Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 339 posts

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#101

Post by DoingIsLearning »

ealexhudson wrote: post #92
jiveturkey wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"in the course of" meaning, related to. personal work on personal time is not 'In the course of" employment. It's that latter bit that the GP is obviously asking about. The contract he linked has especially egegrious language. It's not worth negotiating IMO. Any employer that even tries to get such language in is showing their cards.

The plain reading meaning of "in the course of" is not the case law, though, it has established precedent - and most of that favoured the employers in question. I don't know of a case that took into account "personal time" as being relevant, and most salaried employees are not paid on the basis of hours worked. The typical contractual language does go beyond the established case law, but not by as far as you seem to…

> most salaried employees are not paid on the basis of hours worked

In my experience salaried IC's in the UK are explicitly contracted for 40 hour weeks, excluding pensions, bonus, shares, etc.

It is only when you get on managerial tracts and C-Level that you have some form of hours exemption which means no OT and that implicitly you 'could' work 24/7.

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#102

Post by _odey »

tomxor wrote: post #90
cassianoleal wrote: post #82

Many years ago I had a job offer at Badoo in the UK. After many rounds of going back-and-forth with the contract, me trying to better understand certain clauses, them going back to the lawyers, etc. I told them I'd be happy to sign if they removed the caluses that stated pretty much anything I created on or off hours belonged to them. They went back to the lawyers and came back to me saying that this is not the first…

I had a similar situation with my current job, but with a happy ending. The contract was "standard" but others who also read it thoroughly had the same issue with broad, overreaching clauses that essentially attempt to claim complete IP ownership of everything the employee ever touched. The directors were very reasonable and understood my concerns, we eventually managed to remove or reword all of the offending parts.…

Would you be willing to copy paste (redacted if needed) exactly what the "Intellectual Property Rights" section of your contract states right now? I would like to have it on hand to use as a "this is what others have and I want the same", concrete example.

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#103

Post by miohtama »

tomxor wrote: post #90
cassianoleal wrote: post #82

Many years ago I had a job offer at Badoo in the UK. After many rounds of going back-and-forth with the contract, me trying to better understand certain clauses, them going back to the lawyers, etc. I told them I'd be happy to sign if they removed the caluses that stated pretty much anything I created on or off hours belonged to them. They went back to the lawyers and came back to me saying that this is not the first…

I had a similar situation with my current job, but with a happy ending. The contract was "standard" but others who also read it thoroughly had the same issue with broad, overreaching clauses that essentially attempt to claim complete IP ownership of everything the employee ever touched. The directors were very reasonable and understood my concerns, we eventually managed to remove or reword all of the offending parts.…

Lawyers are negotiators and their job is to maximize the company profit and security. If one signs such an overraching contract it is their stupidity. It is not fair, but in a negotiation you are not supposed to be fair.

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#104

Post by StrLght »

_odey wrote: post #102
tomxor wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar situation with my current job, but with a happy ending. The contract was "standard" but others who also read it thoroughly had the same issue with broad, overreaching clauses that essentially attempt to claim complete IP ownership of everything the employee ever touched. The directors were very reasonable and understood my concerns, we eventually managed to remove or reword all of the offending parts.…

Would you be willing to copy paste (redacted if needed) exactly what the "Intellectual Property Rights" section of your contract states right now? I would like to have it on hand to use as a "this is what others have and I want the same", concrete example.

Not OP, but here's the exact words from the contract:

>You will give the Company full written details of all Inventions and of all works embodying Intellectual Property Rights made wholly or partially by You at any time during the course of Your Employment (whether or not during working hours or using Company premises or resources) which relate to, or are reasonably capable of being used in, the business of the Company or any Group Company. You acknowledge that all Intellectual Property Rights subsisting (or which may in the future subsist) in all such Inventions and works will automatically, on creation, vest in the Company absolutely. To the extent that they do not vest automatically, You hold them on trust for the Company. You agree to execute promptly all documents and to do all acts as may, in the opinion of the Company, be necessary to give effect to this clause 20.1.

