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

161–170 of 339 posts

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

#161

Post by bradleyjg »

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.…

The origins of these clauses appeared to be entirely from third party lawyers, probably derived from some boilerplate contract. I presume their priority is to maximise legal "protection" for the company at all cost... even if it drives employees away, so it's not necessarily something the company explicitly asked for.

They may not have explicitly asked for any particular clause but when someone in the GC’s office of a company large enough to have a GC reaches out to outside counsel to have one of these agreements drafted the general tone and parameters are very much discussed. If the resulting contract is very one sided and anti-employee it’s because that’s what the company that paid for it to be drafted wanted. Don’t be fooled into thinking otherwise.

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

#162

Post by stefan_ »

Xylakant wrote: post #51
masklinn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as long as they hold up to any legal challenge of course Which they don't because it makes no sense. Transpose to a car mechanic fixing up junkers in their spare time, does the fixed junker belong to the company? Of course not.

This is not a good analogy. A substantial chunk of the value of software is often the idea, not only the time worked on something. Ideas and inventions don’t happen on a schedule. Think of a chemist that is tasked with finding a way to synthesize a compound. He tries all day at work, and in the evening, on the couch, he’s struck by a bolt of enlightenment. Who does that idea belong to? German law would be pretty clea…

That's a bizarre comment because the least protected thing here is the idea. This guy is free to get a new job and write a new library from scratch, or just tell his new company to do X + Y.

Also, of course, German law does not allow the US-style overarching IP clauses at all.

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

#163

Post by wutwutwutwut »

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…

> nobody would really bother with changing the standard contract for one potential employee

I have gotten through changes 2 times at the places I joined. I have simply told them I cant accept the agreement because of X.

Making some amendment to a employment contract is probably cheaper than skipping a hire the last second after several interviews.

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

#164

Post by btrettel »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #160
btrettel wrote: post #141

Amusing previous HN comment on this sort of problem (not from me): > I've always thought that if a company claims rights over what you do outside worktime, they should do it not only for your genial ideas, but for the bad ones too. So, if you incur in a stupid debt it must belong to the company. Your newborn baby? The company mus pay alimony. It's all or nothing! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1113065 Edit: I f…

> I've always thought that if a company claims rights over what you do outside worktime A lot of people are assuming this was done separate from his job, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Badoo/Bumble isn't trying to claim ownership of other projects he did, just the ones that were closely related to his Badoo/Bumble work during his employment.

Fair enough, I'm not aware of all the details of the specific case here.

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

#165

Post by ma2rten »

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…

This reminded me of this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25281438

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

#166

Post by mattalex »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #157
AlexCoventry wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They say they're "inspired by" Badoo libraries. That's not enough to call them derivative works, at least for copyright purposes.

Right! But they were developed while the author was working for Badoo/Bumble. You can't develop something "inspired by" your day job, while working the day job in parallel, and then claim it isn't related to the day job.

Why would it be a problem if they were related to his day job? Keep in mind the libraries he was inspired by are open-source apache licensed code. Your argument only makes sense if you assume the code was related to proprietary tech and not just a piece of code you find on the internet.

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

#167

Post by LightHugger »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #157
AlexCoventry wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They say they're "inspired by" Badoo libraries. That's not enough to call them derivative works, at least for copyright purposes.

Right! But they were developed while the author was working for Badoo/Bumble. You can't develop something "inspired by" your day job, while working the day job in parallel, and then claim it isn't related to the day job.

That only works if he wrote them during work hours. If he didn't then why would the company own it? Anything you do off the clock is none of the company's business.

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

#168

Post by hallway_monitor »

LightHugger wrote: post #167
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right! But they were developed while the author was working for Badoo/Bumble. You can't develop something "inspired by" your day job, while working the day job in parallel, and then claim it isn't related to the day job.

That only works if he wrote them during work hours. If he didn't then why would the company own it? Anything you do off the clock is none of the company's business.

Generally the company has a claim to closely-related work even if done off-hours. You can't e.g. clone your company's product off-hours, or even make a closely-related product without the companty having a valid claim on that IP.

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

#169

Post by Buttons840 »

I've always wondered what would happen if a OSS library had accepted contributions from others?

Let's say me and a friend develop a library together, then my company asks for ownership of it. Sorry, I can't legally do that, because I myself only own half the code.

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

#170

Post by cellularmitosis »

teeray wrote: post #108
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.

Yes, this is part of California law. I forget the url, but if you google for it, it is less than one page. You can just print it out and bring it with you and say “FAANG does this, and I expect it as well”
Post reply on HN