26 ms·

GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects using company resources

• uniclaude 10y ago
  People keep complaining about how hard and expensive it is to attract top talent. This kind of measure is exactly how you do it. Provide an environment where employees feel trusted and empowered, pay market rate, screen properly instead of having applicants jump through hoops, and you won't have much trouble hiring. Kudos to github for this, I'm impressed!
  • lostboys67 10y ago
    Sad that having even minimal employee rights is some how seen as exceptional.
    • misterhtmlcss 10y ago
      @lostboys totally agree, but thankful someone is at least offering me more than serf rights
    • pjmlp 10y ago
      From someone that is able to enjoy proper work conditions in socialist Europe, the state of work condition expectations in US is always surprising. Sometimes I get the feeling that even my own country (Portugal), with all its issues regarding work conditions, still appears to be in better shape.
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      • De_Delph 10y ago
        Hi from socialist Netherlands, where the issues around IP and employers are EXACTLY the same as the US.
        • pjmlp 10y ago
          Are they enforceable? I am no lawyer, but I don't expect that under EU work law anything done outside work can be forbidden in the work contract, in any member country. The only issue I see from law point of view, is if whatever is being done, in terms of private projects, is related to knowledge acquired during the work activities, sometimes under NDA. Here yes, there can be issues. Now if the projects are done in technology stacks or business domains completely different from what happens at work, then it isn't enforceable. However I am no lawyer.
        • lostboys67 10y ago
          Which of the 52 states is that? Its probably closer to the CA i.e. it has to be related to the employers work not everying.
      • RhodesianHunter 10y ago
        From someone who would give his left leg to work in Europe, but not 4/5 of his salary, enjoy your wins!
    • chadlavi 10y ago
      For real, this should be the norm. Good on GitHub anyway though!
    • freebs 10y ago
      It really is sad. The worst part is, employees are treated poorly at many companies. I feel like it's even worse during and after a recession because employers know people are desperate. I have been working on mplyees.com, a site where employees can share what needs to change publicly and anonymously. Hopefully we can bridge this divide since employee happiness is key to a successful business.
    • endymi0n 10y ago
      I couldn't care less about IP myself - but the real reason this stuff is pretty standard is that investors are somehow really bullish about IP (the "secret sauce"). Against our own beliefs, we decided for pretty strict contract terms around IP as this topic usually turns out to be one of the standard blockers in any funding and exit negotiations. In former companies, after a financing round people had to sign new terms and that can get pretty complicated. That's the real reason things are pretty messed up all around protecting IP. As we've survived without funding so far, we're thinking of relaxing this as well. Kudos to GitHub's investors for staying away from this nonsense.
      • pdimitar 10y ago
        Such offers must be refused. I know it's easier said than done when you have your back against the wall. But turning down such people in favor of those who respect your IP is always the better investment down the line.
      • lostboys67 10y ago
        This is not about trade secrets its about outside work not related to your day job.
    • conanbatt 10y ago
      The real question is how expensive they are. The US has les protections but thus pays a lot more. Soft engineers moving from SF to europe get their income cut by more than 50%. In the end, more europeans move to the Us that the other way around, showing ultimately what the body prefers.
      • megous 10y ago
        Who cares about income? Profit matters. Societal benefits matter too. How many days of work in a month is required to break even on all the basics of life like rent, food and medical care + retirement insurance.
        • conanbatt 10y ago
          Everything matters, thats why looking at only 1 axis ends up biased. Seeing how people vote with their feet takes everything into account, preferences, income, services, etc. The reality is that the US is a very generous place if you have money, so if you are a software engineer you can have a luxurous life in comparison to what one would get in EU. The situation is opposite for lower paying jobs.
          • megous 10y ago
            Curious. How is it more luxurious? Say I have $2000 extra at the end of the month in EU and in US. Where the difference comes from?
            • conanbatt 10y ago
              You can get a better private education in the us with money that you can for free in europe. College is a great example of free college vs overpriced but ultimately valuable private colleges You could have a much bigger houses as well. If you move to munich or berlin(even though the latter is one of the cheapest cities in europe) a house is really expensive in comparison to what you can get in a city like Austin, Denver, even Seattle if you commute a bit.
        • 10y ago
  • soverance 10y ago
    For real. I am an indie game dev who recently released his first big game on Steam. Just a week or two ago I had a prospective company tell me that, in order to hire me, I would need to sell them the entirety of my personally-developed IP and dissolve my interest in my own company. Needless to say, I decided against that job.
    • dabber 10y ago
      Wow, I'd lie if I said I wasn't worried I'd someday have to take a job like that. Was this job you applied to in the gaming space? If so, is that type of ask common place in your experience? Also, a bit of an aside. What's the game you released called? I get you probably intended to avoid the plug but I'm curious. Edit: And of course, props to GitHub for this!
      • soverance 10y ago
        Hopefully you'll never have to take a job that asks this of you. Yes, the job in question was in the gaming space, working on an unannounced virtual reality title. This has been the only time a company has ever asked me to divest interest in my own company and/or IP before being hired. Granted, I have only recently begun looking for work, but I cannot imagine this being a common scenario. Instead, I imagine these guys as sharks that do not have my best interests in mind; only their own. As for my game, it's called Ethereal Legends, and is now available on Steam. To bring things back onto the topic of this thread, the code for my game is also available on GitHub! https://github.com/Soverance/EtherealLegends https://github.com/Soverance/EtherealLegends
    • charlesdm 10y ago
      And one wonders why they can't hire top talent. One the one hand, they want capable people who go out of their way to achieve results + love their craft. Guess what, that often happens by working on side projects (whether ultimately commercial or not, is irrelevant). As an employee the only concession I would personally be willing to make would be to not compete directly with the company you're employed at. And only if you're not employed at a company doing everything, i.e. a Google or a Microsoft.
  • throwaway7558 10y ago
    I agree--this is excellent and very tech-talent-friendly. As an example on the other side of the spectrum: I work for a very large Silicon Valley company that is well known (you've heard of them) for secrecy and obsessively guarding its IP. Here we can't[1] work on Open Source, work on potential start-up ideas, moonlight writing software for some extra cash, publish (either academically or releasing software online, app stores or web), or really do anything substantial regarding software outside of work. On personal time, weekends, on our own equipment, doesn't matter. It's a serious drawback, to the point where I've been actively looking around. I'm certain this will have an extremely positive effect on GitHub's attractiveness as an employer. 1: Technically, the policy is "ask your manager" but everyone knows what the answer is.
