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

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

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 484 posts

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

#281

Post by serg_chernata »

braythwayt wrote: post #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 everyth…

> 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.

I don't think I'll ever understand that attitude. If you're a founder, the business just may be the work of your life. To expect the same level of dedication and obsession from your employees is utterly obscene.

If you're lucky enough to find someone who genuinely feels that way, great. But to expect or even demand it should never be the case.

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

#282

Post by domador »

braythwayt wrote: post #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 everyth…

> 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.

What a thuggish company, with such a feudal view of its workers! Hopefully most companies understand that they don't own their employees outright.

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

#283

Post by leggomylibro »

jeffbr13 wrote: post #77
ja30278 wrote: post #49

As a thought experiment, for people who agree with the idea that a company 'owns' all of the thought-output of an employee: Why should that mean only the valuable IP, and not _all_ of the thought-output, including the unpleasant parts. If an employee commits a pre-meditated murder, should the company be liable, as a partial 'thought-owner'?

IP's the more specific case here. The company both owns and is responsible for anything an employee does during the course of their employment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_of_employment

So if you work for a bank and commit serious wire fraud on your own time, can you be sued for breach of contract, conflict of interest, etc? You'd have a lot of experience in doing so from your normal employment.

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

#284

Post by spinlock »

andrewfong wrote: post #198
6stringmerc wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that's...really something. I do have a bit of a quibble with one of your assertions though: > It would not even be possible to ascertain the original authorship of most form contracts that cross my desk. I highly doubt this statement is true if given Documents X, Y, Z et al are given stringent, professional forensic examination for remnants of markings. Maybe not every single one, sure, but enough in a Universe…

> stringent, professional forensic examination for remnants of markings Don't doubt it's possible, but might be a little trickier than you suspect. My old firm, as a matter of course, installed software on our laptops that stripped all sorts of metadata from outgoing documents. It was actually really annoying since "tracked changes" in MS Word got removed too.

sounds like evidence of a cover up to me :)

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

#285

Post by greggman »

latkin wrote: post #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.…

Why is every time I see this law referred to people seem to have only read the first clause, not the following clauses

> a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:

> (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer;  or

> (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.

So no, it's not just things you did at home on your own time and own equipment. They must also not be related to your employer's business etc ....

What's related would be up to a court/judge if it came to that but there's certainly a spectrum. You work on Call of Duty 27 and try to make an FPS at home. Certainly related. You work on Call of Duty and try to make a Candy Crush Clone at home. Probably related (seems like it would be considered competition for game market). You work on Call of Duty and try to write your own game engine at home. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . You work on Call of Duty and try to make a Tinder clone at home. Now , maybe we're getting in the unrelated territory? You work on Call of Duty and sell baked goods at home. Probably not an issue.

If you work at a giant company like Sony that does ISPs, Health Insurance, Movies, TVs, Cameras, Video Games, Batteries, Music, LCD displays, etc etc well then you're probably going to have a lot of things that are in that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ spectrum

Of course IANAL.

If you want to do something outside of work that's even possibly in any way shape or form remotely related to your company's line of business get them to sign a contract saying they won't claim any rights in your project. If they won't consider working for a better company.

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

#286

Post by spinlock »

kutkloon7 wrote: post #22

"But rather than negotiating a deal, Alcatel fired Brown and sued him for ownership of the idea. After a seven-year-long court battle, he lost and was forced to spend three months at the company’s offices, without pay, writing out the code to implement his solution." I deeply hate the judge who made this verdict. You must be truly devoid of human feeling and common sense to explain this as a reasonable application of…

I don't get why he didnt' make up some bullshit and call it his great idea. Tell them he thought up a way to train monkeys to reverse compile FORTRAN.

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

#287

Post by fs111 »

usefulcat wrote: post #220
fs111 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I currently work as an employee and also like the benefits it provides and the people I work with. So you broadly claim that "employment is dead" using big words like "feudal system" and how you can make so much more money contracting etc. etc. and then it turns out you are an employee after all? Seriously?

Check the usernames; unless Isaferite is the same person as VLM, Isaferite didn't make the comments you're quoting.

true, but isaferite was agreeing with OP, so I stick to my words.

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

#288

Post by greggman »

Orangeair wrote: post #164

Wow, that's really nice. At Google, they basically told us, "There's the standard IP rule where you own anything that you work on in your own time that doesn't compete with our business... Of course we pretty much do everything, so good luck finding something that we can't claim."

When I was at google they said "we have a standard contract we'll most of the time be happy to sign that says we claim no interest in your outside project. Submit your project here and we'll get back to you ASAP".

They often put out memos about the types of things that were not okay and later when they were ok. For example then they were exploring games in google plus back during the Farmville crazy they said "Sorry but for the time being no games please .. unless of course you want to make open source demo games for our APIs/Platforms". A year or so later they said "okay, games are fine now so feel free to submit to get your contract signed"

The best thing about that is there's no ambiguity because you have a contract for your project. Github's policy is awesome but you're still at their mercy if you thought your side project was unrelated but they happen to think it is. In fact the larger any company gets the more likely you don't know all the things being worked on. A contract for your side project clears that up.

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

#290

Post by lettergram »

shawnee_ wrote: post #179
matthewmcg wrote: post #137

I 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…

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 just bought a house, and I will say, I'm glad I had a realtor guiding us. Because I am the buyer I had to pay her nothing, she just gets her 3% - 6% on the sale, and honestly I have no idea what that number is. The seller pays.

That being said when I sell, I definitely do not plan on using a realtor. As you said, it's super easy to sell online and I agree. I even found the house I bought without the realtor, we literally just said "we want to see this house." What she did provide was insight into the market, the area, she showed us comparable houses, explained the history of the builder, etc. This is where she brought value.

In selling a house, the only value they bring is customers. That usually (car sales, medical sales, etc.) is a percentage of sale type of transaction. So, to me it appears fair to give them a percentage. If you choose not to use them, you can!

Unfortunately, I believe in the state I am moving to I am required to pay for the buyers realtor (although I am not 100% sure). That's typically 6%, but technically, I don't have to sell to them. Sooooo I can negotiate and work with them to get say 3%.

Post reply on HN