29 ms·

Employee sues Google for 'illegal' confidentiality policies

252 points by betolink 10y ago

alexbanks 10y ago
> If successful, the state would collect 75 percent of the penalty, while the rest would be paid out over to the company's 65,000 employees. Since there are 12 alleged violations in the suit, the maximum fine could amount to $3.8 billion, with each employee getting about $14,600. 14k per employee. That's quite a payout.
- bobedybobbob 10y ago
  Is that global or just the employees in California?
  - londons_explore 10y ago
    It won't apply outside the USA. International people never get such payouts, yet get the same treatment
    - vitus 10y ago
      That said, the headcount reported in Alphabet's last quarterly statement to investors was ~69k, but it depends what this 65k figure includes (temps / vendors / contractors? interns? past employees?). If it's just straight-up fulltime employees, then that's certainly not just California. And the payouts might vary from state to state -- a number of these claimed labor violations cite California law. (Of course, I'm doubtful that any general payout is coming around.)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
randomdrake 10y ago
The article doesn't mention all of the alleged offenses regarding the lawsuit. There's definitely more than just a "spying program" here: * Restrict the Googlers’ right to speak, right to work, and right to whistle-blow. * Prohibit Googlers from speaking plainly – even internally – about illegal conduct or dangerous product defects, because such statements might one day be subject to discovery in litigation or sought by the government. * Prohibit Googlers from telling a potential employer how much money they make, or what work they performed, when searching for a different job. * Prohibit Googlers from using or disclosing all of the skills knowledge, acquaintances, and overall experience at Google when working for a new employer. * Prohibit Googlers from speaking to the government, attorneys, or the press about wrongdoing at Google. * The policies even prohibit Googlers from speaking to their spouse or friends about whether they think their boss could do a better job. There were alleged training practices, policies, and documents outlining these offenses and they are written up pretty plainly in the suit itself[1]. Makes for better, more detailed reading, than this Engadget piece. [1] - http://www.bakerlp.com/Google-Blackout-Case/2016-12-19-PAGA-Complaint-Against-Google.pdf http://www.bakerlp.com/Google-Blackout-Case/2016-12-19-PAGA-...
- burger_moon 10y ago
  A lot of these sound familiar to the Snapchat story from yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13212920 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13212920
- ndesaulniers 10y ago
  "Plaintiff brings this suit as a “Doe” because Brian Katz, Google’s Director of Global Investigations, Intelligen ce & Protective Services, falsel y informed approximately 65,000 Googlers that Plaintiff was terminated for “leaking” certain information to the press. In fact, Plaintiff did not leak the identi fied information to the press an d Katz knew he did not. Rather, Katz and Google used Plaintiff as a very public sc apegoat to ensure that other Googlers continued to comply with Google’s unlawfu l confidentiality policies. "
  - parhurs 10y ago
    That's quite the job title. Can someone elucidate what duties come with it?
    - evgen 10y ago
      At large companies like MS, Google, or FB you can roughly divide security into "infosec" and physical security. The latter org will run everything from the door guards and video/badge infra to executive protection services and employee investigations. I am guessing that Mr. Katz runs this org at Google.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - tyingq 10y ago
      Here's at least one of the job duties for Katz: https://www.rt.com/usa/google-bartender-phone-barton-523/ https://www.rt.com/usa/google-bartender-phone-barton-523/
      - 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gdulli 10y ago
> "Google's motto is 'don't be evil.' Google's illegal confidentiality agreements and policies fail this test," the lawsuit said. It occurs to me only now that a company that wasn't evil wouldn't need to make such a show of stating it like this.
- givinguflac 10y ago
  Even better, they've since changed the slogan, citing it as being silly.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    It didn't help that it tempted every criticism of google to call them evil, even when the disliked action was clearly not evil.
  - UncleMeat 10y ago
    "Don't be evil" was never Google's official mission, but it hasn't changed. All of the FUD when Alphabet was formed was nonsense.
    - grzm 10y ago
      "Don't be evil" was never Google's official mission What do you mean by this? Are you making a distinction between "mission" and being part of the Google Code of Conduct? "Don't be evil" was the corporate motto of Google.[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil Google Code of Conduct Preface "Don't be evil." Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that.[1] [1]: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html The Wikipedia page notes that this was included in the Google Code of Conduct in 2012 as well, prior to the incorporation of Alphabet.
