Google claims copyright on employee side projects
1–10 of 399 posts
Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects
#2I'd be very wary to base my legal strategy on DeMorgan. Is it inconceivable that a judge might rule that the intention is clear and a minor clerical error doesn't matter?
Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects
#3I'd be very wary to base my legal strategy on DeMorgan. Is it inconceivable that a judge might rule that the intention is clear and a minor clerical error doesn't matter?
I signed a contract, I didn't sign CA labor code which doesn't even apply within the same continent and which the contract does not reference in any way.
I'm pretty sure they can't claim they get to enforce what they intended to write just because I happened to guess what that was by Googling parts of my contract. What I signed is what I signed, and the wording was clear in the contract.
Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects
#4I'd be very wary to base my legal strategy on DeMorgan. Is it inconceivable that a judge might rule that the intention is clear and a minor clerical error doesn't matter?
I signed a contract, I didn't sign CA labor code which doesn't even apply within the same continent and which the contract does not reference in any way. I'm pretty sure they can't claim they get to enforce what they intended to write just because I happened to guess what that was by Googling parts of my contract. What I signed is what I signed, and the wording was clear in the contract.
If someone asks you to bring wine or beer to a party, do you usually bring both? Because that would still be valid in an OR statement but basing your ordinary life decisions on boolean logic doesn't always work out like you expect it.
If a contract is written as:
You own things you make on your own time unless you're using company equipment provided: * The thing does not relate to company business * The thing does not result from work you do for the company
It's pretty clear cut what this means and a judge would not care for boolean logic. Of course it's hard to know for sure without knowing the exact wording of the contract.
Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects
#5Were those side projects done during work hours or using Google's equipment?
Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects
#6Honestly, what kind of side projects can one conceivably have working a full time job that mist often involves overtime? Let's be realistic here. Chances are you're not being a competent employee if you can manage to devote brain cells to more programming outside of work, or you're likely hyped up on the adderalls, which more than likely will lead to amphetamine psychosis in the long run.
Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I signed a contract, I didn't sign CA labor code which doesn't even apply within the same continent and which the contract does not reference in any way. I'm pretty sure they can't claim they get to enforce what they intended to write just because I happened to guess what that was by Googling parts of my contract. What I signed is what I signed, and the wording was clear in the contract.
If someone asks you to bring wine or beer to a party, do you usually bring both? Because that would still be valid in an OR statement but basing your ordinary life decisions on boolean logic doesn't always work out like you expect it. If a contract is written as: You own things you make on your own time unless you're using company equipment provided: * The thing does not relate to company business * The thing does no…
Yes, I think that if someone asked me to bring "wine or beer" to a party, literally everyone I know would be fine with me bringing a bit of both.
In fact, what would be weird would be someone objecting to my bringing both on the grounds that they meant, but didn't say, "xor".
I don't think this contract is ambiguous in natural language. Or is generally inclusive, and if you want xor you either write xor or use some cumbersome circumlocution.
Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects
#8Were those side projects done during work hours or using Google's equipment?
Some of the side projects he worked on prior to joining Google.
>Like many Googlers, I had projects I worked on in my spare time. Some of those I carried over from before joining.
>When I joined, I submitted two projects that I was actively working on at the time, largely just maintaining: AsbestOS (yes, those were the PS3 Linux days) and usbmuxd (iPhone USB comms daemon, you probably have it if you have Ubuntu!).
Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects
#9Honestly, what kind of side projects can one conceivably have working a full time job that mist often involves overtime? Let's be realistic here. Chances are you're not being a competent employee if you can manage to devote brain cells to more programming outside of work, or you're likely hyped up on the adderalls, which more than likely will lead to amphetamine psychosis in the long run.
What are you talking about? Most developers I know have side projects, I have quite a few of them and work a 40 hour per week job with a wife and kids. I love what I do, so I keep doing it outside of work hours. No drugs needed to hype me up.
Re: Google claims copyright on employee side projects
#10And at-will employment turns unenforceable laws into binding contracts. Sick.