I'm not understanding your position > Because Cubic says the opposite The guy showed his thing to his employer and they started pursuing it. How could it not

I'm not understanding your position > Because Cubic says the opposite The guy showed his thing to his employer and they started pursuing it. How could it not be clearer the employer owned it? I'm trying to understand how you can claim this shows Cubic shows anything other than if you give your ideas to your employer they become the employer's. That's pretty normal. Every day as an employee I have ideas I put into the products I create. Those ideas I get paid a salary for. I might have had those ideas while showering. They still go into my work and become the employer's. Outside projects can have conflicts but Cubic is not related to that case. As for companies owning everything, first off you might want to look up "duty of loyalty". Just because you thought of a solution at lunch (off hours) doesn't mean that therefore it doesn't belong to your employer. At the same time, in California at least, the has to be related to their work. Of course courts decide what's related and what's not and there's a broad spectrum. Selling coffee at night while building websites at a job seems pretty black and white. Making a mobile game at home while working on a console game at work is clearly in some kind of gray area. Back to "duty of loyalty" you have a duty not to compete with your employer. Putting out another game is arguably competing. The right thing to do as pointed out by others is it to get a signed letter from your employer. Google offers these. So does Microsoft. I'm sure other companies do as well. If your's doesn't consider that a reason to look for a better employer.