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

301–310 of 484 posts

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

#301

Post by dnautics »

domador wrote: post #282
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.

I wouldn't ascribe malice. Most companies usually do it because the it's the safest way to avoid a legal fight. The more detailed and convoluted the contract becomes the more expensive and time-consuming it becomes to adjudicate. How do you decide whether a 'side-project' is related or unrelated to the work? It's easy to point out obvious cases. (E.g. "I'm a coder and I design a mini golf course for my buddy") but the reason why a company institutes these rules is not to take possession of your IP in these cases.

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

#302

Post by latkin »

greggman wrote: post #285
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 equi…

I think you are missing my point. Obviously if you work on projects related to your employer's business that is a conflict, even when executed in a clean room.

The question is, assuming all else is above board (totally unrelated to employer's business, on your own equipment, on your own time...), can you get nailed by eating a bag of work-provided Cheetos while hacking on your project?

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

#303

Post by lsaferite »

fs111 wrote: post #192
lsaferite wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you have to get new clients, that is always a risk. Proper structuring of payment schedules and IP transfer helps with invoice payment. Also, having long-term relationships with clients also helps there. I would hope you carry some sort of insurance in the case of life taking a sudden left-turn, but perhaps you don't. Ideally you financially plan enough to cover something like that. I've been a contractor as sev…

> 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?

I never made any such claim nor would I agree with such a claim. Perhaps you should pay a bit more attention before getting outraged?

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

#304

Post by LiquidFlux »

andrewfromx wrote: post #56

When I was an employee of BizRate/Shopzilla in 2005 I would take my laptop downstairs to my car parked in the company parking garage, and code on my personal project for exactly 1 hour from 12-1 my lunch break. But the laptop was charged with electrons from shopzilla's office plug and the parking garage turns out is still technically on the company's property.

Beside your point, did you happen to use their wifi?

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

#305

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

People suck at negotiating.

Last time I did a buy/sell we did a deal with the real estate broker where we paid her $1000 upfront (0.5%) to sell the house for a 3% commission vs 7%. The trick was we gave her 60 days to sell the house exclusively without going on MLS, and she would credit the $1000 after 60 days if it sold on MLS (which means she gets almost nothing).

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

#306

Post by Silhouette »

elastic_church wrote: post #252
dspillett wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

right thats something to consider there's just so many ways around it and I'd LOVE to get some case law made just to get some unknowns clarified. Like when I contribute to an already existing open source project on company's time/resource/IP-appropriation-regime, do they get to rewrite the Apache license because one contributor had signed a contract? when running this open source software that happens to generate a t…

there's just so many ways around it

That depends very much on which jurisdiction you're in. You'd be crazy to assume, without taking proper legal advice, that retrospective assignment would not stand up as part of an explicit employment contract.

Like when I contribute to an already existing open source project on company's time/resource/IP-appropriation-regime

If you did that without your employer's permission, then probably both you personally and anyone redistributing the OSS project would be infringing the employer's copyright. If that upset your employer, you could expect to be fired and possibly sued, and anyone involved in redistributing the OSS project could expect a C&D from your former employer's lawyers pending removal of any infringing work you contributed.

Depending on the scale and sensitivity of whatever you contributed, a bad result could be that you are out of a job, bankrupt due to damages and legal costs, and known for being untrustworthy since any future employer who looks you up is going to find the lawsuit, while the OSS project is significantly inconvenienced and doesn't ultimately benefit from your contribution anyway.

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

#307

Post by marcosdumay »

guelo wrote: post #265
danvasquez29 wrote: post #251

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…

Not only that, but if your neighbor has a 800k house to sell, guess what house your agent is hiding from their clients so it can get a better commission.

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

#308

Post by icambron »

domador wrote: post #282
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.

It's not thuggish. It's merely a bad deal. It's a bad deal for the company too, since they will have to compensate people more for their level of skill in order to make up for it. It's also ridiculous of the company to think of creativity as zero-sum like that (e.g. what if he watched TV instead? Now no one benefits), but even if it was, creativity on personal projects is of asymmetric value -- the employee no doubt cares more about that time than the employer could plausibly benefit from it -- so it's an especially inefficient thing for the company to negotiate for. All this suggest the employer was being dumb and missing out on a hire for no good reason.

Dumb but not thuggish. In fact the view that it is thuggish is feudal, since it implies that the employers are lords handing out favors and punishments to their subjects below, and thus have a duty to be fair and compassionate about it. But the employer is really an equal at the negotiating table. Some people argue that capitalism can be coercive in the relevant way (a point I have no wish to argue for or against here), but it's demonstrably not true in this instance, since Braithwaite was able to walk away from a crummy deal. No doubt the employer was worse off for it. That's how it's supposed to work.

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

#309

Post by avn2109 »

mahyarm wrote: post #293
lettergram wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lit…

That 3% that the seller 'pays' for is really yourself paying for it. You could probably negotiate that fee away if you didnt have a realtor on your side for example

>> "Because I am the buyer I had to pay her nothing... the seller pays..."

This is literally the second most breathtakingly naive comment I've ever read on the internet.

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

#310

Post by xrd »

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…

Man, thank you for being courageous. Your writing has changed my life and choosing differently in that moment would have restricted my life.
Post reply on HN