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#105

Post by cassianoleal »

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #88
cassianoleal wrote: post #82

Many years ago I had a job offer at Badoo in the UK. After many rounds of going back-and-forth with the contract, me trying to better understand certain clauses, them going back to the lawyers, etc. I told them I'd be happy to sign if they removed the caluses that stated pretty much anything I created on or off hours belonged to them. They went back to the lawyers and came back to me saying that this is not the first…

My experience from the other side of the fence is that this is pretty standard, i.e. nobody would really bother with changing the standard contract for one potential employee unless they were perceived as a crucial asset. The people who do the hiring, the ones who make the decisions and the ones who will work with you later - these are very different groups of people, with some (very temporary) overlap. The hiring on…

This was the first time I actually came across a clause of this type in an employment contract. I knew of their existence but had never found them in the wild.

I sincerely hope enough people refuse to sign those that it becomes a problem for companies.

When I go into an employment, I'm agreeing to rent a certain number of hours of my skills to the company's benefit. I'm not agreeing to give the company any kind of control of what I do or don't do outside of those hours. Mind you, I'm not saying I would _never_ sign such a clause, but that would be a lot more expensive. I would probably agree to it if I could work 3-5 years and retire comfortably.

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#106

Post by Kalium »

quiffledwerg wrote: post #56

Bumble gave him a cake for five years service recently, so the company can’t be that bad really. https://twitter.com/arkann1985/status/1446071099989663745?s=... Surely we can overlook the whole “give us your damn open source personal projects copyright grab or you’ll be chewing on big legal problems buddy” thing given the companies generosity with cake? The cake shows that Bumble really are good people. Reminds me of…

The thing about companies past a fairly small size is that you cannot reason about them as a group with characteristics much beyond sharing an employer. Are they good people? Yes. Are they bad people? Yes. Are they vindictive, legalistic people? Yes.

With this in mind, I would say that the cake shows that some part of the org is good people. We might consider being careful about how quickly and how aggressively we generalize this. I know where I've been in companies where parts of engineering were good people while other parts of the company had wonderful and bountiful opportunities to become good people.

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#108

Post by teeray »

cassianoleal wrote: post #82

Many years ago I had a job offer at Badoo in the UK. After many rounds of going back-and-forth with the contract, me trying to better understand certain clauses, them going back to the lawyers, etc. I told them I'd be happy to sign if they removed the caluses that stated pretty much anything I created on or off hours belonged to them. They went back to the lawyers and came back to me saying that this is not the first…

It makes me wonder if there’s a way to put together a standard rider that overrides those clauses. Then it just becomes an exchange of paper to sign.

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#109

Post by Silhouette »

ajb wrote: post #18
Silhouette wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The default position might be something like that but anyone writing software professionally surely has explicit provisions in their employment contract that would take precedence (as long as they hold up to any legal challenge of course).

Contacts don't override every law. Ever heard of inalienable rights? Those are ones that you can't contact away.

Which "inalienable right" applies here?

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#110

Post by ealexhudson »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #101
ealexhudson wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plain reading meaning of "in the course of" is not the case law, though, it has established precedent - and most of that favoured the employers in question. I don't know of a case that took into account "personal time" as being relevant, and most salaried employees are not paid on the basis of hours worked. The typical contractual language does go beyond the established case law, but not by as far as you seem to…

> most salaried employees are not paid on the basis of hours worked In my experience salaried IC's in the UK are explicitly contracted for 40 hour weeks, excluding pensions, bonus, shares, etc. It is only when you get on managerial tracts and C-Level that you have some form of hours exemption which means no OT and that implicitly you 'could' work 24/7.

The vast majority of contracts opt out of the working time directive, and the stated hours are about reasonable expectation - not contracted hours.
Post reply on HN