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

381–390 of 399 posts

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#381

Post by tytso »

danShumway wrote: post #373
tytso wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Giving up" is an ambiguous term here and I should have tried to be more specific. But I wasn't just referring to ownership. If I'm working on a project, and joining Google means I need to stop working on it for 3-4 years, then I've effectively given up that project, in the sense that it's no longer going to be maintained or stay relevant. And what I'm saying is that for an open source project, in general that does…

> if it's in an employment contract, and you signed it without reading it --- sorry, but I have zero sympathy for you. Arguing that employees should read their contracts, and arguing that the terms in those contracts aren't problematic, are two entirely separate things. I agree with you on the first point, I disagree with you on the second. > So long as there is an explicit open source releasing policy, and you follo…

My argument is that employees are responsible for reading the contract, and if the contract have terms that might be problematic for open source contribution, the employee is responsible for finding out ahead of time what the policy is. (For Google, the policy is publically available[1], so it can be read by people who aren't yet employees.) If the policy is not acceptable to you, then you shouldn't work for that company.

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

And if the policy changes --- such as for example, when Oracle suddenly changed the rules about Open Solaris, the solution is simple. You quit. Large portions of the core Solaris team left, soon after Oracle changed the rules.

Bryan Cantrill left Oracle, and he's done fine for himself. He's even made talks explaining what happened when Oracle screwed over Open Solaris:

"As you know people, as you learn about things, you realize that these generalizations we have are, virtually to a generalization, false. Well, except for this one, as it turns out. What you think of Oracle, is even truer than you think it is. There has been no entity in human history with less complexity or nuance to it than Oracle. And I gotta say, as someone who has seen that complexity for my entire life, it's very hard to get used to that idea. It's like, 'surely this is more complicated!' but it's like: Wow, this is really simple! This company is very straightforward, in its defense. This company is about one man, his alter-ego, and what he wants to inflict upon humanity -- that's it! ...Ship mediocrity, inflict misery, lie our asses off, screw our customers, and make a whole shitload of money. Yeah... you talk to Oracle, it's like, 'no, we don't fucking make dreams happen -- we make money!' ...You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle." -- Bryan Cantrill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#382

Post by russdpale »

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…

Im sorry but this is an absolutely terrible argument, no company should be allowed to do this, period.

If anything this shows google continuing to move to "evil" by moving towards an already established terrible practice. It is absolutely absurd its allowed in the first place, and its absurd you take it. I don't mean to be a dick, but your position on this kind of makes you look entitled. No way my employer is ever getting any of my work done on my time, and just because you have allowed this to happen to yourself for so long does not mean it should happen to others, or that is an acceptable business practice.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#383

Post by m463 »

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…

This doesn't apply to the US as a whole. Each state is (sometimes radically) unique.

https://www.faircompetitionlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/1...

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#384

Post by lonelappde »

hysan wrote: post #355
danShumway wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absurd for any company to say they're going to attract passionate programmers, and then expect them to just roll over and give up projects that were started before they even joined at the company. If you're Google, you can get away with this because you just throw so much money at people that they're willing to temporarily put their life on hold for 3-4 years. But for any other company, people who are genuinely…

> It's absurd for any company to say they're going to attract passionate programmers, and then expect them to just roll over and give up projects that were started before they even joined at the company. What I find more absurd are companies that want to hire employees that are passionate and work on side projects but also require employees to sign extremely broad “we own your IP” contracts. It’s like they are saying…

First time I heard that companies hire employees for free.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#385

Post by smsm42 »

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…

I think it makes sense that Google wants to control what employees do in the time they pay them for. "Using company laptops" is kinda stretching it (I mean, I could buy a separate laptop just for open-source patches, especially if I'm paid Google salary, but isn't that really a ridiculous pettiness? Marginal cost of it to Google is exactly zero). But claiming you own somebody's free time and everything they do in their free time, just because they pay the person a salary is beyond ridiculous. I can get why people put up with it - those sweet Google salaries again - but it doesn't stop being beyond ridiculous. It's like I'd claim if I hire a lawyer now I get to be a beneficiary of every lawsuit they ever file, or if I buy a book the writer now owes me royalties on every book they write from now on. It just mind-boggling that one has to get some kind of "permission" to own the products of one's own brain and hands because they get salary from Google, and that people expect Google to be praised for letting some people to use their own brain.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#386

