6 ms·

Unless the Midwest replicates California's laws on ownership of IP vis-à-vis employment (i.e. it is illegal for companies to claim employee IP for work done out

Unless the Midwest replicates California's laws on ownership of IP vis-à-vis employment (i.e. it is illegal for companies to claim employee IP for work done outside of work even via a contract), and that non compete clauses are invalid it's at a huge disadvantage. Without at least those two the Midwest don't even stand a chance.

devmunchies 9y ago
What are the laws on ownership IP in Washginton state (Seattle, a.k.a silicon valley 2)?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tankenmate 9y ago
  Washington state law says in Title 49, Chapter 44, section 140[0]; Requiring assignment of employee's rights to inventions - Conditions. (1) A provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in an invention to the employer does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) directly to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this state and is to that extent void and unenforceable. (2) An employer shall not require a provision made void and unenforceable by subsection (1) of this section as a condition of employment or continuing employment. (3) If an employment agreement entered into after September 1, 1979, contains a provision requiring the employee to assign any of the employee's rights in any invention to the employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) directly to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work preformed [performed] by the employee for the employer. Please note I have made another comment in reply to someone else's about California state law, you can search for it. [0] https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.44.140 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.44.140
dbcurtis 9y ago
Can't upvote this though enough.
king07828 9y ago
The invalidity of non-compete clauses and the inability to take IP away from employees are, perhaps, geese laying golden eggs for California. It can be argued that they give phenomenal power to employees that figure out the right way to do something and punish employers that won't listen. As a hypothetical, a former employee might start a competing company and let the market figure out who is right. Without these, it can be argued that employees are less motivated to figure things out because they have no way to capitalize on their ideas unless the decision makers of the employer (whom they probably may never meet in their lifetime) buy in to the idea. [1] [1] This is not legal advice.
- malcolmgreaves 9y ago
  Your understanding of CA labor law is a bit off. Employees cannot have a side business that competes with their employed business. E.g. if I work for Salesforce, I can't make a side project that does sales client / customer tracking. But I could make a Twitter clone and market that. The IP protections are important because they mean that anyone can actually start a business, let it grow on the side, then, when ready, jump ship. All of this without fear that your employer, who is doing nothing for the side business that you're working on, will come and take it all. This key piece of legislation enables most of SVs success.
  - kornish 9y ago
    (hey, Malcolm!) Do you know how competition is measured? How similar or dissimilar can side projects?
- cableshaft 9y ago
  I work in the Midwest, and being worried about noncompetes and ownership of IP out of the office clauses has had a strong dampening effect on my motivation to work on anything software related on the side while I've been employed, for the most part. It's actually part of what started getting me into board game design in my off time, because there's no way my companies could have a valid claim against that.
  - 9y ago
at-fates-hands 9y ago
I work in Minnesota and non-compete clauses have always had a very narrow scope on what can and can't be enforced: http://horowlaw.com/employment-law/non-compete-law-in-minnesota/ http://horowlaw.com/employment-law/non-compete-law-in-minnes... The law of non-competes in Minnesota is entirely court-made, in contrast to states such as Wisconsin and North Dakota, where it is governed by statute. See Wis. Stat. § 103.465; N.D. Cent. Code, § 9-08-06. Non-competes are “disfavored” under Minnesota law for being a partial restraint on trade. As such, they are to be strictly construed, with any ambiguities interpreted against the employer. Lemon v. Gressman (Minn.App. 1999). Acceptable interests include (1) protecting against deflection of trade; (2) protecting confidential business information and trade secrets; and (3) protecting customer goodwill. The question boils down to whether the departing employee can hurt the former employer. I've only seen one issue of a non-compete being enforced is when a reporter went to a competitor and took the same job and was accused of taking confidential information to his new employer. The judge ruled against the reporter and banned him from working at the competitor for one year: Higgs wrote that given Ridder's past conduct and his cavalier attitude toward his use and disclosure of confidential Pioneer Press information, it seems to the court that his past actual misappropriation is a good indicator of possible future use of that information. The court said there is also a substantial threat that Ridder will further misappropriate confidential Pioneer Press information, or use the confidential information in the future. The judge ruled that restraining Ridder from further misappropriating confidential Pioneer Press information is necessary to prevent further injury to the St. Paul paper's competitive position in the industry. Make a note the story is from 2007. A decade ago and I haven't seen any case remotely close to this since then. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2007/09/18/ridderruling https://www.mprnews.org/story/2007/09/18/ridderruling
batmansmk 9y ago
Law is very important and I agree with you. Perceived culture in the Midwest is also problematic. USA is dependent on immigration to fill the science and engineering workforce, which is one of the ingredients of SV revolution. (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf) Someone denying there is no racism/xenophobia issue in the Midwest isn't listening in my opinion. My intuition is that the sex appeal of SV versus Midwest won't be compensated solely by VC money. It will require a cultural change, which has been going backwards those last 10 years imo. And that's why the author wrote this article - not to inform us that Midwest is good, but because there is a real issue in getting talents to the Midwest.
- jonny_eh 9y ago
  It's for this reason that I think Canada (Toronto in particular) is better positioned to see the most growth in tech outside of SV/SF.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    The problem there is the climate, and I say that as a Midwesterner used to cold harsh winters. SF, LA, Seattle, and Austin all have more human-friendly weather more of the year. People here in these comments complain about the winters in Ohio, and winter in Toronto isn't going to be any nicer to live in.
    - tmh79 9y ago
      Additionally, Toronto arguably has a worse housing situation than SF. While dollar for dollar, prices in SFBA are higher, your housing cost will likely be a higher percentage of your monthly take home in Canada as the pay is less than SFBA and housing costs are still high and rising.
      - jonny_eh 9y ago
        That plus the weather is why I'm a Canadian in California.
walshemj 9y ago
I thought it was non related work outside of work that was covered
- tankenmate 9y ago
  California Labor Code, Division 3, Chapter 2, Section 2870[0] states; (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. (b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable. I have another comment in response to someone else's about Washington state law, you can search for it. [0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&division=3.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=3.5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x....
namlem 9y ago
That plus the prohibition of non-compete clauses.

