4 ms·

While this seems like quite a bucket of cold water was dropped on your head, I will tell the assembled hackers here in hn that these sorts of clauses are not ju

by cdibona 16y ago

While this seems like quite a bucket of cold water was dropped on your head, I will tell the assembled hackers here in hn that these sorts of clauses are not just present in your contracts but in the laws that govern your employment as well (except for a small number of countries and jurisdictions) At my work, we've taken explicit steps to allow people to open source, and most legal departments in larger companies can often respond (and sometimes even positively) to requests to retain copyright, but most of the laws say that programming work done on your own time, even on your own resources, very simply belongs to your primary employer. I had a friend lose his house after the company he worked for decided they didn't like his new consulting business that was only a modicum similar to the job he left. It was punitive and petty, but they managed to nearly ruin him. This was in northern virginia, whose laws are only slightly less midievil than most. So while much of the advice here is to 'get out' and 'run', the question that is not answered is 'to where'. A more reasonable response is to ask yourself if you are okay with this kind of arrangement , and if not, resign and make sure your next job doesn't have this kind of language in the contract and that you have an affirmative recognition of the kind of ip deal you want with the company. This, btw, includes people in california, who's laws allow a loophole for employers the size of a truck in its anti-competition language. It is always worth your time to understand what is going on around intellectual property in your jurisdiction, your contract and your personal ethics because as the OP saw, it can be difficult to resolve after the fact.

starkfist 16y ago
NoVa and Texas are particularly egregious for non-competes being in favor of the employer. NY is pretty bad, too. I'm curious about your claim about California. Do you have any references to this loophole?
- cdibona 16y ago
  See below, under 2870.a.1. That definition can be all encompassing. 2870. (a) 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 information except for those inventions that either: (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 (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. (b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.

by cdibona 16y ago

starkfist 16y ago

NoVa and Texas are particularly egregious for non-competes being in favor of the employer. NY is pretty bad, too. I'm curious about your claim about California. Do you have any references to this loophole?

cdibona 16y ago
See below, under 2870.a.1. That definition can be all encompassing. 2870. (a) 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 information except for those inventions that either: (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 (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. (b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.