Post by smsm42 »

tikiman163 wrote: post #351
danShumway wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absurd for any company to say they're going to attract passionate programmers, and then expect them to just roll over and give up projects that were started before they even joined at the company. If you're Google, you can get away with this because you just throw so much money at people that they're willing to temporarily put their life on hold for 3-4 years. But for any other company, people who are genuinely…

I think your reaction here is similar to how people reacted to the headline that a woman sued her 5 year old nephew for accidentally breaking her arm. She was actually suing the parent's home owners insurance policy because the policy is supposed to cover these kinds of accidents. The insurance company didn't want to pay out though, so they spun the story to a news broadcaster in an effort to shame her into dropping…

I get your point, and if the parent's argument was "but the situation is not that they do it on their own time, but that they violate NDAs etc." then it'd be a solid argument. But the parent argues that it's completely normal for a company to claim ownership on 100% of employee's life and intellectual output, regardless of NDAs and IPs, and that Google has to be praised for permitting you to keep your intellectual output to yourself, if you ask extra nice.

> so there simply isn't a reason to avoid doing it.

Well, one of the reasons would be what I do outside of work is not my employer's effing business. Of course, if I am taking stuff from work, it makes sense to tell my employer - e.g., if I use company's car to move my furniture, I'd better clear it with my boss, same goes for IP. But if I use my own car to move my own furniture, why would I need to tell my boss about it, even if I use the company car when they are paying me? I mean, I might get a paper just to cover my ass, but that's rather a testament to the state of litigiousness and ridiculousness of our society, not a proper way to do things.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#387

Post by zoobab »

Scarblac wrote: post #148
martin-adams wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intellectual Property and Copyright aren't quite the same thing. The IP is the idea, whereas the copyright is the specific recipe. So in my mind, the equivalent would be using your learned cooking skills for another restaurant while working at a Michelin restaurant. They both serve food (competing or related industry), but while the dishes are different, the techniques to create them come from the same source. I woul…

> Intellectual Property and Copyright aren't quite the same thing. The IP is the idea, whereas the copyright is the specific recipe. No. "Intellectual Property" is an umbrella term for some very different concepts -- copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets (maybe I'm forgetting some). You can't copyright an idea, but you might be able to patent it. It's only intellectual property if you do.

Plant variety rights.

The European Commission even published a document trying to 'reinterpret' the meaning of IP, they ended up redefining what was 'intellectual property' by making their own maximalist list of rights, including the ones that don't exist yet.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#388

Post by Xylakant »

adventskalender wrote: post #371
Xylakant wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

That wasn't my experience, but most employers actually referenced that case in their contract, so I am not sure what the default rule is. Also, a second job is one thing. What about ownership of things you produce in your spare time? I don't think the former necessarily covers the latter.

> That wasn't my experience, but most employers actually referenced that case in their contract, so I am not sure what the default rule is.

The law is as the law is and the law is clear: Without good reason, no employer can forbid you taking on a second job. Now, employers pulling shenanigans in their employment contracts is not entirely uncommon - either due to lack of knowledge or trying to intimidate their employees. That's why it's good to know to have a general idea what the law says - because the law trumps the contract.

> What about ownership of things you produce in your spare time? I don't think the former necessarily covers the latter.

No, it doesn't. This is covered by the ArbnErfG (Gesetze über Arbeitnehmererfindungen) https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/arbnerfg/index.html#BJNR0...

In a very short and inaccurate summary: Your employer can claim inventions that cross a certain threshold that are related to your work. You're entitled to compensation. Your employer can also claim a (nonexclusive) license for inventions that do not relate to your job, but relate to any of their areas of business under fair and reasonable terms (in doubt, a court gets to decide). You must notify your employer of any such invention.

Obviously, trade secrets or code that your employer owns the copyrights for is off limits for any of your spare time work.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#389

Post by jix »

Xylakant wrote: post #197
q3k wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIUC this governs patentable inventions, not copyright.

No, it also covers technical improvements that are not patentable: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/arbnerfg/__3.html

That's just defining the term. AFAICT the law only says that an employee has a right to receive fair compensation for a technical improvement in some cases. It explicitly says that apart from that, procedures covering technical improvements are a matter of contracts: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/arbnerfg/__20.html

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#390

Post by TrickyRick »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #239
TrickyRick wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar in Sweden, although most contracts allow for some compensation surrounding if you create a competing product without disclosing it.

A competing product != Any and everything you code

My point exactly, it needs to be in direct competition.
Post reply on HN