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

211–220 of 399 posts

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#211

Post by xibalba »

elicash wrote: post #189
xibalba wrote: post #184

The extremely simple and obvious solution is to just not work at Google. The fact that people accept these agreements and then disingenuously rage against them later is utterly baffling to me.

Not sure if you read the thread, but this person's agreement allowed them to own their side projects. Some issues are a problem across the industry. But also, more importantly, some people like to solve problems in their workplaces and make them better.

Indeed I did read the thread. The author's employment agreement specified that the employee would submit to a process by which Google determines what of his side work it will claim copyright on. To claim that the employment agreement allows employees to own their side work free, clear, and without Google's approval is simply not true.

People's greatest asset is themselves and their time. It is most effective to deprive companies like Google of this asset (which is their lifeblood) as a means of protest and a lever of change. But I do take your point. Frankly, this thread just feels like whinging to me.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#212

Post by jkaplowitz »

modzu wrote: post #157
q3k wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

have never seen this clause in canada and it seems like something that would not be upheld in the courts either (cf. non compete clauses)

Non-compete clauses are not automatically illegal in Canada, just like most US states (California is a famous exception). The courts usually look at a lot of specifics based on case law to determine what they consider reasonable. For any individual clause they might throw it out, modify it (unsure if this is an option in all provinces), ornl enforce it.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#213

Post by claudeganon »

franga2000 wrote: post #155
shadowgovt wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you make an excellent point, in particular regarding the fact that this is a US-based policy. US copyright law is extremely friendly to individual creators at the expense of corporations. It makes corporations bend over backwards to avoid getting into a messy legal dispute with somebody that they've employed to create for them. This policy is so broad because if an individual Google employee were to try and c…

> US copyright law is extremely friendly to individual creators at the expense of corporations. You must be joking! Yes, the "Work made for hire" requirements are convoluted, but most of the complexity applies only to independent contractors anyways. I have never heard of a US corporation be in danger because of an employee claiming copyright, yet people's personal projects and own companies constantly get screwed by…

See, for example, the entire history of IP in comics, which Disney is now using to print money.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#214

Post by lolinder »

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.

In the original Twitter thread, Google stole ownership of a pre-existing side project when the maintainer filed for approval. That's evil. It may not have been a personal evil, but bureaucratic evil is very real.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#215

Post by eequah9L »

vesche wrote: post #56

Are we really at the point where we're using 100 tweets to write what should be in a blog post?

We are and we have been for a while now :)

I'm not a fan, but there is one interesting upside--Twitter makes it simple to react to any one of those paragraphs, and spin off another discussion. The emergent graph of reactions is much more fine-grained than what blogs allowed.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#216

Post by boomlinde »

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…

> 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".

I have not yet worked at a job where this was the case, and I would decline an offer to do so. It is unusual here, but I know of a friend who signed such a contract for a video game studio, but then only for games specifically and not IT in general.

Mostly thanks to unions there are plenty of options not to work for these leeches.

> 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".

On the other hand it's extremely difficult to say that the innovations I contribute to my employer are conceived exclusively during paid hours.

> 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.

Without even addressing the conclusion you can surely see how this reasoning is faulty. If all evil things that were ever considered common practice were excused for only that reason, we'd probably live in a pretty shitty world.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#217

Post by UserIsUnused »

Zenbit_UX wrote: post #179
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…

> 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". Is your argument really "it's no big deal cause everyone's doing it"?

He said it a bit different "it's no big deal not only because everyone else is doing it but also because the referred company is one that does it the less."

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#218

Post by Sean1708 »

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.

Why is it a necessary part of doing business in the US? What is different about the US compared to countries where this practice is unheard of?

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#219

Post by mamon »

ownagefool wrote: post #17
DigitalSea wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the side projects he worked on prior to joining Google. >Like many Googlers, I had projects I worked on in my spare time. Some of those I carried over from before joining. >When I joined, I submitted two projects that I was actively working on at the time, largely just maintaining: AsbestOS (yes, those were the PS3 Linux days) and usbmuxd (iPhone USB comms daemon, you probably have it if you have Ubuntu!).

They also said it wasn't during work hours or on googles equipment. Though, honestly, I doubt I really even agree on the equipment clause when it. When said equipment is a laptop and a phone, using their device would be more about not wanting to carry multiple devices than any interstice value gained by the equipment.

I think this restriction makes more sense in other industries, such as pharmaceuticals, where lab equipment can cost millions of dollars, so employee doing their own "side projects" on it is more real abuse of company property.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#220

Post by wbl »

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…

California law gives everyone that second option as I understand it.
Post reply on HN