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

311–320 of 399 posts

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#311

Post by hinkley »

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…

This is not standard practice in Seattle. Not unheard of, but not standard.

There are places you can work outside of the Valley.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#312

Post by oldandtired »

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.

This is standard practice in Australia and has been for many decades. I came across this practice in the late 80's and early 90's and it became even more common and egregious as time went on. At the time, the company I was working for decided to update the employment contracts of all of its employees and we were all supposed to sign these new contracts having these "ownership" clauses in them. I know I didn't and there were many of my collegues didn't as well, but every new employee didn't have a choice. When I hit the 00's and went contracting, I was able to change my basic contract to avoid this on occasions. On others I was not able to get the appropriate changes made. As a contractor though, the "ownership" clause were less demanding. But still, I basically had to stop work on all my side projects (all of them, even outside of the software field) during each employment contract.

These days I can do what I like and don't have to worry about any company interfering. This is a consequence of no longer being employed in any such field.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#313

Post by bskap »

outside1234 wrote: post #288
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.

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

Having seen the employment agreements for both, I can confidently say that Google's clause is the same as Microsoft's. Microsoft may be less strict about enforcing it, but the language was the same.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#314

Post by BeetleB »

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".

Not in my big tech company. You have to disclose any side work you do only if it is similar to the work you do. Not if it is similar to anything the company does. And they're not overly broad (so my doing SW doesn't mean I have to report all SW side work).

As someone else said, let's not normalize this crap.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#315

Post by grawprog »

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…

Why do software developers accept this? It's the only profession i've heard of things like this happening. I've never had an employer even think that anything I make or do in my own time is their business, even when i've used materials or equipment from work. The idea that an employer has any rights to anything I do they aren't paying me for is mind boggling.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#316

Post by testingitout56 »

danShumway wrote: post #210
Aunche wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

That's nice that you don't think there's a conflict of interest, but that doesn't mean you are correct or that it's an unethical overreach. Especially given their policy, it's pretty clear there is a conflict of interest between Google and this persons software, ignoring that and looking entirely from the employee perspective is just silly.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#318

Post by walshemj »

Xylakant wrote: post #131
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.

Germany has an entire law around this which came into force 1957: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/arbnerfg/__49.html Many work contracts don't have clauses for inventions related to your field of employment because there's no ambiguity. Most patches would not fall under the law, but entire libaries or novel approaches might. (basically anything patent-worthy)

This is the point I think the tweeter and a lot of commenters on here miss.

In the EU all those laws are part of the statutory employment law /eu directives and not in an individuals contract - so employees don't ever know about that unless they know about employment law.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#319

Post by LatteLazy »

People really have the knives out for Google at the moment (see also the firing of people, monopoly allegations, the fake news "controversy"). They're not perfect. But is there any major corporation that DOESN'T claim ip over employee projects during their employment? Side or otherwise.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#320

Post by fzeroracer »

valdiorn wrote: post #298
Roark66 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are certain things employers put in their contracts even though they know 100% it is non enforceable due to being illegal etc. Years ago when I was an employee it was common practice in IT(in UK) to have a non-compete clause in your employment contract that said: "if you leave you can't work for a competition for 6-12 months". When I looked into it I found out statements like this are unenforceable under UK law…

This is all well and good, until you end your employment at a firm that is extremely vengeful, and as a deterrent to other employees, does in fact decide to take you to court and make your life miserable for several months. Because, remember; you don't have to be guilty to be dragged into court. Having worked for one such company, who made a spectacle out of punishing disloyal former employees way past the point of w…

I made a similar argument in a previous HN thread [1] and people were absolutely incredulous over this idea that not only do companies try to own everything you do but that you don't have to be guilty to be sued by a vengeful employer.

I'll repeat here what I said there. A lot of engineers cannot work on projects in their free time due to being locked into horrible contracts that assert copyright and ownership over anything they do in their free time. Which has a chilling effect on engineers who would otherwise contribute to FOSS. Even if those provisions are illegal, it still costs a lot of money to strike them down in court and the court system is generally always stacked in favor of the corporation.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21771325

Post reply on HN