  - rifung 10y ago
    I don't know anything about it being a slogan, but it's in the Code of Conduct still. I just started at Google and had to sign it.
fsaneq2 10y ago
> If successful, the state would collect 75 percent of the penalty, while the rest would be paid out over to the company's 65,000 employees What is the logic for the state somehow being entitled to such a huge cut? Presumably, if anyone was wronged here, it was the employees.
- GabrielF00 10y ago
  IANAL but skimming through the complaint, they're basically acting as a "private attorney general". The lawsuit alleges that Google's policies violate state law. Normally, the state would sue the company, but in this case, the law firm is saying that they'll handle the enforcement for the state. If they're successful, they get a percentage of the penalty. I don't know how damages are divided up in cases like these, but I'd guess that the state's cut would be distributed (at least partially) to affected employees.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    And this would be a choice by the lawyers in how to file this case, as opposed to some sort of civil suit.
    - Sniffnoy 10y ago
      See paragraph 66: > Because Google requires Googlers to waive their right to seek class-wide injunctive relief for Google’s illegal conduct, the only effective remedy to address Google’s illegal conduct is the aggressive and full imposition of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.
      - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        I'd be quite curious if that clause would hold up in court. Forcing employees to give up their right to seek relief for employer misconduct almost certainly is illegal... right?
- lagadu 10y ago
stuckagain 10y ago
This complaint seems pretty silly. Just taking a single point, paragraph 45: “Don’t send an e-mail that says ‘I think we broke the law’ or ‘I think we violated this contract.’” That seems like pretty reasonable training. You shouldn't put that on the record because you're not an attorney. You are just some Dork, or Senior Dork, or Staff Dork, or whatever grade of Dork you happen to be who is still not an attorney. Maybe the attorneys also have to take training that advises them not to say "I think this dereference might be undefined behavior" in emails. Who knows.
- notimetorelax 10y ago
  There's nothing wrong with such emails if sent to company attorneys. Or as a whistleblower to right authorities. Not to public though.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    No, the point of such policies is so that if the company is ever gets sued and is subpoenaed for e-mails, the opposing counsel don't get to get in front of a jury and point to Joe Schmoe at the company writing 'Yep, I think we broke the law!' This is standard employee training presumably not just at Google, but at basically every company I've ever worked for. The rule goes basically: if you don't think what you write would look good on the front page of the NYT, then don't put it in an e-mail.
    - ChuckMcM 10y ago
      Well if you send it to legal and mark it client attorney privileged they have an argument from suppressing it in discovery.
      - smallnamespace 10y ago
        Which can be argued against since you're not actually the attorney's client at the time of writing the e-mail, only the corporation is [1]. 'Some courts employ the Control Group Test whereby protection is available only to the corporation's controlling executives and managers.' Doesn't seem like a risk a competent retained counsel would want to take, in any case. [1] http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/acpfihc.cfm http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/acpfihc.cfm
harry8 10y ago
People commenting on this who work for google or hope to probably should say so in their comment.
chappi42 10y ago
Quite schizophrenic of the company to open up every information/book/news they can crawl and on the other hand close down the little interior world as much as possible. Not that this would be news or unexpected though.
dunkelheit 10y ago
I've seen several Google employees comment on this site even on matters related to Google. How do they bring up the courage to do this? Seems pretty risky as per this "Confidentiality Agreement".
- tantalor 10y ago
  Only comment on things that have been publicly announced/published, don't comment on leaks or make new ones. (I work for Google)
drewg123 10y ago
Google has an incredibly secretive culture. Secrecy was drilled into us time and again. When collaborating with external vendors, it was quite painful to strike compromise between corporate secrecy and sharing enough information to be productive. After leaving Google, I'm always amazed at what I'm allowed to talk about with vendors. I'll start talking in my Google-conditioned non-committal cagey way, and a colleague will remind me that I'm not at Google anymore, and I can just say what I mean.
ionised 10y ago
> Further, Google apparently warns employees to not write about potentially illegal activities within the company, even to Google's own attorneys. 'Don't be evil' indeed.
coding123 10y ago