    • vonmoltke 10y ago
      At least your policy is limited to software-related things. I need to ask permission to start a side gig selling shit on eBay, submit a fiction story to a writing contest, or even volunteer for mentoring/tutoring sessions (on any topic). I didn't know the full extent before I started, but they threw more money at me than my wife and I have ever made combined, so I probably would have still taken it if I had known. Plus, I'm in NYC now.
    • BuuQu9hu 10y ago
      Your employer, of course, is Google; I know this from my own tussles with Google's OSPO, which exists primarily to ensure that engineers don't have lives outside of Google.
      • vonmoltke 10y ago
        I have not gone through them yet, but I get the feeling from the wording of our policies that our equivalent is similar.
      • rrdharan 10y ago
        [Disclaimer: I work at Google.] I see no conclusive evidence in the parent comment that proves it's Google. I would've actually guessed Apple. My understanding is that Google actually has a reasonable process for this, and that people have taken advantage of it to start or contribute to projects in a personal capacity.
  • eloff 10y ago
    I turned down a job with IBM once they told me, after appeal, that they would own my side project if I continued to work on it. The interview process cost me 40 hours and an all-nighter take home (I really needed the job.) The salary was fantastic for Canada, but still pathetic by US standards.
  • munificent 10y ago
    One of the main reasons I left EA was because I wasn't working on games I was interested at work, and couldn't work on them in my spare time either. My job in the game industry got in the way of me making games.
• ploggingdev 10y ago
  Direct link to GitHub's employee IP agreement : https://github.com/github/balanced-employee-ip-agreement https://github.com/github/balanced-employee-ip-agreement
• fergie 10y ago
  And they encourage remote working . # starts polishing CV #
  • jameskegel 10y ago
    Every GH employee I've ever met has been very satisfied with their job. They come to meetups and hand out stickers but then they stay and contribute and do presentations about things they are passionate about. Most sponsors show up with a bribe and then do a marketing talk and leave. I'm sure my bar is set lower than some, but it means a lot to me to see happy employees.
  • reitanqild 10y ago
    I thought that was before and they didn't accept that anymore?
• kriro 10y ago
  Very, very good. It shows the kind of trust in employees that I like to see. Depends a bit on how they will interpret "As long as the work isn’t related to GitHub’s own “existing or prospective” products and services" but I'd assume that it will be very reasonable. Kudos, great decision.
  • prolly_a_moron 10y ago
    >Kudos, great decision. Couldn't agree more. I hope it sets the formation of a precedent in motion. Great to see.
  • jasonkostempski 10y ago
    I'm sure this is all idealistic crap, but I'd still love to see someone try it; I'd like to see a well grounded company include "even if it is related to <company>'s own existing and prospective products". A nice competitive taunt "Go ahead, try and compete with us, we dare you." Code is already covered by copyright, so it's not like anyone could take the repository and start a GitHub with it. Even if they could, not many people are going to trust the new fork because it's future is not backed by the same team and community (unless the existing team and community has become toxic, but, ideally, having this threat in place could prevent that from happening in the first place). Code is only part of GitHub's success, recreating the other parts isn't going to happen easily. No single person could know all the ins-and-outs of every important role in the company.
• steve371 10y ago
  This is neat. Finally found a company doing this.
• jna_sh 10y ago
  Fwiw, I don't think this is a new thing for GitHub employees, as the headline suggests, this is some best practice that GitHub is releasing for others! At least, I've enjoyed this benefit since I joined GH earlier this year.
  • mattcantstop 10y ago
    Agreed. In my couple years at GitHub side projects have been encouraged, not discouraged. It's been incredibly refreshing. Interestingly enough, I have worked on side projects the least at GitHub because I really enjoy my employment now and get paid a fair wage :)
• jna_sh 10y ago
  The GitHub post on it: https://github.com/blog/2337-work-life-balance-in-employee-intellectual-property-agreements https://github.com/blog/2337-work-life-balance-in-employee-i...
• partycoder 10y ago
  Pet projects are not necessarily good for a company: 1) Code is not necessarily an asset, it is also a liability: needs to be maintained, tested, documented, etc. This has a non-trivial cost. 2) Engineer salaries are usually more expensive than a license. 3) Experience working using internal frameworks/libraries/etc can be harder to trade in the marketplace, especially if you are not the author. 4) It is hard to keep up feature parity with commercial/open source alternatives. 5) Internal projects do not necessarily lead to more employee satisfaction. They can be usually lacking around user experience and can be frustrating to use. 6) Some internal projects have purely political motivations, like self-perpetuating the authors in the company. Finally, if you absolutely require to start an internal project, but it does not provide a competitive advantage: open source it.
  • snovv_crash 10y ago
    You might want to move the last sentence to the beginning. Your opening comment could easily be interpreted as "companies should forbid pet projects".
    • partycoder 10y ago
      Don't judge a book by the cover.
  • js8 10y ago
    If you have any of the problems 1-5, I would argue you actually have a problem of management not trusting engineers enough to buy them a good and suitable existing market solution, and that's why they have to come up with something makeshift. I agree that it happens in companies, but it's definitely not a good thing.
• borplk 10y ago
  Well done.
• bkovacev 10y ago
  Big step in the right direction. I also believe this will have huge impact on the morale as well. If you offer enough courtesy to your employees you'll receive a lot more in return. Personally, I believe this can boost productivity in a different way, because if the employee is challenged with a different set of problems other than the "same ol' " during the work time, the experience can be directly applied to the possible future employer's problems. Granted, this can have downsides too.
• misingnoglic 10y ago
  Does anyone have any articles about that first story? That's horrifying...
• alistproducer2 10y ago
  For anyone interested in the Alcatel horror story mentioned in the article, it's even worse than you thought: Therefore his thoughts, which were characterised as “invention” in the decision, should be disclosed to Alcatel. The judge also ordered Brown to pay Alcatel’s legal fees, which exceeded $330,000.[1] 1: https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1899/appeals-court-affirms-ex-employee-s-idea-belongs-to-alcatel https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1899/appeals-court-affirm...
  • ifdefdebug 10y ago
    Sometimes it feels like Kafka's The Trial is where the US court system takes most of it's inspiration from...
