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

281–290 of 399 posts

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#281

Post by Xylakant »

adventskalender wrote: post #229
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.

That's nonsense. In Germany the default for contracts is that you need your employers permission to do side projects. Germany is in the EU.

That's nonsense.

> In Germany the default for contracts is that you need your employers permission to do side projects.

You generally need to notify your employer if you take on a second (paid) job. The employer may veto that employment, but must specify a good reason (you can't be in competition, exceed the total legal working hours, bring ill repute to your employer, ...), but the default is "allow". Clauses that require approval are generally not enforceable. As always, there are exceptions depending on the exact circumstances. See for example this discussion (in german) https://www.haufe.de/personal/arbeitsrecht/top-thema-nebenbe...

You generally don't need permission to do open source work, though the ownership of inventions that qualify under the ArbnErfG may fall to the employer. As such, it's good to get clarification and explicit approval from your employer beforehands.

(not legal advice, ...)

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#282

Post by vertex-four »

sidpatil wrote: post #39
_trampeltier wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of things different in the "real" world and the "software" world. Nobody would accept underwear with a build in camera, gps tracker and a microphone wo give the data to x companys. But with a cellphone (almost) everybody is ok. Also if something goes wrong with software, it's the customers problem. The customer accepted the contract with no rights for him (software AS IS, no warranty), nobody would ac…

> The customer accepted the contract with no rights for him (software AS IS, no warranty) That's only specific to FOSS.

Nearly every bit of software you use has that wording in its EULA.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#283

Post by Aunche »

danShumway wrote: post #265
Aunche wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am not a lawyer, but this seems like very bad advice. That's kind of my point. Millions of people have been employed by companies with similar policies, and undoubtably many of them chose to ignore the "correct" legal moves because it's just easier. If Google really wanted to screw people over, they could, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

> If Google really wanted to screw people over, they could, but that doesn't seem to be happening. But again > I ended up having to hand over maintainership of usbmuxd. What's your personal criteria for getting screwed over? From my perspective, it already happened with OP.

I mean like take ownership of a project or start up based on a technicality. Taking someone's app money would be another one. I don't think that making someone else maintain your project is unreasonable, especially if that someone can be a mysterious anon that comes in at the right time.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#284

Post by tytso »

marcan_42 wrote: post #187
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…

Others have already commented on how this isn't "standard" in places outside the US, so I'll focus on something else. Ted, you're a Big Deal. You maintain ext4, you're a major kernel contributor. Of course Google is going to keep you happy, give you plenty of time to work on FOSS, and provide you with resources for it. They are paying you to work on FOSS to a large extent. The deal is they give you all this time and…

marcan_42, I will have been at Google for 10 years in January, and even back then the Open Source policies were part of the Noogler training, and the fact that Google would own everything you did, even on your own time, was clearly in the stated in the employement document, as well as a place for you list everything that you had worked on before you started work at Google and so was your Intellectual Property (IP).

Google's open source policies is now fully public (as of a few years ago), and I can affirm that they haven't changed substantially in the last ten years. It's all here[1], including the statement releasing code as open source under the Google copyright was very clearly documented in the IARC process[2]:

[1] https://opensource.google/docs/

[2] https://opensource.google/docs/iarc/

So I have trouble taking your complaint that "Google didn't tell me that I had an alternative" seriously. Also, from your description, a huge portion of your contributions that you listed were in the Linux and associated projects (such as Pulse Audio). So all of this would have required one, or perhaps two, requests to release OSS patches; once you have done that for one or two contributions, it's no longer necessary to ask permission for subsequent patches to a OSS project. (This is true for all Googlers.) Asking for permission to release those under GPL is trivial, and is granted as a matter of course. Lots of other Googlers have done it, without problem, and most have not complained the OSS releasing process is heavyweight. IARC is more heavyweight, yes, but it's right there in the IARC process documentation that the OSS releasing process is the preferred option, and that it is lightweight.

Before I started working at VA Linux Systems or at IBM, I had taken the class, "Law for an I/T Manager" at the MIT Sloan School. So I was very well aware of IP law issues (patents, copyright, and trade secrets), and how to read contracts, including employment contracts. So none of this took my surprise (either at VA Linux Systems or at IBM, both of which had similar provisions in the employment contract); perhaps you didn't bother to take the time to read the employment contract and perhaps you didn't bother to read the very clear web pages at Google's Open Source Program Office. I can't speak to what you experienced at your Noogler training, so it's unclear whether you weren't paying attention, or it's since been streamlined. But if you found the IARC documentation so you could submitted the IARC request, you should have found rest, and this shouldn't have been a surprise to you.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#285

Post by andy_ppp »

This Joel on Software article seems relevant: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-pr...

I totally disagree with the sentiments though and would prefer copyright to be transferred on a project by project basis. Why do businesses seem to say that it's so difficult to know what should be owned by the company you work for? Surely a well run company has a clear understanding of what a developer is working on at work. They own everything to do with that and nothing else right?

And yes, if I start a search engine competitive with Google in my spare time I suspect they own the search engine, but if I start a second hand clothing app they do not! I seriously do not understand where the difficulty is in defining this?

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#286

Post by kllrnohj »

sitkack wrote: post #271
raphlinus wrote: post #246

Counterpoint: I open sourced a lot of stuff while I was at Google. There is some friction in the open source releasing and IARC policies (one of my projects got denied), but generally the open source teams at Google want you to do good work. And having clear documentation of ownership is actually helpful; there's a lot of dodgy stuff out there where you're not sure who actually has the rights. Contrast to Apple, wher…

You are also famous and had a big OSS presence before joining Google, you worked on Google blessed OSS software while employed there. You are in no way typical of the bullshit other folks have to go through.

The Twitter OP also had his random OSS project approved in IARC and he wasn't famous. He also even says the workflow today is much more permissive than it was when he joined (aka, it's gotten better)

Then again, twitter OP also is attempting to apply boolean logic to legal documents as if that whole "BUT TECHNICALLY" bullshit actually flies in court. He had a bad experience on 1 of 2 projects, decided to contribute to a 3rd knowingly violating policies (legal liability much?), got chewed out for it (but not fired or "retaliated against"), and is now ranting about that experience from many years ago on twitter.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#287

Post by elicash »

xibalba wrote: post #211
elicash wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 depri…

I think your response is a fair one, but the counter-argument I'd make to you is that Google is so powerful that if the employees were able to make a change that the ripple effects throughout the industry would be tremendous.

As an individual, it's possible the biggest thing you can do alone is control where you spend your time. But collectively, it's possible the biggest impact of employees would be to change things on the job.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#288

Post by outside1234 »

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.

It's Google imperialism. We don't have a similar clause at Microsoft if you use your own equipment and your own time.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#289

Post by jlarocco »

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".

Bullshit. I've never had to do that in 17 years as a software engineer (in the United States). Don't normalize this crap and make excuses for it.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#290

Post by kllrnohj »

deogeo wrote: post #147
jsolson wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe we should be happy it took google so long. If you read the thread you'll note that this policy has been around for a long time (at least the ~7 years I've been with Google). The author also notes that, in terms of open source, things have become dramatically _more_ permissive over time.

That's exactly it, isn't it? Thanks to such restrictive contracts, you need Google's permission .

> Thanks to such restrictive contracts, you need Google's permission.

No you don't. You could roll the dice on a legal battle, relying on your employment contract's exact terms in combination with federal & state laws. Like you have to do most everywhere else.

The reason to go through things like IARC is so that you can avoid all of that. It's Google up-front waiving a legal pursuit on the topic, saying "yes all parties agree this is fine."

Post reply on HN