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

201–210 of 339 posts

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

#201

Post by Xylakant »

masklinn wrote: post #94
Xylakant wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> And often, software is similar. That only holds if the side-project is exactly what the company does, and even then it’s debatable: if a person is interested in problem X and has personal projects around X, and the company hires them because if that, do they really expect that person to stop being interested in X on a personal level?

It’s often sufficient if the general field of work matches, though to a varying degree.

> if a person is interested in problem X and has personal projects around X, and the company hires them because if that, do they really expect that person to stop being interested in X on a personal level?

This is exactly where you start entering a problematic grey area. The employer hired and pays the employee exactly to gain access and make use of that knowledge and interest and pays a wage exactly for that. And at the same time, the employee wants to continue working on their open source project, giving away exactly that knowledge for free, which potentially diminishes the value that the employer pays for. There’s a fundamental tension here which is difficult to resolve. Open communication helps, explicitly spelling out the boundaries as well. It’s impossible to tell from the tweet which side failed here to what degree, but getting a sign-off from management in edge cases is definitely a good idea.

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

#202

Post by seanwilson »

_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…

> That's not how I see it, the important part being "which relate to, or are reasonably capable of being used in, the business".

> Example: your personal blog is not related to the fact that your employer develops and sells databases.

Couldn't this be interpreted very broadly though? Like if you write your own web server, programming language, optimisation tool, build tool, CMS, CRM etc. they could likely find a use for these within their business.

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

#203

Post by marcinzm »

vmception wrote: post #200
marcinzm wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? The company made their code open source under a permissive license. A developer working there then built their own package inspired by that code on their own time. I'm not sure where ethically the issue is here. Many things are legal but not ethical. So while they may legally be able to compel him that doesn't mean their action isn't unethical and petty. Companies that do unethical and petty things tend to be ho…

I think you jumped the gun trying to predict how this conversation would go I am asking exclusively about the legal circumstance And also stop acting confused at every response, this is a normal conversation where someone asks about the context and the other person replies with the answer, I skimmed the tweet thread but the background isn't familiar to me and thats what the point of the conversation is You are too tu…

Your first response made multiple strong claims and tried to state what my stance was with an explicit example. If you didn't know the context then you shouldn't have started with strong claims you didn't know the truth of. In addition, my original post made no claim of the legality of this situation and neither did you make any claims until this post. I merely claimed that this was a petty thing to do.

Trying to twist out of statements you made yourself and trying to play the victim when not winning an argument doesn't make for a useful conversation.

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

#204

Post by [deleted] »

marcinzm wrote: post #203
vmception wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you jumped the gun trying to predict how this conversation would go I am asking exclusively about the legal circumstance And also stop acting confused at every response, this is a normal conversation where someone asks about the context and the other person replies with the answer, I skimmed the tweet thread but the background isn't familiar to me and thats what the point of the conversation is You are too tu…

Your first response made multiple strong claims and tried to state what my stance was with an explicit example. If you didn't know the context then you shouldn't have started with strong claims you didn't know the truth of. In addition, my original post made no claim of the legality of this situation and neither did you make any claims until this post. I merely claimed that this was a petty thing to do. Trying to twi…

[deleted]

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

#205

Post by vmception »

marcinzm wrote: post #203
vmception wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you jumped the gun trying to predict how this conversation would go I am asking exclusively about the legal circumstance And also stop acting confused at every response, this is a normal conversation where someone asks about the context and the other person replies with the answer, I skimmed the tweet thread but the background isn't familiar to me and thats what the point of the conversation is You are too tu…

Your first response made multiple strong claims and tried to state what my stance was with an explicit example. If you didn't know the context then you shouldn't have started with strong claims you didn't know the truth of. In addition, my original post made no claim of the legality of this situation and neither did you make any claims until this post. I merely claimed that this was a petty thing to do. Trying to twi…

Ok, right bumble doesn’t have to do this

Is there any ambiguity in the case?

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

#206

Post by whats-the-hype »

The internet is quick to grab the pitchfork but it looks like there's a different story here.

If you compare arkann1985's MVIKotlin vs badoo/MVICore it's an understatement to say it was "inspired by". It looks like an almost identical clone.

And as others have pointed out, it's not like Bumble is going after all of this guy's projects, just the ones where he was "inspired by" company work.

It would be difficult to argue that the projects in question would exist without benefiting from his employment at Bumble where the originals were developed.

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

#207

Post by Ericson2314 »

neltnerb wrote: post #180
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.…

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…

Yeah the fact that this "dice roll" arbitrary precedent from old boilerplate and 3rd partly lawyers is so hard to displace indicates the weak position of labor in the labor market.

Sure, you can be a bit conspiratorial and say that this works out in the employers favor, helps suppress side projects that might become profitable, etc. etc. but I prefer the simple-stupid reading that the weaker part has trouble pushing back on inertia and the stronger party alike.

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

#208

Post by _odey »

seanwilson wrote: post #202
_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…

> That's not how I see it, the important part being "which relate to, or are reasonably capable of being used in, the business". > Example: your personal blog is not related to the fact that your employer develops and sells databases. Couldn't this be interpreted very broadly though? Like if you write your own web server, programming language, optimisation tool, build tool, CMS, CRM etc. they could likely find a use…

True, reason why you don't stop at just the employment contract. You should also disclose existing projects to them and have them sign that your work outside of hours/facilities does not upset them.

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

#210

Post by jiveturkey »

seanwilson wrote: post #132
_odey wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean this? California Labor Code Section 2870 provides as follows: Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret informat…

> except for those inventions that either: (1) relate at the time ... to the employer’s business So if the domain of your side project has nothing to do with what you're actively involved in at work, but your employer is involved in or has a business interest in that domain, the employer can claim ownership? Which for many large companies (especially e.g. Google) is a lot of domains?

yes and yes
Post reply on HN