    • kutkloon7 10y ago
      In think that in most countries, a large company will always win big trials. Andrew "bunnie" Huang has written a very good 2-page note on this in: http://bunniefoo.com/nostarch/HackingTheXbox_Free.pdf http://bunniefoo.com/nostarch/HackingTheXbox_Free.pdf (first two pages, but the whole book is a good read) In the US it seems especially bad, since Americans seem exceptionally obsessed with "living the American dream" aka making a lot of money. Many people assume that if you have a lot of money, you must be a good person.
      • 0xfeba 10y ago
        > Many people assume that if you have a lot of money, you must be a good person. I used to agree with that, but now politics has cleaved this into two. A) If you're a democrat/progressive (Soros, Hillary, et al.) you're corrupt, greedy, immoral. And you got all that money via ill means. They must be stupid and anti-American be B) If you're a republican (Trump, Murdoch, Ted Stevens, et al.) your earned it from picking up yourself by your bootstraps, the American Dream. And they must be smart people, they have lots of money! And vice-versa. As an aside, I'm increasingly seeing spammy "Soros is an anti-american progressive socialist communist" comments on other low quality forums. Which is interesting considering his investments, wealth, views on Russian, path to citizenship, and interest in helping economies move away from communism into capitalism. Post-truth, I guess.
• camoby 10y ago
  I always try to negotiate this. Since I always bring value, effort and ideas from personal time and resources in to the company, for free. If they don't want to do that, then write down a big list of every idea and project you've been working on to date, including any domains you own and projects within them, and make sure they can't touch any of the IP you've already created. Also: Be friendly about it.
  • bblough 10y ago
    I rejected an offer from a company that had a similar policy/procedure. Their contract stated that they own pretty much anything you do that's related to their business (which was huge and varied). But you were allowed to list any existing IP over which they had no claims. That would have been fine and dandy, and probably even acceptable to me. But based on the wording of the contract, the IP clause still applied even after terminating your employment with the company. Which meant that while they might not be able to claim rights to my existing IP, ownership of any future IP could be called into question. So, while I think your approach is good, there can still be issues with it.
• stuaxo 10y ago
  It's not a personal project if you don't own the IP. If it Was The opposite way then the employees would not do these projects, in turn they will learn a much narrower range of skills.
• superbatfish 10y ago
  As developers, we're biased towards one view of this issue, but it's intellectually lazy of us to just say "Yeah, we deserve it! Because... fairness!" Last December, Joel Spolsky wrote about developer side projects, and honestly, he's right. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-projects/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-pr... My view: In some companies, depending on their business model, it might be reasonable to ask to own your own work on side projects. But it would be reasonable of them to expect you to give up something in exchange (e.g. smaller salary).
  • Already__Taken 10y ago
    Isn't this ignoring the benefit companies might want the kind of talent that can pump out side projects as well as their work? But that's rooted to the 10x engineer myth.
  • kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
    > But it would be reasonable of them to expect you to give up something in exchange (e.g. smaller salary). Except when the side project is useful for your employer and you've effectively contributed free, unpaid labor to developing it.
    • superbatfish 10y ago
      The question here isn't whether your should work on side projects at all. It's about who owns the side project when you're done.
      • sillysaurus3 10y ago
        I wonder if the person doing all the work should own it, or the person who did none of the work and gave no capital?
  • pjc50 10y ago
    Why does this only apply to IP? Why isn't the company considered to own the employee's labour 24/7 in all regards? Your employer should be compensated for the labour you spend doing your washing. Or if you happen to spend an hour in the evening driving an Uber or subletting on AirBnB, your employer should own that as well? /s
• kutkloon7 10y ago
  "But rather than negotiating a deal, Alcatel fired Brown and sued him for ownership of the idea. After a seven-year-long court battle, he lost and was forced to spend three months at the company’s offices, without pay, writing out the code to implement his solution." I deeply hate the judge who made this verdict. You must be truly devoid of human feeling and common sense to explain this as a reasonable application of the law.
  • Thrillington 10y ago
    It's morally bankrupt, but legally correct.
    • tgragnato 10y ago
      If it's legally correct, then the law is so flawed.
    • sitkack 10y ago
      Why is he obligated to implement a solution? The IP is the idea, not the implementation of it.
      • marcoperaza 10y ago
        I'm not familiar with the case, but others are saying that it was the terms of a settlement, not the court ruling.
    • teej 10y ago
      A judge can compel someone to work without pay? Is that not slavery?
      • gubwerd 10y ago
        There's an exception to the US Constitution's abolition of slavery: punishment for a crime. Fortunately, contract disputes are civil rather than criminal.
  • 10y ago
• reallydattrue 10y ago
  Can someone please clarify this for me. An employer is paying six figures to an employee. In exchange for said salary, employee works set hours and within that time, is supposed to work for the employer and anything they create within that period is owned by the employer. However, in the comments. It seems like everyone wants their cake and eat it too? Which is to say, if I'm working for you between the contracted hours of 9 to 5. And if I am working on a personal project that the employer is not going to benefit, I should keep the IP. Even though the employer is paying for my time? Note, this isn't about working outside of the contracted hours at home, nor is it about staying late and using company resources to develop said project and claiming IP belongs to the employee. For large companies like github. They could probably be more flexible. But for smaller companies, every working daylight hour to them is needed and required for projects to deliver on-time. These very same companies would argue that all code/IP belongs to them. That they woudn't want employees working on pet projects in THEIR paid time. Kinda sounds to me, that people here wants 3 things. 1) Pay me a large wage > north of 6 figures. 2) If I code something for me during working hours, it's MINE. 3) If I code something outside of working hours, it's also MINE. Sounds like bratish entitled behavior no? Can someone set me straight here? I don't see how this could be good for employers who don't agree with this. Oh and btw, if you want to work on your own thing, being paid by a company, that you keep the IP. It's called being an entrepreneur and setting up your own company. So instead of saying kudos I wish more companies do this. Go start your own today and you have that freedom NOW!
  • cellis 10y ago
    There's lots of problems with this line of thinking. One, it encourages "butt-in-seat" thinking, which is inefficient. If I deliver what you wanted delivered in the time allotted, I should be free to work on whatever I want. Of course, a manager wants to squeeze every drop, so if you've finished they'll say "I have some more work for you". But best believe you'll never be fairly compensated for that work ( at most companies anyways. Obviously if the company is Facebook/Google you can have a massive impact and will be flying around to work on whatever suits your fancy ). Look at it from a contractor's point of view: a contractor will have many other things that they can deliver and make money from, so adding a bit of polish to your project vs delivering another client's makes less sense.