devmunchies 9y ago

What are the laws on ownership IP in Washginton state (Seattle, a.k.a silicon valley 2)?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tankenmate 9y ago
Washington state law says in Title 49, Chapter 44, section 140[0]; Requiring assignment of employee's rights to inventions - Conditions. (1) A provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in an invention to the employer does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) directly to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this state and is to that extent void and unenforceable. (2) An employer shall not require a provision made void and unenforceable by subsection (1) of this section as a condition of employment or continuing employment. (3) If an employment agreement entered into after September 1, 1979, contains a provision requiring the employee to assign any of the employee's rights in any invention to the employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) directly to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work preformed [performed] by the employee for the employer. Please note I have made another comment in reply to someone else's about California state law, you can search for it. [0] https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.44.140 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.44.140

dbcurtis 9y ago

Can't upvote this though enough.

king07828 9y ago

The invalidity of non-compete clauses and the inability to take IP away from employees are, perhaps, geese laying golden eggs for California. It can be argued that they give phenomenal power to employees that figure out the right way to do something and punish employers that won't listen. As a hypothetical, a former employee might start a competing company and let the market figure out who is right. Without these, it can be argued that employees are less motivated to figure things out because they have no way to capitalize on their ideas unless the decision makers of the employer (whom they probably may never meet in their lifetime) buy in to the idea. [1] [1] This is not legal advice.

