4 ms·

Google's employment onboarding makes this bit unambiguous. You are told from the outset that if you have any current side projects you need to declare them when

by zaphar 10y ago

Google's employment onboarding makes this bit unambiguous. You are told from the outset that if you have any current side projects you need to declare them when hired. Google will then tell you whether you can continue them and still work there. You are also told that if you wish to start any side projects while at Google the online form to tell Google of your intentions is at such and such a link. After you submit said form Google will either tell you that you risk legal consequences if you go ahead with said side project while still employed. Or that you are given explicit permission to go forward. Google doesn't make this at all ambiguous or even difficult to get clear legal guidance on side projects. Levandowski has no excuses here.

nostrademons 10y ago
It was actually significantly more ambiguous when I worked there (2009-2014), and presumably was even moreso in 2007. IARC didn't even exist until I think 2013, and it wasn't an online form at the time I left - you emailed some contact person, they discussed it in a relatively opaque committee, and then got back to you after an inordinate length of time. They had the standard California IP contract at the time, i.e. company claims ownership over all IP except that done on your own time, using your own resources, on subjects unrelated to the company's lines of business. That last clause was the source of all sorts of ambiguities, eg. Googlers who had written iPhone games were told (after the fact) that their work was owned by Google because Google+ might be getting into the games business. This was somewhat legally questionable on Google's part, and it was cases like this, probably combined with a few outright corporate theft cases like Lewandowski's, that led to the IARC process.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > This was somewhat legally questionable on Google's part If it was as you describe it is at least despicable, whether it is legal or not is another matter but that's very very nasty.
  - puzzle 10y ago
    When I was at Google, I kept hearing that California laws in particular are not employee-friendly and that you should ask for an opinion from a personal lawyer. As to why this hard stance, I always suspected that sweeping that kind of stuff under the rug would have opened the company to a bunch of annoying lawsuits from shareholders and/or ambulance chasers for something along the lines of "not enforcing the company's rights". All it would have taken was just one successful side project. Also note that, even if the stance was "Google owns it by default", lots of projects were assigned back (https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/). The IARC process leaves an electronic trail showing that a project was subject to at least some kind of due diligence (even if it later pockets the employee a lot of money that at some point Google or shareholders could have very hypothetically fought in court for). Or, conversely, the lack of an application might shift the legal burden onto the employee that didn't declare everything as required. Again, the above was just all speculation on my part.
- zaphar 10y ago
  That's only ambiguous if you didn't contact IARC. I can't speak to before IARC was a thing. But after IARC you had a way to get an unambiguous answer as to how Google would view your side project. Whether by form or email that is still pretty easy.
linkregister 10y ago
Doesn't California state law invalidate a lot of this? I signed non-competes that come with a little clause at the end: "pretty much none of this is enforceable in California. We have to say this because California is making us." Of course if you use company resources or IP you're out of luck.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  Non-competes are a different issue. They are generally unenforceable in California, though exceptions may possibly be made for executives (I'm not sure, and IANAL anyway). As far as the side-project policy goes, as you say, you have to avoid using company time or equipment. But that's the easy part. The tough one, as nostrademons mentions, is the requirement that the project not be related to the company's R&D ("actual or demonstrably anticipated" I think is the phrase). In the case of Google, almost nothing involving computers will get by that clause.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    What I'm trying to say is that it's unlikely that clause is enforceable under California state law.

by zaphar 10y ago

nostrademons 10y ago

It was actually significantly more ambiguous when I worked there (2009-2014), and presumably was even moreso in 2007. IARC didn't even exist until I think 2013, and it wasn't an online form at the time I left - you emailed some contact person, they discussed it in a relatively opaque committee, and then got back to you after an inordinate length of time. They had the standard California IP contract at the time, i.e. company claims ownership over all IP except that done on your own time, using your own resources, on subjects unrelated to the company's lines of business. That last clause was the source of all sorts of ambiguities, eg. Googlers who had written iPhone games were told (after the fact) that their work was owned by Google because Google+ might be getting into the games business. This was somewhat legally questionable on Google's part, and it was cases like this, probably combined with a few outright corporate theft cases like Lewandowski's, that led to the IARC process.

jacquesm 10y ago
> This was somewhat legally questionable on Google's part If it was as you describe it is at least despicable, whether it is legal or not is another matter but that's very very nasty.
- puzzle 10y ago
  When I was at Google, I kept hearing that California laws in particular are not employee-friendly and that you should ask for an opinion from a personal lawyer. As to why this hard stance, I always suspected that sweeping that kind of stuff under the rug would have opened the company to a bunch of annoying lawsuits from shareholders and/or ambulance chasers for something along the lines of "not enforcing the company's rights". All it would have taken was just one successful side project. Also note that, even if the stance was "Google owns it by default", lots of projects were assigned back (https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/). The IARC process leaves an electronic trail showing that a project was subject to at least some kind of due diligence (even if it later pockets the employee a lot of money that at some point Google or shareholders could have very hypothetically fought in court for). Or, conversely, the lack of an application might shift the legal burden onto the employee that didn't declare everything as required. Again, the above was just all speculation on my part.
zaphar 10y ago
That's only ambiguous if you didn't contact IARC. I can't speak to before IARC was a thing. But after IARC you had a way to get an unambiguous answer as to how Google would view your side project. Whether by form or email that is still pretty easy.

linkregister 10y ago

Doesn't California state law invalidate a lot of this? I signed non-competes that come with a little clause at the end: "pretty much none of this is enforceable in California. We have to say this because California is making us." Of course if you use company resources or IP you're out of luck.

ScottBurson 10y ago
Non-competes are a different issue. They are generally unenforceable in California, though exceptions may possibly be made for executives (I'm not sure, and IANAL anyway). As far as the side-project policy goes, as you say, you have to avoid using company time or equipment. But that's the easy part. The tough one, as nostrademons mentions, is the requirement that the project not be related to the company's R&D ("actual or demonstrably anticipated" I think is the phrase). In the case of Google, almost nothing involving computers will get by that clause.
- linkregister 10y ago
  What I'm trying to say is that it's unlikely that clause is enforceable under California state law.