• rusanu 10y ago
  I guess otherwise no GitHub employee could ever use GitHub for a personal project, could they?
• api 10y ago
  I could see this as an ultimate perk and a really powerful way to attract top talent. Wow.
• reallydattrue 10y ago
  Personally I think this is wrong. Employers should expect developers to work on company IP within contracted hours and any new code/IP is owned by the company. In addition. Developers who have their own side-projects own that IP and if they work outside of contracted hours and generate new code on THEIR projects. Well, they own that IP also. One caveat though. Developers should allow employers to go through their generated code, to ensure that developers aren't stealing company IP. Oh but if a company wants some code that the developer generated in his own time? Well, negotiations should start. The company should pay for that!
• nunez 10y ago
  This is amazing. Definitely a nice perk of working for GitHub
• nilved 10y ago
  So you've never met Julie Ann Horvath?
  • dang 10y ago
    You've been posting uncivil and unsubstantive comments to Hacker News. We ban accounts that do this, so please stop doing this. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13921512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13921512 and marked it off-topic.
• equalunique 10y ago
  I imagine developers would have somewhat non-transferable job skills if they couldn't use GitHub while working for GitHub.
• jankotek 10y ago
  Most corporations I interviewed with have this policy, including Microsoft and some large banks. Otherwise it would be impossible to attract OS developers. Also the agreement[1] is not completely rosy, it has some strings attached. For example if you are working on CSS library, Github uses it and contracts you to make some patches, they might claim IP ownership over those patches. That is a mine field for OS project. I personally would not sign it. It needs extra clause to clarify what projects are excluded. > The Company owns any IP ("Company IP") that you create, or help create as its employee or contractor, .... related to an existing or prospective Company product or service at the time you developed, invented, or created it [1] https://github.com/github/balanced-employee-ip-agreement/blob/master/Balanced_Employee_IP_Agreement.md https://github.com/github/balanced-employee-ip-agreement/blo... (I am not a lawyer, just a hobby)
  • bnw06 10y ago
    Microsoft does not have a friendly policy in this regard.
• zachruss92 10y ago
  Wow, this is amazing. It sounds like a win-win as it will encourage creativity and personal projects.
• ratherbefuddled 10y ago
  This is just putting into a contract what ought to be considered normal and reasonable defaults. I don't think they deserve special praise for it, rather companies that don't do this deserve criticism. Whenever I've encountered overly grasping IP clauses in contracts I've always had them re-written so they only cover work which is done during working hours or related to <core_business>. No employer has ever objected to this, they usually have just been advised by lawyers to be ultra aggressive by default. One (English) employer struck the whole clause on the basis that copyright law covered them sufficiently anyway as by default works created "in the course of employment" belonged to the employer.
  • falcolas 10y ago
    > No employer has ever objected to this I've not had this luck, personally. They are always willing to forgo the job offer just to ensure that everyone has the same contracts. I'm guessing that it's going to be a size of business issue. And the IP assignment clauses are, for the most part, getting worse and worse; my current one extends the assignment to a year after termination, voluntary or not.
    • brazzledazzle 10y ago
      Wouldn't that keep you from being employed for a year after termination? If so, I hope a year's worth of severance is part of your contract.
      • falcolas 10y ago
        It could, yes. And no, it wasn't. However, I was laid off at the time and needed the job, so my bargaining power was minimal.
        • brazzledazzle 10y ago
          Yikes. Sorry to hear that.
    • ryandrake 10y ago
• grabcocque 10y ago
  TBH it's a lovely thought, but it sounds like a legal nightmare waiting to happen. Your employees have access to proprietary code, how do you stop their code from being "tainted" by that access?
• PythonDeveloper 10y ago
  Biggest mistake ever. Github will regret this decision, mark my words. (clarification: Not that it's a bad concept, but they will spend massive amounts of cash defending the "Prospective product" moniker of the agreement.)
• ja30278 10y ago
  As a thought experiment, for people who agree with the idea that a company 'owns' all of the thought-output of an employee: Why should that mean only the valuable IP, and not _all_ of the thought-output, including the unpleasant parts. If an employee commits a pre-meditated murder, should the company be liable, as a partial 'thought-owner'?
  • jeffbr13 10y ago
    IP's the more specific case here. The company both owns and is responsible for anything an employee does during the course of their employment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_of_employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_of_employment
    • leggomylibro 10y ago
      So if you work for a bank and commit serious wire fraud on your own time, can you be sued for breach of contract, conflict of interest, etc? You'd have a lot of experience in doing so from your normal employment.
  • talmand 10y ago
    I would believe that in certain situations in certain jurisdictions that would be possible.
  • gcb0 10y ago
    why go for something like murder and not the widespread ip violation crimes such as using ideas from patents but hiding that you ever saw that patent (why do you think every company has rule against discussing patents on email?)
  • vtange 10y ago
    Or if the employee made something that made a net-loss. We only hear the company knocking on the employee's door when the employee is earning a profit.
    • Corrado 10y ago
• Kapura 10y ago
  I work at a fairly large independent game studio and there is a similar arrangement with the developers here. The studio has developed a framework of Unity extensions that aren't open source, but that the developers are free to use in their own side projects without having to cede any ownership back to the studio if/when their game is released. Even the fact that game developers are allowed to create other games outside of work, potentially with other non-studio teams is a super nice perk of working here.
  • cableshaft 10y ago
    Nice. I worked for an independent game studio once that wanted to own all IP for any sort of multimedia anything, since they were contract based and sometimes had to do other work besides just games if the client requested it. Also they wanted IP rights for pretty much any ideas we had, including off company time, with the justification that we could come up with ideas to improve a game we were working on at any time, and also because the studio had a 'everyone can contribute to game design' mentality and we'd all be involved in design meetings from time to time. Which is technically true, but seemed so draconian. I almost didn't take the job because of that clause, and I didn't publish anything during my time there. At least the people there were cool, though, and I still keep in touch with some of the people I worked with there, including the company president, who's actually a really nice guy.
  • sitkack 10y ago
    That is excellent! It also has the nice benefit of keeping developers "on the island" by continuing to use, learn and extended in house libraries.
• edpichler 10y ago
  "...As long as the work isn’t related to GitHub’s own “existing or prospective” Very good and very honest.
