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

461–470 of 484 posts

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

#461

Post by moftz »

avn2109 wrote: post #311
paulcole wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>> "... hire a realtor I trust." To a first approximation, 0% of real estate people are trustworthy. Doubly true in hot markets.

If they are selling your house, they are looking for the highest sale price they can get which benefits both of you. Only the buyer should be worried about a scummy or just inexperienced realtor.

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

#462

Post by andrewfromx »

jogjayr wrote: post #370
andrewfromx wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah but what if laptop battery was filled with electricity from their office where they pay the electric bill. When I use said laptop in coffee shop, who's resource am I using? Mine cuz I own the laptop or theirs or both?

Charge the laptop at the coffee shop. Or charge it up to full before leaving home for work; you're unlikely to run out working for an hour-long lunch.

hehe NO that's the point. What if I wanna work on my project from 2pm to 6pm and then back to work for the company from 7pm to 11pm. GitHub has it right. Let the workers work from where and when they want.

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

#463

Post by odbol_ »

turc1656 wrote: post #317
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." Wow. That statement alone tells you everything you need to know about that person and what kind of manager they are. The fact that it was the founder is just...wow. Since it was the founder, if I was in your shoes I would have asked this fool if they took that same approach when…

The thing is, my company probably doesn't want my side projects. I'm not just a programmer; I make music, photography, art, etc. If they owned that stuff, it would just wither away in a dark corner because they wouldn't have any use for it.

Now extend that same concept to programming: I make games and digital interactive art in my spare time too. Should I really be forced to give it to my company where they will promptly throw it in the garbage? Or should I be allowed to make it and share it with the world independent of my corporate life?

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

#464

Post by odbol_ »

ghurtado wrote: post #403
ambrice wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link and Joel seem to agree. By default the contractor owns the IP, unless the contract contains the legal phrase "work made for hire." Maybe you should have kept reading?

I think you misunderstand: all work done by an independent contractor is by default "work made for hire" unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Yes, and what is a "work for hire" besides a work made under a contract saying it's a work for hire?

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

#465

Post by odbol_ »

reneherse wrote: post #367
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…

A powerful story, and one I thank you for sharing. Just minutes ago, I pushed "Send" on a resignation letter from a company that after 6 months of UX dev & design asked me to sign a similarly overly broad IP agreement. I'd been struggling with the decision, toes on the edge of the proverbial diving board for days. Reading your story gave me an extra boost and reminded me I'm making the right choice. Here's to tipping…

And now you've learned the cardinal rule: Never do the work before you have a contract.

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

#466

Post by nordsieck »

jnicholasp wrote: post #434
eitally wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not arguing against the value, but why should the seller have to pay for you to receive this service?

The seller does not pay for the buyer to receive their agent's service, except in accounting terms. The commission to the agents is (should be; if you as the seller aren't thinking of it that way, you're misconceiving the situation) priced into the cost of the home. All the money in the deal comes from the buyers. When realtors' business model gets disrupted, sellers will not end up getting the same prices for their…

"When realtors' business model gets disrupted, sellers will not end up getting the same prices for their houses as they do currently, or get to keep the 6% that now goes to agents"

It's not clear to me that that is true. All economics tells us is that in the current system, sales clear, which means that buyers are fine buying at the current prices and sellers are fine selling at the current prices less commission.

If the commission were to suddenly disappear, it is not clear if the buyer, the seller, or some mix would retain that money. You're suggesting that the buyer would retain all the money without evidence, whereas basic logic would suggest that the seller has more economic power (because housing prices generally appreciate faster than inflation), particularly in hot real estate markets.

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

#467

Post by elastic_church »

dspillett wrote: post #448
elastic_church wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is also another factor to consider: while all this is playing out, in public, you are someone being highlighted as having signed a contract disingenuously. It doesn't matter how bad the contract is, the fact that you signed it and reneged on it later could look bad to future employers (especially if they have links to the company in question through the old-boy network or similar!).

> while all this is playing out, in public, you are someone being highlighted as having signed a contract disingenuously.

or that my foresight and source of legal counsel is better and people may find value in that?

or I better hope my side project takes off right!

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

#468

Post by Liuser »

CM30 wrote: post #211

I have to be honest, I'm surprised this is seemingly such a rare thing in the tech industry. I mean, in the various (admittedly small) companies I worked for as a web developer, I never had anyone worry about what I was doing outside of work hours. Heck in most cases they explicitly said I could do what I wanted outside of work and that if it made money... well good for me I guess. But hey, they were small companies.…

This was the opposite for my anecdotal experience. All the small companies (20-200 people) wanted to own everything you produced. Even on your personal off hours time.

The larger companies I worked for didn't care so long as it doesn't directly compete with the flagship product.

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

#469

Post by ScottBurson »

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…

> "I'm not sure I want to employ someone who uses their creative energy for anything except the company's business."

"Then you'll get employees who don't have very much of it."

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

#470

Post by GFischer »

marcosdumay wrote: post #307
guelo wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I built a website for a realtor, and she specifically wanted that functionality.

It really pisses me off that in this day and age they think they can be "gatekeepers" of the information.

And they provide an extremely shitty service, they don't even take the care to take good photos of the property.

They've long lobbied for more regulation in my country and are extremely angry that most people are not using their services (I wonder why... :) ).

They did manage to make their services mandatory for state-owned mortgages :( .

Post reply on HN