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

Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 138 posts

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#71

Post by DannyBee »

ww520 wrote: post #10

CA Labor Code section 2870 (you don't give up IP rights to the work you did in your own time) is also vastly important.

Engineers often read this section much more broadly than it is. Employees rarely win 2870 suits.

Basically: Engineers tend to think it matters what they do for the company, but 2870 instead says it matters what the company does, not what you do for the company.

Employers can claim stuff that "(1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or"

For large tech companies, this pretty much covers everything you might want to do.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#72

Post by modeless »

eru wrote: post #17

> The best argument against noncompetes is about freedom > [...] there should be a presumption in favor of preserving people's freedom to join a new company or start one of their own. Alas, as nice as it is to cloth an issue we care about in the language of moral superiority, banning noncompete agreements does in fact impact the freedom of contract. (In the same way, but to a lesser extent, than the ban on being able…

If non-competes are invalid by law, you're still free to sign one. Your freedom is uninhibited. What's inhibited is contract enforcement, i.e. the use of force to coerce people against their will. Calling contract enforcement a "freedom" is simply wrong.

That's absolutely not to say that contract enforcement isn't useful or desirable, but it clearly must be limited. If contract enforcement is unlimited then some people will end up singing contracts that put themselves into literal slavery and we prohibit that for a reason.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#73

Post by DannyBee »

turnip1979 wrote: post #57
skewart wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. It's really hard to imagine SV becoming what it is today without this section in the labor laws.

That section has a few exceptions to it. "... (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or ..." If you work for a large company in the valley, how does it affect you?I'm curious if anyone has first hand experience with it.

I can give you the cynical truth on it:

Large employers will generally own whatever you do in your spare time. They will not mention this, and generally not care, but if you make a ton of money or do something really popular, they will start a fight.

Note: "The employee bears the burden of establishing his invention comes within Labor Code section 2870. (Lab. Code, § 2872.) "

See also cubic corp v. marty, which disassembles most typical arguments:

"Marty argues under the Labor Code provision "the employer is not entitled to the invention unless it 'resulted from' work performed by the employee, even if the invention, in general, relates to the 'business of the employer'...."" Marty has misconstrued the Labor Code provision. etc

I have yet to see a case where an inventor wins.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#74

Post by Gustomaximus »

DannyBee wrote: post #68
oautholaf wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your lense of "free market" needs to be supplemented with a little game theory here. If you're an employer, what's your disincentive for tucking in a little non-compete in your contract? None at all[1], especially since many of your prospective employees won't read it or potentially (if you're a low-wage employee) understand it's implications. Then what's the disincentive for an entire industry to do this? No…

" especially since many of your prospective employees won't read it" Why is this on the employers, exactly?

Both parties have to understand a contract for it to agreed upon. For example those massive T&C that go with a website sign-up largely mean nothing if the company hasn't ensured you read and understood them.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#75

Post by skewart »

DannyBee wrote: post #73
turnip1979 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That section has a few exceptions to it. "... (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or ..." If you work for a large company in the valley, how does it affect you?I'm curious if anyone has first hand experience with it.

I can give you the cynical truth on it: Large employers will generally own whatever you do in your spare time. They will not mention this, and generally not care, but if you make a ton of money or do something really popular, they will start a fight. Note: "The employee bears the burden of establishing his invention comes within Labor Code section 2870. (Lab. Code, § 2872.) " See also cubic corp v. marty, which disas…

That's interesting. Maybe the widespread misconception that it provides some protection emboldens people to work on projects in their spare time?

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#76

Post by Pyxl101 »

DannyBee wrote: post #73
turnip1979 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That section has a few exceptions to it. "... (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or ..." If you work for a large company in the valley, how does it affect you?I'm curious if anyone has first hand experience with it.

