They are highly qualified and expensive. Hire a flat-rate agent/broker. They'll technically be your agent, but you do all the leg work.

Because you could hire a lawyer for a flat thousand bucks easily. Real estate agent is going to take 7 percent of the sale. So you get more qualified for way less money on most cases.
Post reply on HN