3 ms·

That doesn't fit my understanding of the law. Do you have references? The law has this concept of "duty of loyalty" which basically says by being an employee yo

That doesn't fit my understanding of the law. Do you have references? The law has this concept of "duty of loyalty" which basically says by being an employee you are promising to do what's best for the company. As one example that means not competing against the company. In otherwords even if it's not related to your specific job you can not work on a product that competes with the company. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_loyalty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_loyalty https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/employment/document/393758/5FSH-NKN1-F18B-R4VH-00000-00/Employee+duties+and+restrictions+on+competition%E2%80%94overview https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/employment/document/3...

akiselev 10y ago
This is a complex topic and IANAL but I've been through some legal cases regarding this topic. The most recent ruling about employee duties came in Ransom v Customer Systems Plc in 2012 which cleared up some conflicting precedent and established ground rules. Long story short: employees have no implicit "duty of loyalty" except for directors and fiduciaries who are responsible for reporting accurate facts (without which limited liability entities could not function). Companies can make a variety of responsibilities explicit in the employment contract but the core principal is that the employee must agree to those responsibilities when they sign up. This is why we have noncompetes/circumvents and moonlighting clauses: if it aint on paper, it aint going to hold up in court. The big exception is the criminal code. There are a variety of things an employee can do that arent against their employment contract but could be prosecuted as fraud, creating a virtual duty of loyalty.
gumby 10y ago
> That doesn't fit my understanding of the law. Do you have references? Do you live in California? If not, I have no idea what law applies to you and your work. But if you live in California you are in luck: Section 2872 of the labor code is explicit in this matter. In fact every employee assignment agreement I have handed out to someone I've hired (going back to 1989) has included the text of that section, for example: in accordance with Section 2872 of the California Labor Code that the foregoing Agreement between you and Company does not require you to assign or offer to assign to Company any Invention that you develop entirely on your own time without using Company’s equipment, supplies, facilities or trade secret information, except for those Inventions that either: a. Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice to Company’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development; or b.Result from any work performed by you for Company. To the extent a provision in the foregoing Agreement purports to require you to assign an Invention otherwise excluded from the preceding paragraph, the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable. This limited exclusion does not apply to any patent or Invention covered by a contract between Company and the United States or any of its agencies requiring full title to such patent or Invention to be in the United States. Don't use the company's computer, phone, network, IP etc. Don't try to make your day job a side project. Don't let your side project get in the way of your day job (or you'll get fired just 'coz you didn't do your day job). Otherwise: no problem. This law is widely cited as one of Silicon Valley's advantages over other places. California went through a period of rational law making, e.g. laws like this, a presumption that drivers know what they are doing regardless of the posted speed limit, etc. Then they went insane (three strikes etc) and the rest is, sadly, history. Still not as crazy as the rest of the USA though.
- greggman 10y ago
  You seem to have left out this entire paragraph in your summary of the law you sited > a. Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice to Company’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development.
  - gumby 10y ago
    No, that's in the text I quoted and I referred to it in my original comment: the CA courts have historically sided with the employees over the companies except when it was pretty unambiguous that the employee was going into the same business as their (former) employer, e.g. Avant! -- which typically includes actual taking of source code. On the other hand stories like google's self driving car team departing to start their own self driving car company, or the tons of people who have left Cisco to start routing companies are legion.
walshemj 10y ago
Your meant to be a "good servant" as this aspect of employment law descends from the masters and servant acts

akiselev 10y ago

This is a complex topic and IANAL but I've been through some legal cases regarding this topic. The most recent ruling about employee duties came in Ransom v Customer Systems Plc in 2012 which cleared up some conflicting precedent and established ground rules. Long story short: employees have no implicit "duty of loyalty" except for directors and fiduciaries who are responsible for reporting accurate facts (without which limited liability entities could not function). Companies can make a variety of responsibilities explicit in the employment contract but the core principal is that the employee must agree to those responsibilities when they sign up. This is why we have noncompetes/circumvents and moonlighting clauses: if it aint on paper, it aint going to hold up in court. The big exception is the criminal code. There are a variety of things an employee can do that arent against their employment contract but could be prosecuted as fraud, creating a virtual duty of loyalty.

gumby 10y ago

> That doesn't fit my understanding of the law. Do you have references? Do you live in California? If not, I have no idea what law applies to you and your work. But if you live in California you are in luck: Section 2872 of the labor code is explicit in this matter. In fact every employee assignment agreement I have handed out to someone I've hired (going back to 1989) has included the text of that section, for example: in accordance with Section 2872 of the California Labor Code that the foregoing Agreement between you and Company does not require you to assign or offer to assign to Company any Invention that you develop entirely on your own time without using Company’s equipment, supplies, facilities or trade secret information, except for those Inventions that either: a. Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice to Company’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development; or b.Result from any work performed by you for Company. To the extent a provision in the foregoing Agreement purports to require you to assign an Invention otherwise excluded from the preceding paragraph, the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable. This limited exclusion does not apply to any patent or Invention covered by a contract between Company and the United States or any of its agencies requiring full title to such patent or Invention to be in the United States. Don't use the company's computer, phone, network, IP etc. Don't try to make your day job a side project. Don't let your side project get in the way of your day job (or you'll get fired just 'coz you didn't do your day job). Otherwise: no problem. This law is widely cited as one of Silicon Valley's advantages over other places. California went through a period of rational law making, e.g. laws like this, a presumption that drivers know what they are doing regardless of the posted speed limit, etc. Then they went insane (three strikes etc) and the rest is, sadly, history. Still not as crazy as the rest of the USA though.

greggman 10y ago
You seem to have left out this entire paragraph in your summary of the law you sited > a. Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice to Company’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development.
- gumby 10y ago
  No, that's in the text I quoted and I referred to it in my original comment: the CA courts have historically sided with the employees over the companies except when it was pretty unambiguous that the employee was going into the same business as their (former) employer, e.g. Avant! -- which typically includes actual taking of source code. On the other hand stories like google's self driving car team departing to start their own self driving car company, or the tons of people who have left Cisco to start routing companies are legion.

walshemj 10y ago

Your meant to be a "good servant" as this aspect of employment law descends from the masters and servant acts