I can give you the cynical truth on it: Large employers will generally own whatever you do in your spare time. They will not mention this, and generally not care, but if you make a ton of money or do something really popular, they will start a fight. Note: "The employee bears the burden of establishing his invention comes within Labor Code section 2870. (Lab. Code, § 2872.) " See also cubic corp v. marty, which disas…

What connection does Cubic v Marty have to this? From Justicia:

> In mid-May 1977, Marty came up with an idea for an electronic warfare simulator (EWS), a device for training pilots in electronic warfare. He developed a block diagram in May 1977 and in June 1977 a manuscript describing his invention. He showed both the diagram and manuscript to Minton Kronkhite of Cubic, representing it might be a new product which Cubic could add to its product for training pilots, the ACMR (air combat maneuvering range). fn. 1 Cubic had had plans to add electronic warfare training to its ACMR but had not yet developed it at the time of Marty's invention. Kronkhite thought Marty's invention was a good idea and passed along the manuscript to Hubert Kohnen, another Cubic employee involved with the ACMR.

The guy gets a significant raise and Cubic works with the Navy on a program to study the idea, with the idea that Marty would be program manager.

The guy goes on to get a patent on the idea on his own without telling anyone. Approaches Cubic offering to sell the rights. Cubic demands the patent and fires him and she's for ownership. He tries to defend himself by saying that his job responsibility is not to invent:

> Further, Marty presented his invention to Cubic as a new product for Cubic, something which could be added to their ACMR. Marty was made program manager on the government contract to study (and refine the design of) his invention. While Marty may not have been a "design" engineer at Cubic, the scope of his employment did not preclude design work and in fact, Marty perceived it as encompassing design work since he presented his invention to Cubic as a design for Cubic without expressing any reservations of rights or indications that the invention was not a part of his Cubic employment

Sounds like the guy did some sketchy shit and was called on it. This is nothing like the scenarios we are talking about where an employee invents something on their own time with no connection to their company or their work. The court tore up his argument because the basis for the argument was that he was a non-inventing employee and somehow the agreement he signed didn't apply.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#78

Post by jedberg »

sparky_ wrote: post #77

Here's an honest question. Knowing that non-competes are bogus and unenforceable in California - why do most employers (including mine) feel the need to tack them onto offer letters? Is it a matter of intimidation?

Pretty much. They are hoping you don't know the law. They are also hoping that by encumbering you with one that a future poacher would know that they might have to spend money on lawyers to fight for you in case you get sued, even though they know you will win.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#79

Post by ScottBurson »

DannyBee wrote: post #73
turnip1979 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That section has a few exceptions to it. "... (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or ..." If you work for a large company in the valley, how does it affect you?I'm curious if anyone has first hand experience with it.

I can give you the cynical truth on it: Large employers will generally own whatever you do in your spare time. They will not mention this, and generally not care, but if you make a ton of money or do something really popular, they will start a fight. Note: "The employee bears the burden of establishing his invention comes within Labor Code section 2870. (Lab. Code, § 2872.) " See also cubic corp v. marty, which disas…

I just read a summary of that case, and it doesn't even seem to me (who would generally be biased toward the inventor) that Marty had a case. He himself described his invention as potentially useful in a Cubic product.

I guess the cases that wind up in litigation tend to be the ones that aren't clear-cut, and I can believe the employer usually wins those. That doesn't mean that section 2870 makes no difference. If you can show me a case where the requirements were pretty clearly met, and the court still ruled against the inventor, that will be more convincing.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#80

Post by DannyBee »

ScottBurson wrote: post #79
DannyBee wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can give you the cynical truth on it: Large employers will generally own whatever you do in your spare time. They will not mention this, and generally not care, but if you make a ton of money or do something really popular, they will start a fight. Note: "The employee bears the burden of establishing his invention comes within Labor Code section 2870. (Lab. Code, § 2872.) " See also cubic corp v. marty, which disas…

I just read a summary of that case, and it doesn't even seem to me (who would generally be biased toward the inventor) that Marty had a case. He himself described his invention as potentially useful in a Cubic product. I guess the cases that wind up in litigation tend to be the ones that aren't clear-cut, and I can believe the employer usually wins those. That doesn't mean that section 2870 makes no difference. If yo…

You missed the point, which was, the court basically put all the burden and problems of proving things around 2870 on Marty. They also took a very broad view of what it means to be related to the business.

You will have the same trouble. Cubic is quoted to this day for all the propositions i pointed out.

As for "show me a case", i'll ask the opposite: Find me a case that supports any view of this provision that people like to have (IE that most stuff they do in their spare time is going to be owned by them).

(to help: I'm not aware of any such cases, and i skimmed the headnotes for all 109 cases that cite Cubic)

Post reply on HN