This comes to mind.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xH7eGFuSYI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xH7eGFuSYI
yeukhon 10y ago
"According to the lawsuit, Google’s policies don’t allow employees to discuss work-related topics including salaries, to post their personal opinions about the company online, and must not leak any product or other Google related information to the public. If Googlers break the company’s rules, they just might end up getting fired." I have read several blog posts of Googlers about their work experience on their own blogs. If leaking unannounced works to the public, that's definitely a standard how work should be treated. So I'd want to hear more about exactly what's going on. A "spy program" is a catchy phrase to grab reader attention. I think anyone should report if they spot anything against the interest of company such as insider trading, violate NDA etc, especially given Google is publicly traded.
- wnevets 10y ago
  >Google’s policies don’t allow employees to discuss work-related topics including salaries isn't this illegal?
  - empath75 10y ago
    and seemingly not true? http://qz.com/458615/theres-reportedly-a-big-secret-spreadsheet-where-google-employees-share-their-salaries/ http://qz.com/458615/theres-reportedly-a-big-secret-spreadsh...
  - neild 10y ago
    My understanding is that employers may not hinder employees in discussing salaries among themselves, but may impose restrictions on providing salary information to non-employees. So I can tell another Googler my salary but I can't tell you (unless you're a Googler) because my NDA forbids it. I'm pretty certain that I'm allowed to tell you that I'm not allowed to tell you, though. :) There's an internal site where a number of Googlers share their compensation, anonymously or otherwise. I've never received any indication of disapproval or retaliation from management for being on it. (I am not a lawyer, standard disclaimer applies.)
    - user5994461 10y ago
JamilD 10y ago
> Apparently, the tech giant has a “Stop Leaks” program in place that is managed through an internal website. Employees have the option of reporting a colleague to superiors, which then look into the matter and fire the whistleblower if the report is true. Not all leaks are made in the sprit of "whistleblowing". This article seems pretty misleading… many of these measures are designed to protect the company's intellectual property and secrecy, though I see how they can be abused. I would hardly call it a 'spying program' though.
- stuckagain 10y ago
  Indeed, the leak in question seems to be this transcript of internal company-wide forum: http://www.recode.net/2016/4/13/11586092/tony-fadell-nest-google-tgif http://www.recode.net/2016/4/13/11586092/tony-fadell-nest-go... Which does not appear to be any kind of public service.
maneesh 10y ago
Didn't this happen to Hooli in the last season of Silicon Valley?
- plandis 10y ago
  Life (maybe) mimics art!
deadmik3 10y ago
>In addition, John Doe is also stating that Brian Katz, the director of global investigations, intelligence, and protective services over at Google, has falsely accused him of leaking information to the media. Doesn't seem like a false accusation to me...
someguydave 10y ago
I'm truly shocked to read that an organization founded on grubbing as much data as possible is also spying on its own workforce.
nunez 10y ago
Right, so I don't remember having any such language (don't disclose your salary or your work) in my departure paperwork. I was a SA in a SRE team. Does this apply to people in X? That said, Google has a VERY restrictive IP a policy that effectively prohibits employees from running side businesses at ANY time during their employment on ANY medium, Google-owned or not. Anything you make is Google's.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "That said, Google has a VERY restrictive IP a policy that effectively prohibits employees from running side businesses at ANY time during their employment on ANY medium, Google-owned or not. Anything you make is Google's. " Actually, this is pretty much 100% false (I help run the invention assignment committee, so ...). We let it happen all the time, and in fact, grant people the IP to do it. This is significantly better than most companies, who pretty much don't tell you, and then if you come up with something cool, will sue you and get it from you.
  - nunez 10y ago
    The language in the IP agreement I signed said the exact opposite. Engineers from the group I was in left because of this. Can you elaborate?
    - DannyBee 10y ago
      "The language in the IP agreement I signed said the exact opposite." Did you actually attend the week two training we give entitled "open source and IP", that covers this in great detail? "Engineers from the group I was in left because of this." I would love to know who you believe left because of this. In the 11 years i've worked at Google, the vast majority of people i've seen leave in this situation left because they basically wanted to start a competitive startup, get the IP from google, and still get paid by google at the same time (quite literally). The number of people who left for ideological reasons i can count on one, maybe two hands.

