4 ms·

Am I misunderstanding or are you implying that Joel would disapprove of side projects?

by joncampbelldev 10y ago

protonfish 10y ago
If you read is blog post I think it's pretty clear he thinks its fair to own all employee's side projects.
- Zombieball 10y ago
  My takeaway from the post was it isn't so much that he thinks it's fair but a legal necessity to protect the company. More of a criticism towards how current IP law is structured.
  - timv 10y ago
    > he thinks it's [...] a legal necessity to protect the company Exactly, which is why his post is totally self-serving propaganda. Though he tries to present the post as "here's a totally objective explanation of how side projects interplay with employment law", ultimately his point comes down to Business owners have all these complicated issues to deal with, so just accept the fact that they're going to screw you over, while they make millions of dollars There's no credibility given to the fact that companies have choices here and there are other options that don't screw over the employees - those options are too hard, and they might introduce legal risk to the company, or (!gasp!) scare away investors. It's just accepted as given that business owners must do whatever it takes to protect their company's interests and employees should shut up and deal with it. Employees carry the legal and financial risk because it would be inconvenient for the company to do so. The company is simply acting in its own self-interest and it's not actually trying to screw you (probably), that's just an irrelevant side-effect that they might take advantage of in the future when they do want to screw you. Now that know that you understand that, you're totally cool with it right? It's just business. I don't think Joel is intentionally trying to be manipulative. I think he honestly believes all of that. As a business owner he's dealing with all those issues and he thinks he's making appropriate choices and has no particular intention to screw over his employees. The purpose of the post is so that everyone can see that he, and business owners like him, are not a bad guys - they're just acting rationally and you only thought you were getting a bad deal because you didn't understand the choices they're making.
    - vacri 10y ago
      He also mythologises his example: making a video game is a moment of inspiration. No slog, no rewrites, no iteration. Just 'inventions'. I'm guessing that his example company wasn't paying the contractor a full year's salary just to sit around and wait for four 'inventions' to just pop into her mind. "What are you doing sitting there just cruising the web, Ms Contractor" > "Oh, I'm just waiting for this quarter's invention to pop into my head. Thanks for the payslip!"
    - Zombieball 10y ago
      This is a good point. IANAL, but I imagine there definitely are routes to take when drafting various legal documents (e.g. employment contracts) that would allow employees to pursue personal projects. Its likely just easier (and as you say in the company's best interest) to avoid figuring out how to word such clauses.
- joncampbelldev 10y ago
  He doesn't advocate for or against either position. He's stating the current (awful) facts about side projects when you've signed a contract, and telling people to be careful.

Am I misunderstanding or are you implying that Joel would disapprove of side projects?

protonfish 10y ago

If you read is blog post I think it's pretty clear he thinks its fair to own all employee's side projects.

Zombieball 10y ago
My takeaway from the post was it isn't so much that he thinks it's fair but a legal necessity to protect the company. More of a criticism towards how current IP law is structured.
- timv 10y ago
  > he thinks it's [...] a legal necessity to protect the company Exactly, which is why his post is totally self-serving propaganda. Though he tries to present the post as "here's a totally objective explanation of how side projects interplay with employment law", ultimately his point comes down to Business owners have all these complicated issues to deal with, so just accept the fact that they're going to screw you over, while they make millions of dollars There's no credibility given to the fact that companies have choices here and there are other options that don't screw over the employees - those options are too hard, and they might introduce legal risk to the company, or (!gasp!) scare away investors. It's just accepted as given that business owners must do whatever it takes to protect their company's interests and employees should shut up and deal with it. Employees carry the legal and financial risk because it would be inconvenient for the company to do so. The company is simply acting in its own self-interest and it's not actually trying to screw you (probably), that's just an irrelevant side-effect that they might take advantage of in the future when they do want to screw you. Now that know that you understand that, you're totally cool with it right? It's just business. I don't think Joel is intentionally trying to be manipulative. I think he honestly believes all of that. As a business owner he's dealing with all those issues and he thinks he's making appropriate choices and has no particular intention to screw over his employees. The purpose of the post is so that everyone can see that he, and business owners like him, are not a bad guys - they're just acting rationally and you only thought you were getting a bad deal because you didn't understand the choices they're making.
  - vacri 10y ago
    He also mythologises his example: making a video game is a moment of inspiration. No slog, no rewrites, no iteration. Just 'inventions'. I'm guessing that his example company wasn't paying the contractor a full year's salary just to sit around and wait for four 'inventions' to just pop into her mind. "What are you doing sitting there just cruising the web, Ms Contractor" > "Oh, I'm just waiting for this quarter's invention to pop into my head. Thanks for the payslip!"
  - Zombieball 10y ago
    This is a good point. IANAL, but I imagine there definitely are routes to take when drafting various legal documents (e.g. employment contracts) that would allow employees to pursue personal projects. Its likely just easier (and as you say in the company's best interest) to avoid figuring out how to word such clauses.
joncampbelldev 10y ago
He doesn't advocate for or against either position. He's stating the current (awful) facts about side projects when you've signed a contract, and telling people to be careful.