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

471–480 of 484 posts

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

#471

Post by bussierem »

VLM wrote: post #455
bussierem wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all fairness, as of the timestamp of my comment, all of the pro-contract-work arguments I've seen include things like "and it's so easy when you have good relationships with long-time clients" and other such things. Which is really the same argument as the anti-contract "I'm in a stable awesome job with great benefits, so of course this is better.". I have yet to see anyone comparing using the WORST case of EITHER…

That's a pretty well thought out argument. I'd propose that above the very bottom of the barrel, contract work is slightly better because it is like speed dating and the odds of meeting the right client for you are higher than could be experienced in slower paced long term employment.

I think I could agree with that - once the newbie learns how to market a bit, how to be more aggressive getting clients, contracting COULD snowball (we shouldn't be making any sweeping claims!) much faster than a normal 9-5 career.

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

#472

Post by reneherse »

odbol_ wrote: post #465
reneherse wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I believe you've misinterpreted my post. The issue is not whether I was paid for my work (I was a full time employee), but rather that to continue my employment, I, along with everyone else at the company, was asked to sign an overly broad Invention Assignment and IP agreement. Hope that clarifies things.

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

#473

Post by jnicholasp »

nordsieck wrote: post #466
jnicholasp wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your point is valid. It's not clear to me that my claim is true, either. I made it in part because I wondered whether it were true, and I subscribe to the idea that the best way to find out if something is true is not to ask whether it is, but to assert that it is and wait for arguments to the contrary.

But I think it might be partly true, too. As you said, currently "sellers are fine selling at the current prices less commission". When those commissions disappear, sellers who were previously content to get Price - 6%, should still be content to get Price*0.94, since those are the same, and at least in buyer's markets, competing sellers have an incentive to undercut one another in the effort to get their house sold. It seems probable that those would lead to houses moving to a new normal pricing structure 6 percentage points lower than the old normal (less whatever amount the new model is capturing).

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

#474

Post by Corrado »

vtange wrote: post #181
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'?

Or if the employee made something that made a net-loss. We only hear the company knocking on the employee's door when the employee is earning a profit.

I actually might sign a contract like that. Most (all?) of my projects tend to lose money. This would make me more successful, not less. :)

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

#475

Post by lostboys67 »

De_Delph wrote: post #94
pjmlp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From someone that is able to enjoy proper work conditions in socialist Europe, the state of work condition expectations in US is always surprising. Sometimes I get the feeling that even my own country (Portugal), with all its issues regarding work conditions, still appears to be in better shape.

Hi from socialist Netherlands, where the issues around IP and employers are EXACTLY the same as the US.

Which of the 52 states is that? Its probably closer to the CA i.e. it has to be related to the employers work not everying.

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

#476

Post by lostboys67 »

endymi0n wrote: post #65
lostboys67 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sad that having even minimal employee rights is some how seen as exceptional.

I couldn't care less about IP myself - but the real reason this stuff is pretty standard is that investors are somehow really bullish about IP (the "secret sauce"). Against our own beliefs, we decided for pretty strict contract terms around IP as this topic usually turns out to be one of the standard blockers in any funding and exit negotiations. In former companies, after a financing round people had to sign new ter…

This is not about trade secrets its about outside work not related to your day job.

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

#477

Post by lostboys67 »

megous wrote: post #189
conanbatt wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question is how expensive they are. The US has les protections but thus pays a lot more. Soft engineers moving from SF to europe get their income cut by more than 50%. In the end, more europeans move to the Us that the other way around, showing ultimately what the body prefers.

Who cares about income? Profit matters. Societal benefits matter too. How many days of work in a month is required to break even on all the basics of life like rent, food and medical care + retirement insurance.

Your probably looking at paying > 2 times what we pay in the uk in NI just for heath cover.

Also in the UK taxation of employee shares is a lot saner plus GCT is a lot lower and you get a 16k Pa allowance for CGT

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

#478

Post by lostboys67 »

conanbatt wrote: post #108
lostboys67 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sad that having even minimal employee rights is some how seen as exceptional.

The real question is how expensive they are. The US has les protections but thus pays a lot more. Soft engineers moving from SF to europe get their income cut by more than 50%. In the end, more europeans move to the Us that the other way around, showing ultimately what the body prefers.

That's because "engineers" are seen as second class when compared to other professions.

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

#479

Post by JangoSteve »

tigershark wrote: post #387
kbenson wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What is the problem with calling directly an inspector? I think they are more qualified than a realtor and I sincerely doubt that their fees is over $30k like the realtors depicted in this thread.

I don't think there's a problem calling an inspector directly. But an inspector typically doesn't go out and find you houses to look at based on your preferences. They also don't typically negotiate with the sellers on your behalf and help you figure out an offering price based on comparisons. And they don't negotiate the contingencies in the purchasing contract.

And no, an inspector's fees aren't over $30k (of course I imagine this varies by state, but where I'm at, if your buying agent's fees were over $30k, that would mean the house you bought was over $1mil, since their fee is half of 6% of the selling price of the house, i.e. 3%). The inspectors we talked to were between $500 and $2,000 per inspection, depending on the level of inspection you wanted, if I'm remembering correctly.

And we looked at around 35 houses (which apparently is on the high side by about 10x based on discussions with our friends who have bought houses). So for us, if we called an inspector every time (assuming we could find an inspector whose schedule matched the appointment availability every time), it would have been around $17,500 on the low end to do that for every house, which is more than the buying agent's percentage.

Of course, we could just hire an inspector on the ones we liked, and it'd be much cheaper, but that means we'd have to look at it, then call an inspector and schedule a visit, which would add an additional several-day-waiting step to the process, which could lead to us missing out on the house, since it's not uncommon to lose a house to someone else getting an offer accepted first (that happened to us for two out of four houses we liked).

So, nothing wrong with calling an inspector directly, it's just a different job than what the realtor does.

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

#480

Post by Zombieball »

timv wrote: post #417
Zombieball wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My takeaway from the post was it isn't so much that he thinks it's fair but a legal necessity to protect the company. More of a criticism towards how current IP law is structured.

> he thinks it's [...] a legal necessity to protect the company Exactly, which is why his post is totally self-serving propaganda. Though he tries to present the post as "here's a totally objective explanation of how side projects interplay with employment law", ultimately his point comes down to Business owners have all these complicated issues to deal with, so just accept the fact that they're going to screw you ov…

This is a good point. IANAL, but I imagine there definitely are routes to take when drafting various legal documents (e.g. employment contracts) that would allow employees to pursue personal projects. Its likely just easier (and as you say in the company's best interest) to avoid figuring out how to word such clauses.
Post reply on HN