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

Google claims copyright on employee side projects

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 399 posts

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#201

Post by marcan_42 »

TrickyRick wrote: post #4
marcan_42 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I signed a contract, I didn't sign CA labor code which doesn't even apply within the same continent and which the contract does not reference in any way. I'm pretty sure they can't claim they get to enforce what they intended to write just because I happened to guess what that was by Googling parts of my contract. What I signed is what I signed, and the wording was clear in the contract.

If someone asks you to bring wine or beer to a party, do you usually bring both? Because that would still be valid in an OR statement but basing your ordinary life decisions on boolean logic doesn't always work out like you expect it. If a contract is written as: You own things you make on your own time unless you're using company equipment provided: * The thing does not relate to company business * The thing does no…

There was an explicit "or", it wasn't just two clauses in a list. And "or" vs "xor" doesn't make any sense here, if it were "xor" then Google would own anything you did by actual default (i.e. that had neither anything to do with Google's business nor resulted from work done for Google), which makes no sense. It is explicitly an "or" and clearly means inclusive or, not exclusive or.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#202

Post by celticmusic »

fierarul wrote: post #104

> Oh, please. It's standard industry practice for companies to claim ownership of everything a software engineer comes up with, even "on their own time". In the US. Problem is the US is infecting the rest of the world too, especially through subsidiaries which basically just translate from English the 'standard' employment contract. I had to refuse employment in Romania since the clauses were so broad and basically i…

I always ask that this specific clause be removed, and if they refuse I don't go work for them.

I don't really understand how people don't get offended at the idea of a company owning any work that you do. At that point you've lost your autonomy as a human being.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#203

Post by NicoJuicy »

q3k wrote: post #114
fierarul wrote: post #104

> Oh, please. It's standard industry practice for companies to claim ownership of everything a software engineer comes up with, even "on their own time". In the US. Problem is the US is infecting the rest of the world too, especially through subsidiaries which basically just translate from English the 'standard' employment contract. I had to refuse employment in Romania since the clauses were so broad and basically i…

Can confirm from my experience (~10 years in the industry). I've never even heard of this practice until I applied to Google. None of the EU companies I've worked at before had anything like this. None of the EU companies I've worked at since had anything like this. It's US imperialism, nothing less.

Remember Anthony Levandowski?

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#204

Post by shadowgovt »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #175
shadowgovt wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the case, Google has a process for explicitly relinquishing their claim on copyright to the creator. The intent of this policy is to make it clear that creators have to go through that process if they want to use something they fabricated as a side project independently.

That seems backwards. If you think something I have is yours, it's up to you to prove it.

That's the purpose of the blanket ownership claim.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#205

Post by geofft »

anewguy9000 wrote: post #161
tytso wrote: post #95

Oh, please. It's standard industry practice for companies to claim ownership of everything a software engineer comes up with, even "on their own time". The problem is it's extremely difficult to say, figure out when someone might have invented some super clever idea which can be pantented "on their own time". This was true when I worked for MIT, VA Linux, IBM, and Google. At VA Linux it was the VC's which insisted on…

are you google pr? because this post is full of misinformation. shopify, microsoft, and a myriad of other tech companies ive worked for have no such clause. google's policy in this regard is terrible. im upset about it because its a pretty basic and valuable thing to be able to participate in your own activities, code or otherwise. disclaimer: this post reflects my own personal views and not those of my employer.

He's not exactly Google PR, he's a high-ranking Linux maintainer. But, as OP responded in a sibling comment, it's in Google's interest to make him able to keep doing that work - that's essentially why they hired him. He's okay with Google owning the copyright to the OSS he works on, as long as it gets contributed, and that's aligned with Google's interests. He's also been at Google for almost a decade, and if Google is in any way competent, he has no incentive to be looking for other jobs (and reading their employment agreements).

I agree with you that in fact most other tech companies make it pretty easy to own the copyright on work you do on your own time.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#206

Post by lumberingjack »

Do we not remember the famous story where Steve Jobs and Wozniak almost had to give up Apple computers to Xerox? Some say that Xerox couldn't see the use of a personal computer and how big that could be so their own stupidity let it slide if they would have claimed wozniak's work apples computer never would have existed.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#207

Post by shadowgovt »

marcan_42 wrote: post #190
shadowgovt wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the case, Google has a process for explicitly relinquishing their claim on copyright to the creator. The intent of this policy is to make it clear that creators have to go through that process if they want to use something they fabricated as a side project independently.