• falcolas 10y ago
  It's nice that they explicitly spell this out. I'd personally still be leery of running personal projects on company time/property, simply because of the "existing or prospective products and services" clause; it's amazing how many products and services large companies are prospectively looking into. The cost of not using company hardware or time is that of a laptop and working outside your "9-5"; simple insurance against the potential costs.
• andrewfromx 10y ago
  When I was an employee of BizRate/Shopzilla in 2005 I would take my laptop downstairs to my car parked in the company parking garage, and code on my personal project for exactly 1 hour from 12-1 my lunch break. But the laptop was charged with electrons from shopzilla's office plug and the parking garage turns out is still technically on the company's property.
  • brianwawok 10y ago
    So you got sued and lost it?
    • andrewfromx 10y ago
      no, there never was any suing, but trying to adhear to the contract I signed was just impossible. Everywhere you looked you were using a company resource somehow.
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      • jogjayr 10y ago
        Drive to a coffee shop for lunch and work there?
        • andrewfromx 10y ago
          yeah but what if laptop battery was filled with electricity from their office where they pay the electric bill. When I use said laptop in coffee shop, who's resource am I using? Mine cuz I own the laptop or theirs or both?
          • jogjayr 10y ago
            Charge the laptop at the coffee shop. Or charge it up to full before leaving home for work; you're unlikely to run out working for an hour-long lunch.
• lewisjoe 10y ago
  Here's the repo, hosting the documents - https://github.com/github/balanced-employee-ip-agreement https://github.com/github/balanced-employee-ip-agreement
• rglover 10y ago
  Exactly how it should be.
• bluesign 10y ago
  Looking at the alcatel case and github agreement, i think even alcatel made employees sign an agreement like this, they would have right on Brown's idea.
• jamesblonde 10y ago
  I'm a lecturer/prof in Sweden and we have had this law for years. We own all our own IP. In other top tier Universities around the world the norm is that the university takes 20-50% of the IPR/equity. Needless to say that we are very happy with it (lärareundantag). However, a word of caution: it doesn't seem to make any difference when attracting top talent. My experience is that even in Systems Research, candidates don't factor it into their decisions. They just think - UK or Switzerland or Sweden. Because of that, i don't think it will catch on.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • anonymousDan 10y ago
    As a systems researcher, this is definitely something I would consider. Do you know of other European countries with similar policies? In the UK the situation in most universities now is that the university owns everything. Previously Cambridge I believe gave a large share to the academic, but this was dispensed with/reduced in the face of considerable protest.
• uncoder0 10y ago
  At all the companies I've run I always allow engineers to work on personal projects on personal time and have never cared if they did it on their work laptop. The only time I can see a hands off IP agreement being an issue and is when the project is commercial, in the same space as our product and is cannibalizing the company's user base which it seems Github has allowed in it's IP agreement. I've never tried to get a lawyer to work similar language into an IP agreement so I've just eschewed them entirely. Looks like we may have to get one if we decide to go after funding. Does anyone think sensible terms like ones used by Github will suffice for VCs or do they all want the draconian "all your thoughts are belong to us" IP agreement I've seen commonly thrown around? Hopefully articles and practices like these will continue to become more commonplace and influence the current VC dogma.
• Insanity 10y ago
  This is really cool of github. I'm impressed with this and can imagine this makes them look more attractive for future employees!
• kutkloon7 10y ago
  I agree, and I think that people should be able to make the distinction between legally correct and morally correct. (It's very easy to make a Godwin here) Is it that uncommon to factor in the situation? I've heard of judges in the Netherlands who find people guilty, but give them just a small fine. Likewise, they might rule that technically, someone is guilty, but that this application of the law is not in the spirit of the law. In the US, this might be less common. However, Steve Jobs was legally responsible for Apple backdating options in 2006. He plays the "Oh, I didn't know"-card and sure enough, an exception to the law can be made. However, a woman in Texas was jailed for 8 years for crossing a wrong box on her voting form. Now suddenly "I didn't know" is not a valid excuse. The law is not that independent. Screwing over someone powerful is likely to yield repercussions, even if it is morally and legally the right thing to do. Screwing over someone without power mostly goes without consequences, so this happens more often.
  • phd514 10y ago
    She was jailed for registering as a voter and voting in several elections despite not being a US citizen. Your characterization of it as "crossing a wrong box on her voting form" downplays the severity of what she did.
  • dang 10y ago
    We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13921849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13921849 and marked it off-topic.
• unlmtd 10y ago
  I feel like I'm living an the twilight zone. An idea is not a scarce good! The Pharaoh is not the 'Mighty Son of Ra'. A triangle has three sides.
• xophishox 10y ago
  Thank you git hub. I'm not a developer but i do code in my free time, and used company resources. and always had to jump through hoops. (doing work on my lunch hour, down times, etc, and ever affecting our bottom dollar or performance of machines). I even developed things for the company such as directories, signature generators etc. This is a great step forward for everyone, and i hope more companies adopt it.
• gcb0 10y ago
  wait. wasn't that the law in California already? or am I thinking of non competes?
  • awinter-py 10y ago
    Yeah -- this seems not to differ from the law in california / wisconsin. http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/lab/division-3/2870-2872/2870 http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/lab/division-3/2... These states already assign employees work 'not using equipment', 'not resulting from work', 'not in the employer's area of business'. Many california-based companies will echo this language in the IP assignment section of their employment contract. These protections don't help you if you're at, say, a big 3 company with a lot of businesses. I know someone who asked in their contract negotiation at google if G could provide a comprehensive list of areas of business and G refused.
    • DannyBee 10y ago
      "These states already assign employees work 'not using equipment', 'not resulting from work', 'not in the employer's area of business'." This is close but no cigar: You missed " or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or" Which for larger companies, is huge. Admittedly though, this is the thing that employees always seem to miss in that labor code. "These protections don't help you if you're at, say, a big 3 company with a lot of businesses. I know someone who asked in their contract negotiation at google if G could provide a comprehensive list of areas of business and G refused." Even if we had, it wouldn't have mattered because of the above :) There's no way we could give a list of current research to random prospective employee. That said, it would make no sense to try to enumerate all areas of business that and keep it up to date. Instead, when we get requests, we just ask the relevant business owner.
      • awinter-py 10y ago
        is there case law on prospective area of business?