252 points by betolink 10y ago

> If successful, the state would collect 75 percent of the penalty, while the rest would be paid out over to the company's 65,000 employees. Since there are 12 alleged violations in the suit, the maximum fine could amount to $3.8 billion, with each employee getting about $14,600. 14k per employee. That's quite a payout.

bobedybobbob 10y ago
Is that global or just the employees in California?
- londons_explore 10y ago
  It won't apply outside the USA. International people never get such payouts, yet get the same treatment
  - vitus 10y ago
    That said, the headcount reported in Alphabet's last quarterly statement to investors was ~69k, but it depends what this 65k figure includes (temps / vendors / contractors? interns? past employees?). If it's just straight-up fulltime employees, then that's certainly not just California. And the payouts might vary from state to state -- a number of these claimed labor violations cite California law. (Of course, I'm doubtful that any general payout is coming around.)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

randomdrake 10y ago

The article doesn't mention all of the alleged offenses regarding the lawsuit. There's definitely more than just a "spying program" here: * Restrict the Googlers’ right to speak, right to work, and right to whistle-blow. * Prohibit Googlers from speaking plainly – even internally – about illegal conduct or dangerous product defects, because such statements might one day be subject to discovery in litigation or sought by the government. * Prohibit Googlers from telling a potential employer how much money they make, or what work they performed, when searching for a different job. * Prohibit Googlers from using or disclosing all of the skills knowledge, acquaintances, and overall experience at Google when working for a new employer. * Prohibit Googlers from speaking to the government, attorneys, or the press about wrongdoing at Google. * The policies even prohibit Googlers from speaking to their spouse or friends about whether they think their boss could do a better job. There were alleged training practices, policies, and documents outlining these offenses and they are written up pretty plainly in the suit itself[1]. Makes for better, more detailed reading, than this Engadget piece. [1] - http://www.bakerlp.com/Google-Blackout-Case/2016-12-19-PAGA-Complaint-Against-Google.pdf http://www.bakerlp.com/Google-Blackout-Case/2016-12-19-PAGA-...

burger_moon 10y ago
A lot of these sound familiar to the Snapchat story from yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13212920 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13212920
ndesaulniers 10y ago
"Plaintiff brings this suit as a “Doe” because Brian Katz, Google’s Director of Global Investigations, Intelligen ce & Protective Services, falsel y informed approximately 65,000 Googlers that Plaintiff was terminated for “leaking” certain information to the press. In fact, Plaintiff did not leak the identi fied information to the press an d Katz knew he did not. Rather, Katz and Google used Plaintiff as a very public sc apegoat to ensure that other Googlers continued to comply with Google’s unlawfu l confidentiality policies. "
- parhurs 10y ago
  That's quite the job title. Can someone elucidate what duties come with it?
  - evgen 10y ago
    At large companies like MS, Google, or FB you can roughly divide security into "infosec" and physical security. The latter org will run everything from the door guards and video/badge infra to executive protection services and employee investigations. I am guessing that Mr. Katz runs this org at Google.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - tyingq 10y ago
    Here's at least one of the job duties for Katz: https://www.rt.com/usa/google-bartender-phone-barton-523/ https://www.rt.com/usa/google-bartender-phone-barton-523/
    - 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

gdulli 10y ago

> "Google's motto is 'don't be evil.' Google's illegal confidentiality agreements and policies fail this test," the lawsuit said. It occurs to me only now that a company that wasn't evil wouldn't need to make such a show of stating it like this.

givinguflac 10y ago
Even better, they've since changed the slogan, citing it as being silly.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  It didn't help that it tempted every criticism of google to call them evil, even when the disliked action was clearly not evil.
- UncleMeat 10y ago
  "Don't be evil" was never Google's official mission, but it hasn't changed. All of the FUD when Alphabet was formed was nonsense.
  - grzm 10y ago
    "Don't be evil" was never Google's official mission What do you mean by this? Are you making a distinction between "mission" and being part of the Google Code of Conduct? "Don't be evil" was the corporate motto of Google.[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil Google Code of Conduct Preface "Don't be evil." Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that.[1] [1]: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html The Wikipedia page notes that this was included in the Google Code of Conduct in 2012 as well, prior to the incorporation of Alphabet.
- rifung 10y ago
  I don't know anything about it being a slogan, but it's in the Code of Conduct still. I just started at Google and had to sign it.

fsaneq2 10y ago

> If successful, the state would collect 75 percent of the penalty, while the rest would be paid out over to the company's 65,000 employees What is the logic for the state somehow being entitled to such a huge cut? Presumably, if anyone was wronged here, it was the employees.