I tried going through that process, and they rejected one of my projects (with no followup or explanation, and without replying to my questions). That's the story I told in the OP Twitter thread. That's when I realized the process was broken.

That's highly unusual. I believe you, but it's definitely a weird breakdown in the process.

It'd have been easier, given you were working on it before you joined the company, to claim it on the carve-out document that described the blanket copyright policy. That's what I did for my projects and it was never contested.

(And to be clear, I find the experience you had completely unacceptable. If I'd had the experience you had when I was working there, it would have made me significantly reevaluate whether I wanted to keep working there).

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#208

Post by pjc50 »

Aunche wrote: post #186
marcosdumay wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh, please. It's standard industry practice for companies to claim ownership of everything a software engineer comes up with, even "on their own time". ... So anyone who think this is some evidence of Google being, or becoming, evil is either seriously misinformed, or just engaging in unthinking hate of Google, or both. The fact that every other US company is as evil does not make Google any better. The practice is…

Has Google or any other company actually used this for "evil" though? It sounds like it's just a necessary part of doing business in the US. Don't hate the player. Hate the game. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure rules like these make it easier to sue someone if they steal your source code like with Levandowski.

At their size, Google get to dictate the rules of the game. And it's very convenient for them if employees can't have portfolios that make them easier to poach, and can't start side businesses and so on.

Don't expect the public to support IP protection if their only experience is having it used against them.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#209

Post by marcan_42 »

Yizahi wrote: post #198
carom wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most Google employees are aware of that problem and wish there was a better support structure in place. They aren't paid 300k per year to deal with some random account request though, they are paid to write systems that deal with one billion accounts, so there is not much opportunity there. Until the tech giants hire massive support workforces, this isn't something engineers can do anything about.

Well someone did wrote all those automated banhammer scripts, right? I don't think DMCA requires automated ban system, Google invented it voluntarily.

Hey, I had nothing to do with Content ID. I was more worried with making sure that all those times Google says it will let you delete your personal data and/or anonymize it long-term, that they did and that whole system was working properly. People love to say Google gobbles user data forever, but when something was supposed to be deleted and wasn't, it was me and my team who got woken up at 7AM.

People like to demonize large corporations, and Google has been going downhill, but the vast, vast majority of people working for Google are trying to do good work. Big corporations have this uncanny ability to behave worse and worse even when they're full of good people.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#210

Post by danShumway »

Aunche wrote: post #186
marcosdumay wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh, please. It's standard industry practice for companies to claim ownership of everything a software engineer comes up with, even "on their own time". ... So anyone who think this is some evidence of Google being, or becoming, evil is either seriously misinformed, or just engaging in unthinking hate of Google, or both. The fact that every other US company is as evil does not make Google any better. The practice is…

Has Google or any other company actually used this for "evil" though? It sounds like it's just a necessary part of doing business in the US. Don't hate the player. Hate the game. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure rules like these make it easier to sue someone if they steal your source code like with Levandowski.

> Has Google or any other company actually used this for "evil" though?

From the original Twitter thread:

> usbmuxd was rejected without an explanation. My follow-up email asking for clarification was ignored.

> I ended up having to hand over maintainership of usbmuxd.

Different people have different thresholds for evil, but I consider that to be at least unethical. OP was working on usbmuxd before they joined Google. If Google wanted ownership, that should have been discussed during the hiring process. To hire someone, require them to submit a 'request' to retain ownership, and then pull the rug out from under their feet -- I think that's unethical, even if usbmuxd was a conflict of interest.

But of course, OP wasn't working on anything that would make usbmuxd a conflict of interest. Google's policy was, "because someone somewhere in our company is working on something similar, we own it." I think that's also an unethical overreach. If I'm hired to work on A, I don't think I should need to care that someone else at the company is working on B. My conflicts of interest and related software should be determined based on the parts of the software I'm involved in.

I would posit that this stuff isn't a theoretical concern, that OP demonstrated its an unethical policy that is actively being used for unethical reasons.

Post reply on HN