• superbatfish 10y ago
  Look, this is nice for github employees, but it's worth noting that this is not an easy decision for all companies to make. We (developers) aren't like factory workers cranking out widgets by the hour. We're paid to think deeply about challenging problems. For me, that means chewing on a problem for a long time, often when I'm not at work. Honestly, when a problem is challenging, I can't get it out of my mind. I'm thinking about it, at least a little bit, on the weekends -- heck, maybe even while I'm sleeping. And those are the problems I enjoy the most. When a savvy software company hires someone, they understand that this is how developers operate. They will offer handsome compensation because they expect this. Ultimately, competition for your thinking time is a zero-sum game. If you're working on a hard problem at work, you might think about it at home. Similarly, if you're working on an interesting side project you might think about it at work. You can't help it. That doesn't mean companies should never allow side projects at all. There should be room for negotiation. But if we don't acknowledge the basic facts of the situation, then we aren't negotiating in good faith.
  • bluejekyll 10y ago
    Companies can't track your thinking. They can know when you're using their equipment. I'm fine with them owning what I do with their hardware, networks, anything they pay for... but they can not own my off-time, and they most certainly do not own my mind. What I build in my offtime is mine; this is in fact where every entrepreneur starts. What you're proposing is that all innovation should stay in the hands of the employer, and you as an employee are shackled at all hours. I know that some states have different laws in this area, but CAs are strong, and no one owns what you do when off from work and using your own equipment but you. Do not ever give up that right or we all lose.
    • superbatfish 10y ago
      If the company wants all of your ideas, even the ones you come up with on the weekends, then they should offer you a higher salary than the companies that don't demand that time. As it turns out, many companies do exactly this. And (apparently) their developers decided it was a fair deal. But if you don't like that deal, that's an entirely reasonable choice. In that case, just don't work for such a company, even if they offer better salaries. It would be unfair to say "don't take the job if you don't like the deal" if there weren't other options, but the fact is that there are lots of other options. There are plenty of software jobs that don't include such clauses, especially in the non-profit and academic sector.
• sunyc 10y ago
  Too much hype. I think they just did it because GitHub.com counts towards company resource.
• sytse 10y ago
  Kudos to GitHub for doing this. We had a lawyer look into this a long time ago and they said it wasn't possible. They managed to do it. We'll consider adopting it in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/issues/1225 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/issues/1225
  • sytse 10y ago
    Issue were the lawyer looked at this https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/issues/861 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/issues/861
• traspler 10y ago
  The company I currently work for sadly claims all IP. Not just the things I do for the company but all IT related stuff I do in my free time and even all non IT related things. I could write cook book and it would belong to them. I tried to get that changed but they were only willing to cede IP rights to non IT related products but will still remain a usage right. At least they are willing to transfer all rights to coworkers or me if we ask them to do so for a private project. But even though they seem willing to grant exemptions I'm put off by such contracts. At the end of the day only the contract matters and good will does not.
• matthewmcg 10y ago
  I work at a large law firm that represents a lot of software companies. Our standard employee agreement forms have the usual default (company owns everything you create with its resources or that relates to the scope of your employment). This default has always amused me because lawyers never sign these kinds of agreements with their own law firms. We spend most of our time writing contracts, memos, and other bits of work product that, in theory[1], are protected by copyright. Ethics rules and professional norms also give the clients rights in the work product they pay us to produce. A firm's partnership agreement might address this too. But most firms don't even try to address who owns the underlying IP rights. Moreover, it is extremely common for partners moving between firms to take all of their forms with them. The result is that people treat contract forms as-a sort of IP-free zone. It would not even be possible to ascertain the original authorship of most form contracts that cross my desk. Historically, this hasn't mattered because law firms charged for hours worked. It will matter a great deal if firms shift toward offering more automated products that can be sold outside the billable hour. [1] As with source code, there's also uncertainty about which aspects of a contract are expressive and which are purely functional. Only the expressive parts are protected by copyright. Update: one project I've had in the back of my mind is to illustrate this point by crawling the SEC's EDGAR website and tracing the "genealogy" of bits of contract language in public companies' filings. (Companies need to file certain "material agreements"). If anyone has some suggestions for good text processing libraries that can help with this tracing, I would love to hear about them.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • zekevermillion 10y ago
    Contracts theoretically could be protected by copyright. However, we reuse so much of the functional language that it would be difficult to prove that a given contract is sufficiently transformative to merit protection. One exception is that heavily-annotated firm templates and file memos. I would be more cautious about sharing a detailed, annotated template from a previous employer. Some large firms in fact do require associates to sign covenants. In particular English firms seem to do this a lot. I consider it to be unethical, as it is anti-competitive and runs contrary to the interests of clients, who should remain free to select the lawyer of their choice (even a disloyal employee of their previous law firm).
• dallamaneni 10y ago
  I work at Wolfram Research (The company that makes Mathematica and Wolfram alpha). Our company also supports and encourages employees to work on personal projects. We are also allowed to responsibly use (not draining bandwidth running games all night or run bitcoin miners) office resources for personal projects.
  • sshrinivasan 10y ago
    This post is about the IP right to that work, not whether your company allows you to work on personal projects.
• anandmgp 10y ago
  Ok
• anandmgp 10y ago
  Ok
• musesum 10y ago
  My last company was a acquired by a company based in California. Under CA law, you are entitled to your own IP if done on your own equipment. So, I had a separate laptop. The employment agreement had a clause where you were to list all of the IP that you had owned. But, it was ambiguous about whether I was retaining ownership or turning it over to the new company. So, I asked their legal: am I listing what's mine or what's yours? The reply was an ambiguous "yes". I quit after 1 day. A colleague, with the same issue lasted for a month.
• jedberg 10y ago
  So does Netflix.
• Orangeair 10y ago
  Wow, that's really nice. At Google, they basically told us, "There's the standard IP rule where you own anything that you work on in your own time that doesn't compete with our business... Of course we pretty much do everything, so good luck finding something that we can't claim."
  • greggman 10y ago
    When I was at google they said "we have a standard contract we'll most of the time be happy to sign that says we claim no interest in your outside project. Submit your project here and we'll get back to you ASAP". They often put out memos about the types of things that were not okay and later when they were ok. For example then they were exploring games in google plus back during the Farmville crazy they said "Sorry but for the time being no games please .. unless of course you want to make open source demo games for our APIs/Platforms". A year or so later they said "okay, games are fine now so feel free to submit to get your contract signed" The best thing about that is there's no ambiguity because you have a contract for your project. Github's policy is awesome but you're still at their mercy if you thought your side project was unrelated but they happen to think it is. In fact the larger any company gets the more likely you don't know all the things being worked on. A contract for your side project clears that up.
