Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by Buttons840 » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

dbg31415 wrote: post #156

I do all of my side work under an alias, just to keep this from happening. Making it one-step harder for lawyers is generally all it takes. Don't draw lines from your GitHub account that you use at work to the GitHub account that holds your side projects. Every time I start with a new company, I spin up a new GitHub account just for that company. Sorry this happened to you.

Despite what my contract says, if my employer asks for my personal projects, I'm quitting the same minute and we can work out the remaining details over email. I guess if they push and threaten enough I will eventually hand over the code.

But in such a scenario, I'm not a loser. If I'm capable of writing software that my former company cares that much about, I'm winning. I'll hand over my Haskell code, laugh at the thought of them trying to understand it, purge all copies I posses, and immediately begin rewriting it in another language and under another anonymous profile.

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

#172

Post by yawnxyz » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

_odey wrote: post #148

ptx wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You will give the Company full written details of all ... works ... made wholly or partially by You at any time ... whether or not during working hours ... which relate to, or are reasonably capable of being used in, the business of the Company [...] all Intellectual Property Rights subsisting ... in all such Inventions and works will ... vest in the Company absolutely. Was this intended as an example of a desirabl…

That's not how I see it, the important part being "which relate to, or are reasonably capable of being used in, the business". This part was missing from my old contracts. As far as I understand it, this clause does not force you to even disclose projects you have that are completely unrelated to the company's business. Key word "business" here, not "company". Example: your personal blog is not related to the fact th…

if the company later on decides to get into the blogging space and create something like Substack, doesn't this mean they will retroactively lay claim to your work?

Or does it only apply to the "business" at that time, not for future business?

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

#173

Post by _odey » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 5:16 PM UTC

yawnxyz wrote: post #172

_odey wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how I see it, the important part being "which relate to, or are reasonably capable of being used in, the business". This part was missing from my old contracts. As far as I understand it, this clause does not force you to even disclose projects you have that are completely unrelated to the company's business. Key word "business" here, not "company". Example: your personal blog is not related to the fact th…

if the company later on decides to get into the blogging space and create something like Substack, doesn't this mean they will retroactively lay claim to your work? Or does it only apply to the "business" at that time, not for future business?

It does not apply retroactively.

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

#174

Post by hackbinary » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 5:16 PM UTC

I would counter that this software was created and maintained on your own time, in which case that at the very least you are entitled for consideration for your work and efforts.

Employment tribunals and courts take a dim view of wage theft, and that is exactly what this is if your employer is trying to enforce that clause.

Get advice from an employment lawyer.

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

#175

Post by eximius » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 5:18 PM UTC

My latest job has a somewhat reasonable set of clauses, but I still wanted some of the verbiage changed. I wasn't able to get that ("we use standardized contracts across the org"), but they were willing to give me a secondary document explaining the interpretation of the clauses I found troublesome which, to me, is really the same thing.

So sometimes changing the wording isn't the only way to get your goal. Amendments/clarifications in writing can work.

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

#176

Post by vmception » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 5:26 PM UTC

marcinzm wrote: post #78

A note to Bumble, this makes me not want to work for you or anyone who is currently in a related leadership position at Bumble (ie: eng leadership, etc.). Given the lack of supply in engineering the bad publicity is going to cost you more than any miniscule gain. edit: And I don't even publish OSS anymore but if you're willing to go after an employee for something this petty what else would you go after them for.

Open source means the code is available it doesn’t mean you have the license to use it and that is dependent on the license

Your stance is basically akin to viewing source of a paid javascript template site and taking all the js because its all in plain text

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

#177

Post by josephcsible » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 5:32 PM UTC

kisamoto wrote: post #122

I think the IT industry is filled with broad, vague clauses like this that aim to lay claim to all IP an employee creates (which can include art, music etc. as well). Some employers make the excuse that it's only during office hours; others claim that this clause would "never actually be used". In my experience it is rarely removed. I've turned down jobs because of it and others that I have accepted I have been extre…

> Some employers make the excuse that it's only during office hours; others claim that this clause would "never actually be used".

If these things were true, then the employer would be perfectly fine with modifying the employment contract accordingly.

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

#178

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #140

notacoward wrote: post #115

I worked for a company once that had this sort of "we own everything" IP clause. They tried to get me to sign it after I had already started. I crossed out that part, initialed the change, and sent it back unsigned. Ended up going back and forth a few times, and then it got dropped behind a desk or something and we all forgot about it. Not surprisingly, I suppose, that company turned out to be a bit of a mess for oth…

> I worked for a company once that had this sort of "we own everything" IP clause. To clarify: Bumble doesn't appear to be going after everything this developer produced while working for them. They're claiming ownership of only two specific repos, both of which even mention that they were "inspired by" Badoo/Bumble open-source projects. These two repos were developed while the developer was working for Badoo/Bumble…

[deleted]

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

#179

Post by marcinzm » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 5:37 PM UTC

vmception wrote: post #176

marcinzm wrote: post #78

A note to Bumble, this makes me not want to work for you or anyone who is currently in a related leadership position at Bumble (ie: eng leadership, etc.). Given the lack of supply in engineering the bad publicity is going to cost you more than any miniscule gain. edit: And I don't even publish OSS anymore but if you're willing to go after an employee for something this petty what else would you go after them for.

Open source means the code is available it doesn’t mean you have the license to use it and that is dependent on the license Your stance is basically akin to viewing source of a paid javascript template site and taking all the js because its all in plain text

The Badoo/Bumble code was Apache 2 published on Github, and the code in question is also Apache 2 published on Github. So I have no idea what your point is.

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

#180

Post by neltnerb » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 5:40 PM UTC

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.…

I agree that they are likely following the advice of 3rd party lawyers, but that absolutely does not let them off the hook. Legal documents just aren't that hard to understand, if the organization doesn't bother reading them or takes a maximalist approach that is absolutely their choice.

You shouldn't need to back and forth and have leverage to get a reasonable contract, the "standard contract" should be balanced. If they argue that it's the lawyers doing it and that oh no of course they would never use total ownership is a good starting point -- regardless of whether there's competition with their business or whether it's done on the clock -- they are going to keep using lawyers as an excuse to screw you over.

Yeah, companies need protection from some things but employees do too. It shouldn't take a state law to get employment contracts to be appropriate instead of simply "arguably legal".