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

391–399 of 399 posts

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#391

Post by anoncake »

stared wrote: post #269
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". If you make a kid (on your own time, with your own equipment, and not in their office), should it also by their property?

Since pregnancy is part of "making" a baby and the uterus works 24/7, Google actually has a stronger case for ownership of its female employees' children than for their intellectual creations.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#393

Post by zoobab »

stiray wrote: post #237
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…

You can call it industry standard but it is blatant exploitation of workers and their rights. It is also breaking one of basic human rights, right to work, putting them into situation where they are slaves to the company. Someone in EU should bring this to the EU court for human rights, I am sure they would win the case and stop this practice, at least for EU. For my country this is completely unenforcable and every…

Actually in the NGINX case, the former company claims (or is trying to find proofs, such as timings of git commits) that Nginx has been developed on company's paid time. Even if the sysadmin was "on call" and coding Nginx on the side. I guess the Nginx lesson should be a wake up call for all of us who are developing FLOSS on the side.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#394

Post by lioeters »

kabdib wrote: post #377
lioeters wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's admirable how your employer has the contract clause excluding ownership of any work you do on your own time, on your own equipment. To me, that seems like it should be the standard, common sense. I noticed Dunbar's number (~150 people) is sometimes mentioned, to attempt to explain how trust in relationships break down in large corporations. I'm curious, may I ask roughly how big your employer is?

It should definitely be the standard. I agree, it should not even be worthwhile mentioning. It was still refreshing to see. We talk about Dunbar's number quite a bit, actually. We're about 2X that, enough for several tribes.

Thank you for answering. I just saw your profile - seeing where you work, I feel a bit silly for so casually asking the question!

The topic of company ownership/copyright on employee side projects seem even more relevant in the gaming industry, where - I imagine - there must be a lot of code/library reuse, common patterns and concepts, where side projects could easily overlap with products.

On one hand, I can see that from a management/legal perspective, it could be difficult to justify the risk, especially as the company scales beyond tens or hundreds of Dunbar-sized social groups.

My impression is that companies founded and managed by programmers tend to have respect and trust for the work being done, with understanding that life-long programmers (in contrast with those just doing it as a job) always have side projects going on - and that such projects are perfect playgrounds for learning, exploration of ideas, creativity and innovation.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#395

Post by reroute1 »

danShumway wrote: post #340
reroute1 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would never, ever join a company that didn't (in writing) allow me to retain ownership of my side projects. OK that's fine, but doesn't everyone have this choice? Apparently google attracts thousands of top engineers with this clause. Lots of people agree to it, just because you won't doesn't mean it's absurd. Maybe you are absurd for calling google and their ideas absurd.

Companies like Google are an exception; they pay their engineers so ridiculously much that people are willing to ignore the clause under the assumption that they'll work 2-3 years and quit. Google is also broad enough that they can basically hire passion project employees -- people like tytso who are being paid to spend upwards of 50% of their time working on a side project like the Linux kernel. If you're a startup…

> People look at Google and say, "it's fine, because it works for them." 99% of companies in the world aren't Google, and will not be able to pull this off without suppressing their hire quality and retention.

Do they really? Who cares? If some startup adopts the policies of one of the largest most successful companies in the world, then that is stupid and on them, they deserve to fail. At this point it doesn't even have anything to do with Google.

You said you won't apply to Google because of their policy, I said fine they don't need you they have plenty of qualified applicants. Now you're saying the problem is all these copycats. OK, whatever. Let them do what they want, and let people sign agreements they want. You just keep saying that it's absurd, but that doesn't make it so. That is entirely your opinion and the fact that thousands of engineers CHOOSE to work there is supporting that it's not absurd. If this is all about Google and you don't care and would never work there then why do you care so much about the people that do? Are you concerned they're being oppressed in some way? Have they been mislead? Isn't it possible they just disagree with you?

I never said anything about trying this policy out at your local startup or anything about what's best for you as a programmer in general. No kidding people like freedom? People lash out at Google and then turn it into something completely different halfway through the conversation.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#397

Post by adventskalender »

Xylakant wrote: post #388
adventskalender wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 employe…

It still seems to me the latter is a problem for people working on their side projects in their spare time. Like if you are a software developer, and develop some software at home, it is kind of related to your job.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#398

Post by adventskalender »

Xylakant wrote: post #388
adventskalender wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 employe…

Here is some more information (in German): https://www.nebenjob.de/ratgeber/2479-ihr-recht-auf-den-zwei...

If your second job leads to the total of your work taking up more than 48 hours per week, your employer can forbid it. Likewise if you work in your holidays.

I don't think it is as straightforward as you make it sound.

Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects

#399

Post by ownagefool »

mamon wrote: post #219
ownagefool wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd typically agree, there is a solid argument there and the premise as a whole makes sense, I just think trivialities should be excluded, and that standard software development is fairly trivial use.

Once you test such software against company owned datasets, it's a different ballgame.

Post reply on HN