    • Orangeair 10y ago
      Hmm, the impression I got from the training video I watched was that it would be unlikely for Google to approve your outside project most of the time. But maybe it was just the way the specific presenter worded it.
• s3nnyy 10y ago
  One of my clients* is a fashion startup here in Zurich. The founder started his computer vision startup with material he discovered during his research at the ETH. He had to pay only a quiet low sum to get the IP. The sum was measured by how long it would take him to transcribe (literally type) the algorithms out of his head. (*I run a tech recruiting agency; happy to help people who want to move to Zurich.)
• bnw06 10y ago
  Good on Github. Not all companies will even make small concessions in this realm so I applaud them. I'm hesitant to write this but there are some false comments specifically about my employer in this thread so I will. I work for Microsoft and our policies are draconian. They of course make the standard claims of anything created on their hardware, using their software, or transmitted on their network. But to be exempt from their IP claim it also cannot be related to Microsoft business, or "anticipated business, research or development of Microsoft." Which of course is everything in the software world. It makes it particularly difficult since we're supposed to evangelize their stack and toolchain. But because of these policies I pay out of pocket for my own hardware, dev tools, as well as exclusively use GCP/AWS. They do have a program they're very proud of where they let you use software you're given as an employee if you're developing an app for the windows store, but it's so vague as to be legally useless. Take this for what you will.
• yason 10y ago
  This just sounds sensible. I know how companies in general like to think about this but I just don't understand that. If I had a company, I'd ask my employees to solve problems and write software that the company needs to sell products or service. I'd pay them to do that and give them the necessary tools to do their work. When they would deliver, we would roughly be even. Now, if an employee is doodling some code of his own on the laptop given to him by my company, why would I care as long as he will do the things the company asked him to do? If he was doodling on his own laptop the company laptop would just be unused. A laptop doesn't effectively wear out because of personal use. In effect, when it comes to software engineering I would be paying for results. For reference, in auto shops the mechanics can often use the company tools and facilities for personal evening/weekend projects or repairs. That's because the shop is closed anyway and the shop doesn't consider it a loss if their employee is fixing his own car, or his wife's car, or friend's car, during after hours. I understand why companies require their employees to not do the same work for competing companies or for free. That would be like letting the employees cash in twice for the same solutions, and contributing to the competition. But trying to own what employees might do with company computers on their spare time doesn't make sense, much less trying to own what employees might think on their spare time. If such a rule is enforceable an employee who did get a profitable idea not related to his line of work would just keep his mouth shut, quietly resign and slow-start a company of his own or sell the idea to some other company. Nobody would be so stupid anyway as to invent something while being bound by a possessive employment contract, and then bring it up just to tranfer the IP to their employer for free. On the other hand, if the employer is reasonable and doesn't try to own the idea it's much less of a hassle to make a deal with them and continue with the current employer and letting both parties profit from the idea.
• brudgers 10y ago
  This makes sense for Github (and probably for a lot of other software firms). I mean if you hire people to write code and be creative it doesn't make sense to turn around and create demotivating conditions upon their writing code and being creative...there are good constraints and bad constraints and constraints that create an inherent split between a person's best code and what they do for money is not a good constraint. For people motivated to make stuff outside of work, a separate laptop creates a physically different context for "what I care about" and "how I pay the rent". There are probably businesses where it might make sense to have IP policies: perhaps those with huge infrastructure costs like the automotive industry. But for industries where the trend is away from patents and licensing, trying to own all the IP does not have much economic value.
• Zenst 10y ago
  Well done GitHub, I've had some nasty documents thrust upon me in the past in which effectively gives a company claim to anything you create, even if not company used property. Was post employment contract so I refused. This is turning the tide and frankly I applaud it.
• CM30 10y ago
  I have to be honest, I'm surprised this is seemingly such a rare thing in the tech industry. I mean, in the various (admittedly small) companies I worked for as a web developer, I never had anyone worry about what I was doing outside of work hours. Heck in most cases they explicitly said I could do what I wanted outside of work and that if it made money... well good for me I guess. But hey, they were small companies. Usually with a total staff count until 20. Guess it must be totally different at a multi national corporation with an actual legal team on call and what not.
  • Liuser 10y ago
    This was the opposite for my anecdotal experience. All the small companies (20-200 people) wanted to own everything you produced. Even on your personal off hours time. The larger companies I worked for didn't care so long as it doesn't directly compete with the flagship product.
• jameslk 10y ago
  From the article: > As long as the work isn’t related to GitHub’s own “existing or prospective” products and services, the employee owns it. It's strange this statement isn't getting much attention. This sounds like one of those catch-all type of clauses which allows Github to go in any direction they want and potentially still claim your work is their IP in the future. I'd have to read the contract to be sure, of course. Whether they would do that is another matter. Probably not. Maybe another company that adopts similar policies would though. If you're going to be building a company while working at another, I think it's more safe to just use your own time and property so there is definitely no claim (assuming your contract doesn't have one of those nasty clauses saying the company owns everything you work on while employed with them).
• matchagaucho 10y ago
  When I was an employee at Salesforce.com, their legal department claimed my pre-existing AppExchange app potentially conflicted with their future product roadmap and asked me to relinquish ownership of the app within 90 days. My Lawyer advised me that a "fire sale" of the assets would make Salesforce liable for the difference in devaluation. So I stood my ground and kept the IP. Claiming prior art as competitive is a different stance than claiming ownership, but it ultimately resulted in terminating the relationship. The irony was that I drank the Salesforce start-up Kool-Aid and developed the IP on their platform prior to joining.
• brbrodude 10y ago
  The opposite of that shouldn't even ever be on the table. Ridiculous that this is looked at as something special, only in USA.
• diiaann 10y ago
  My father was extremely careful about this when he wanted to start his own company. He quit his large corporation, and then worked at much smaller company until what he wanted to do solidified in his mind. He was extremely scrupulous about not using company issued materials to do anything.
• ken47 10y ago
  If I were on the job market, this would be a big positive influence on my decision to apply. It's not so much a matter of whether I would take advantage of this perk or not. It's a very good reflection on the management's attitude towards its employees.