GabrielF00 10y ago
IANAL but skimming through the complaint, they're basically acting as a "private attorney general". The lawsuit alleges that Google's policies violate state law. Normally, the state would sue the company, but in this case, the law firm is saying that they'll handle the enforcement for the state. If they're successful, they get a percentage of the penalty. I don't know how damages are divided up in cases like these, but I'd guess that the state's cut would be distributed (at least partially) to affected employees.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  And this would be a choice by the lawyers in how to file this case, as opposed to some sort of civil suit.
  - Sniffnoy 10y ago
    See paragraph 66: > Because Google requires Googlers to waive their right to seek class-wide injunctive relief for Google’s illegal conduct, the only effective remedy to address Google’s illegal conduct is the aggressive and full imposition of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      I'd be quite curious if that clause would hold up in court. Forcing employees to give up their right to seek relief for employer misconduct almost certainly is illegal... right?
lagadu 10y ago

stuckagain 10y ago

This complaint seems pretty silly. Just taking a single point, paragraph 45: “Don’t send an e-mail that says ‘I think we broke the law’ or ‘I think we violated this contract.’” That seems like pretty reasonable training. You shouldn't put that on the record because you're not an attorney. You are just some Dork, or Senior Dork, or Staff Dork, or whatever grade of Dork you happen to be who is still not an attorney. Maybe the attorneys also have to take training that advises them not to say "I think this dereference might be undefined behavior" in emails. Who knows.

notimetorelax 10y ago
There's nothing wrong with such emails if sent to company attorneys. Or as a whistleblower to right authorities. Not to public though.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  No, the point of such policies is so that if the company is ever gets sued and is subpoenaed for e-mails, the opposing counsel don't get to get in front of a jury and point to Joe Schmoe at the company writing 'Yep, I think we broke the law!' This is standard employee training presumably not just at Google, but at basically every company I've ever worked for. The rule goes basically: if you don't think what you write would look good on the front page of the NYT, then don't put it in an e-mail.
  - ChuckMcM 10y ago
    Well if you send it to legal and mark it client attorney privileged they have an argument from suppressing it in discovery.
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      Which can be argued against since you're not actually the attorney's client at the time of writing the e-mail, only the corporation is [1]. 'Some courts employ the Control Group Test whereby protection is available only to the corporation's controlling executives and managers.' Doesn't seem like a risk a competent retained counsel would want to take, in any case. [1] http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/acpfihc.cfm http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/acpfihc.cfm

harry8 10y ago

People commenting on this who work for google or hope to probably should say so in their comment.

chappi42 10y ago

Quite schizophrenic of the company to open up every information/book/news they can crawl and on the other hand close down the little interior world as much as possible. Not that this would be news or unexpected though.

dunkelheit 10y ago

I've seen several Google employees comment on this site even on matters related to Google. How do they bring up the courage to do this? Seems pretty risky as per this "Confidentiality Agreement".

tantalor 10y ago
Only comment on things that have been publicly announced/published, don't comment on leaks or make new ones. (I work for Google)

drewg123 10y ago

Google has an incredibly secretive culture. Secrecy was drilled into us time and again. When collaborating with external vendors, it was quite painful to strike compromise between corporate secrecy and sharing enough information to be productive. After leaving Google, I'm always amazed at what I'm allowed to talk about with vendors. I'll start talking in my Google-conditioned non-committal cagey way, and a colleague will remind me that I'm not at Google anymore, and I can just say what I mean.

ionised 10y ago

> Further, Google apparently warns employees to not write about potentially illegal activities within the company, even to Google's own attorneys. 'Don't be evil' indeed.