malcolmgreaves 9y ago
Your understanding of CA labor law is a bit off. Employees cannot have a side business that competes with their employed business. E.g. if I work for Salesforce, I can't make a side project that does sales client / customer tracking. But I could make a Twitter clone and market that. The IP protections are important because they mean that anyone can actually start a business, let it grow on the side, then, when ready, jump ship. All of this without fear that your employer, who is doing nothing for the side business that you're working on, will come and take it all. This key piece of legislation enables most of SVs success.
- kornish 9y ago
  (hey, Malcolm!) Do you know how competition is measured? How similar or dissimilar can side projects?
cableshaft 9y ago
I work in the Midwest, and being worried about noncompetes and ownership of IP out of the office clauses has had a strong dampening effect on my motivation to work on anything software related on the side while I've been employed, for the most part. It's actually part of what started getting me into board game design in my off time, because there's no way my companies could have a valid claim against that.
- 9y ago

at-fates-hands 9y ago

I work in Minnesota and non-compete clauses have always had a very narrow scope on what can and can't be enforced: http://horowlaw.com/employment-law/non-compete-law-in-minnesota/ http://horowlaw.com/employment-law/non-compete-law-in-minnes... The law of non-competes in Minnesota is entirely court-made, in contrast to states such as Wisconsin and North Dakota, where it is governed by statute. See Wis. Stat. § 103.465; N.D. Cent. Code, § 9-08-06. Non-competes are “disfavored” under Minnesota law for being a partial restraint on trade. As such, they are to be strictly construed, with any ambiguities interpreted against the employer. Lemon v. Gressman (Minn.App. 1999). Acceptable interests include (1) protecting against deflection of trade; (2) protecting confidential business information and trade secrets; and (3) protecting customer goodwill. The question boils down to whether the departing employee can hurt the former employer. I've only seen one issue of a non-compete being enforced is when a reporter went to a competitor and took the same job and was accused of taking confidential information to his new employer. The judge ruled against the reporter and banned him from working at the competitor for one year: Higgs wrote that given Ridder's past conduct and his cavalier attitude toward his use and disclosure of confidential Pioneer Press information, it seems to the court that his past actual misappropriation is a good indicator of possible future use of that information. The court said there is also a substantial threat that Ridder will further misappropriate confidential Pioneer Press information, or use the confidential information in the future. The judge ruled that restraining Ridder from further misappropriating confidential Pioneer Press information is necessary to prevent further injury to the St. Paul paper's competitive position in the industry. Make a note the story is from 2007. A decade ago and I haven't seen any case remotely close to this since then. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2007/09/18/ridderruling https://www.mprnews.org/story/2007/09/18/ridderruling

batmansmk 9y ago

Law is very important and I agree with you. Perceived culture in the Midwest is also problematic. USA is dependent on immigration to fill the science and engineering workforce, which is one of the ingredients of SV revolution. (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf) Someone denying there is no racism/xenophobia issue in the Midwest isn't listening in my opinion. My intuition is that the sex appeal of SV versus Midwest won't be compensated solely by VC money. It will require a cultural change, which has been going backwards those last 10 years imo. And that's why the author wrote this article - not to inform us that Midwest is good, but because there is a real issue in getting talents to the Midwest.

jonny_eh 9y ago
It's for this reason that I think Canada (Toronto in particular) is better positioned to see the most growth in tech outside of SV/SF.
- freehunter 9y ago
  The problem there is the climate, and I say that as a Midwesterner used to cold harsh winters. SF, LA, Seattle, and Austin all have more human-friendly weather more of the year. People here in these comments complain about the winters in Ohio, and winter in Toronto isn't going to be any nicer to live in.
  - tmh79 9y ago
    Additionally, Toronto arguably has a worse housing situation than SF. While dollar for dollar, prices in SFBA are higher, your housing cost will likely be a higher percentage of your monthly take home in Canada as the pay is less than SFBA and housing costs are still high and rising.
    - jonny_eh 9y ago
      That plus the weather is why I'm a Canadian in California.

walshemj 9y ago

I thought it was non related work outside of work that was covered

tankenmate 9y ago
California Labor Code, Division 3, Chapter 2, Section 2870[0] states; (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. (b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable. I have another comment in response to someone else's about Washington state law, you can search for it. [0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&division=3.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=3.5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x....

namlem 9y ago

That plus the prohibition of non-compete clauses.