• ne01 10y ago
  Thank you Github for being so smart and awesome! I have more respect for Github, now! For those who disagree, saying but why?, how?, the company owns that time... Programmers should get paid for their contribution to a project! Not for their time! For the love of sanity, in software, there is no correlation between the time you put in and your output! Someone's input about how to solve a specific problem could be more powerful and important than my 40/week of programming for a year (solving it the wrong way)! And those who disagree are topically the ones who measure the progress of a project by number of lines of code! This policy motivates the hell out of the employees and also can attract smart developers who have other projects! And, you want to hire those who have other projects!!!
• braythwayt 10y ago
  Once upon a time, I was looking for a job, in straightened circumstances. I found a so-so match, and since I was in danger of missing a mortgage payment, I decided to accept their offer. Pragmatism and all that. Well, I went in and picked up the documents, and told them I needed to read them before signing and returning them to the company. I looked at the IP clause, and it said the company owned anything and everything I created or invented while an employee, in any field of endeavor. I called the founder to renegotiate. "What if," I posited, "I write a blog post. The way I read this, the company owns the copyright on my blog post." > Yes. "Or if I take a video of a climbing trip, the company owns that video." > We'd never exercise that right. But we reserve the right. "Well, I'm not sure I want to agree that anything I create, even on my own time and property and with my own equipment, belongs to you." > Now that you mention it, I'm not sure I want to employ > someone who uses their creative energy for anything except > the company's business. "Thanks for the clarification!" My next call was to a realtor, I put my house up for sale. There was no way I wanted to be in a position where I would feel like I had no choice but to accept an offer like this. I went through some hard times, but as it turned out, that blog that I did end up writing on-and-off over the years turned out to be valuable. Not directly in money, but in satisfaction. It lead to some work, but even more importantly, it led to communities like Hacker News and meeting programmers around the world. If I'd agreed to that contract, there might not be a "raganwald" today.
  • mindcrime 10y ago
    My response to that would be something along the lines of: > "Fine, a standard salary is based on an assumption of working ~40 hours per week. You want me to work 168 hours per week. That, with factoring in opportunity cost, means my salary demand for that scenario is $6,000,000.00 / year. Sign here."
  • serg_chernata 10y ago
    > Now that you mention it, I'm not sure I want to employ someone who uses their creative energy for anything except the company's business. I don't think I'll ever understand that attitude. If you're a founder, the business just may be the work of your life. To expect the same level of dedication and obsession from your employees is utterly obscene. If you're lucky enough to find someone who genuinely feels that way, great. But to expect or even demand it should never be the case.
• latkin 10y ago
  Honest question for those more legally-versed than me. CA labor code protects inventions developed on one's own time without using the employer's "equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information." [1] Would "supplies" cover incidental food/drink provided by the employer? e.g. I grab a bottled water on my way out of the office, and drink it at home while I hack on my app after-hours on personal equipment. Does that mean my app is developed with my employer's supplies? That would seem pretty crazy, however on the extreme end if I was subsisting entirely on work snacks while developing my app then maybe that's different? [1] http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-2870.html http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-2870.html
  • greggman 10y ago
    Why is every time I see this law referred to people seem to have only read the first clause, not the following clauses > 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. So no, it's not just things you did at home on your own time and own equipment. They must also not be related to your employer's business etc .... What's related would be up to a court/judge if it came to that but there's certainly a spectrum. You work on Call of Duty 27 and try to make an FPS at home. Certainly related. You work on Call of Duty and try to make a Candy Crush Clone at home. Probably related (seems like it would be considered competition for game market). You work on Call of Duty and try to write your own game engine at home. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . You work on Call of Duty and try to make a Tinder clone at home. Now , maybe we're getting in the unrelated territory? You work on Call of Duty and sell baked goods at home. Probably not an issue. If you work at a giant company like Sony that does ISPs, Health Insurance, Movies, TVs, Cameras, Video Games, Batteries, Music, LCD displays, etc etc well then you're probably going to have a lot of things that are in that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ spectrum Of course IANAL. If you want to do something outside of work that's even possibly in any way shape or form remotely related to your company's line of business get them to sign a contract saying they won't claim any rights in your project. If they won't consider working for a better company.
• _navaneethan 10y ago
  Alcatel vs Evan brown : From alcatel's view point http://everything2.com/title/The+Thoughts+of+Evan+Brown http://everything2.com/title/The+Thoughts+of+Evan+Brown
• jwildeboer 10y ago
  Only in the US is "IP" transferable in such evil ways that this is even worth mentioning. In European jzrisductions such "IP" is non-transferable by law (droit d'auteur principle).
• zyang 10y ago
  If I recall correctly, github was Tom's side project while working at powerset.
• gedrap 10y ago
  I really like the idea of it. Especially if the working hours are not very flexible - downtime is inevitable. Whether you are waiting for something, or it's just one of those days (or mornings or whatever). I always have some side/fun/educational projects active and it would be really cool to work on them on such time and, very likely, beneficial to the company because of new skills I'd pick up, etc. But that's in theory. Curious how do such things work out in practice :) I guess you need really strong technical leadership to pull this off, to convince non-technical execs that it's not time wasted, etc.
• lee101 10y ago
  so anything you create on paid time is theirs, fair enough. 'developed or promoted with existing Company IP' I wonder if someone writ a blog post on their company blog about their side project or something it would be company owned all of a sudden, or if they use an open source Github project? 'developed for use by the Company' what if the company just wants to use it and so claims they would be a customer so it was developed for use by them? 'related to an existing or prospective Company product or service' also sounds vague and how is something defined as related too? I love how open they are about things but this still seems a bit onerous to me.
• zdar 10y ago
  nice challenge to google which went after the Otto guys
  • dragonwriter 10y ago
    Not really; Otto wasn't a side project unrelated to Google's existing and planned business.
• deavmi 10y ago
  Doesn't MIT have a policy for students similiar to those of company IP restrictions?
• stefek99 10y ago
  I still remember when I had to sign employment contract that claimed ownership rights for "all the original creation". (even in my own time, own equipment, not related to work) Highly demotivational, knowing they own everything: - cooking recipes - yoga sequence - drawing with my kids - gardening - photography - urine and other waste material I believe that giving power to the employees empowers them!
• stefek99 10y ago
  > The employee had not written down the idea during his employment, but had told his employers of its existence. But why? Source: https://www.biicl.org/files/558_16bld2004.pdf https://www.biicl.org/files/558_16bld2004.pdf Would be nice to dig deeper and learn more about all the circumstances...
• tmsldd 10y ago
  That's a great move. Companies buy your working time, not you. Your brain, your mind and your thoughts belong to you.