coding123 10y ago

This comes to mind.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xH7eGFuSYI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xH7eGFuSYI

yeukhon 10y ago

"According to the lawsuit, Google’s policies don’t allow employees to discuss work-related topics including salaries, to post their personal opinions about the company online, and must not leak any product or other Google related information to the public. If Googlers break the company’s rules, they just might end up getting fired." I have read several blog posts of Googlers about their work experience on their own blogs. If leaking unannounced works to the public, that's definitely a standard how work should be treated. So I'd want to hear more about exactly what's going on. A "spy program" is a catchy phrase to grab reader attention. I think anyone should report if they spot anything against the interest of company such as insider trading, violate NDA etc, especially given Google is publicly traded.

wnevets 10y ago
>Google’s policies don’t allow employees to discuss work-related topics including salaries isn't this illegal?
- empath75 10y ago
  and seemingly not true? http://qz.com/458615/theres-reportedly-a-big-secret-spreadsheet-where-google-employees-share-their-salaries/ http://qz.com/458615/theres-reportedly-a-big-secret-spreadsh...
- neild 10y ago
  My understanding is that employers may not hinder employees in discussing salaries among themselves, but may impose restrictions on providing salary information to non-employees. So I can tell another Googler my salary but I can't tell you (unless you're a Googler) because my NDA forbids it. I'm pretty certain that I'm allowed to tell you that I'm not allowed to tell you, though. :) There's an internal site where a number of Googlers share their compensation, anonymously or otherwise. I've never received any indication of disapproval or retaliation from management for being on it. (I am not a lawyer, standard disclaimer applies.)
  - user5994461 10y ago

JamilD 10y ago

> Apparently, the tech giant has a “Stop Leaks” program in place that is managed through an internal website. Employees have the option of reporting a colleague to superiors, which then look into the matter and fire the whistleblower if the report is true. Not all leaks are made in the sprit of "whistleblowing". This article seems pretty misleading… many of these measures are designed to protect the company's intellectual property and secrecy, though I see how they can be abused. I would hardly call it a 'spying program' though.

stuckagain 10y ago
Indeed, the leak in question seems to be this transcript of internal company-wide forum: http://www.recode.net/2016/4/13/11586092/tony-fadell-nest-google-tgif http://www.recode.net/2016/4/13/11586092/tony-fadell-nest-go... Which does not appear to be any kind of public service.

maneesh 10y ago

Didn't this happen to Hooli in the last season of Silicon Valley?

plandis 10y ago
Life (maybe) mimics art!

deadmik3 10y ago

>In addition, John Doe is also stating that Brian Katz, the director of global investigations, intelligence, and protective services over at Google, has falsely accused him of leaking information to the media. Doesn't seem like a false accusation to me...

someguydave 10y ago

I'm truly shocked to read that an organization founded on grubbing as much data as possible is also spying on its own workforce.

nunez 10y ago

Right, so I don't remember having any such language (don't disclose your salary or your work) in my departure paperwork. I was a SA in a SRE team. Does this apply to people in X? That said, Google has a VERY restrictive IP a policy that effectively prohibits employees from running side businesses at ANY time during their employment on ANY medium, Google-owned or not. Anything you make is Google's.

DannyBee 10y ago
"That said, Google has a VERY restrictive IP a policy that effectively prohibits employees from running side businesses at ANY time during their employment on ANY medium, Google-owned or not. Anything you make is Google's. " Actually, this is pretty much 100% false (I help run the invention assignment committee, so ...). We let it happen all the time, and in fact, grant people the IP to do it. This is significantly better than most companies, who pretty much don't tell you, and then if you come up with something cool, will sue you and get it from you.
- nunez 10y ago
  The language in the IP agreement I signed said the exact opposite. Engineers from the group I was in left because of this. Can you elaborate?
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    "The language in the IP agreement I signed said the exact opposite." Did you actually attend the week two training we give entitled "open source and IP", that covers this in great detail? "Engineers from the group I was in left because of this." I would love to know who you believe left because of this. In the 11 years i've worked at Google, the vast majority of people i've seen leave in this situation left because they basically wanted to start a competitive startup, get the IP from google, and still get paid by google at the same time (quite literally). The number of people who left for ideological reasons i can count on one, maybe two hands.