6 ms·

So, under California law, which is probably the most liberal in the United States coving IP, you are prescribed from competing with your employer even on your o

by cdibona 16y ago

So, under California law, which is probably the most liberal in the United States coving IP, you are prescribed from competing with your employer even on your own time or on your own equipment. This is reinforced in industry employment agreements, including Google's (my employer) Most employers take the position that everything you do in the space is logically competitive. Recognizing that, we, Google, make it very easy to get permission to open source things, but under Google copyright. We have a process for releasing under your own copyright, but it is not as flexible. That said, we've cleared about 200 (75% of those requested) projects in the last year for copyright release. It's easy to get knee-jerk about this and get upset, but recognizing the nature of IP in a company and acting on it is infinitely better than pretending the problem doesn't exist and then, in the future, retroactively claiming copyright when convenient. The latter leads to lawsuits and unfair restraints on creativity and competition. This system works. We've released 10s of millions of lines of code into thousands of open source projects. It protects the employees and it protects Google and the price is a bit of complexity and the odd thread like this. Also, thanks to this system, Googlers can work on Google equipment and during their 20% on these kinds of projects, which is clearly useful and recognizes that people who work on open source almost universally do so without regard to the machinery or network they use.

cookiecaper 16y ago
Don't you think that this system is at least a little bit unfair? Why does Google automatically get claim on work that has no relation to Google, done without compensation from Google, and without any of Google's equipment or facilities? How come these people need Google permission to assert a claim on their own intellectual property that is entirely distinct from anything involving Google? It sounds like this was established simply so that Google can claim things that they have no real right to claim and misappropriate an employee's work as convenient. How come you can't just say "All work on Google-owned software is copyright Google. All work directly assigned by Google management is copyright Google. All work performed wholly independently and separate from Google by Google employees is copyright its respective owners."? I don't get it.
- cdibona 16y ago
  This is actually a big can of worms, what with it having so much to do with state, federal and international law and treaty (wipo, amongst others). It is often unfair. All I can act on from this fairness perspective is Google's interactions with Open Source, making it as easy as possible to release code under open source licenses, which I think we're doing a good job of.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - cookiecaper 16y ago
    Right, as you stated in your first post, it's easy to open-source something as long as you let Google have the copyright. Well, that's not always a good option. We have a prominent example in the Sun/Oracle thing right now. A copyright owner can transfer or disavow its copyright. Even if state, federal, and international law allows you to steal your employees' work, you shouldn't do it. If something that should belong to employees belongs to Google due to an incongruency or other bad thing in the law and this becomes an issue in a court, Google can simply say, "We had nothing to do with this, we didn't pay for it, our facilities were not used in its creation, and therefore we transfer our copyright to employee X, who is the primary author." I can see how obtaining a pre-emptive declaration and/or copyright assignment can be beneficial, but I definitely don't think there's any need to act like it's a requirement and that an employee needs Google's permission to live as a free person and do things he wants that are entirely separate from Google, its facilities, and its businesses.
  - bugsy 16y ago
    "what with it having so much to do with state, federal and international law and treaty" Would love to see specific citations showing that Google has no choice but to claim ownership of all its employee's projects during their own free time at home or elsewhere not at work. I thought slavery was banned in most countries, it's amazing to now hear that it is required under international treaty. Greatly looking forward to those specific citations of how specifically Google has no choice in this because of "state, federal and international law and treaty".
mark_l_watson 16y ago
Thanks Chris, that clears things up and generally makes sense. I never much minded similar constraints when I worked as an employee at a company. OTOH, trying to constrain own-time works of part time consultants is annoying (but that is not the case here).
rdtsc 16y ago
> you are prescribed from competing with your employer even on your own time or on your own equipment. Why isn't the employer prescribed to not compete with the employees' weekend project? > Recognizing that, we, Google, make it very easy to get permission to open source things, but under Google copyright. If you get copyright then do you also pay developers overtime for all that work? If you want to own the code you have to pay for it. Or I guess if you are multi-billion dollar corporation with fully staffed legal team, then I guess you can just take the code, yap, make sense ... > It's easy to get knee-jerk about this and get upset Sometimes peoples' gut reactions to what is fair kicks in before corporate newspeak does. > This system works. Of course it does -- for Google. > Googlers can work on Google equipment and during their 20% on these kinds of projects. No problem with that. If it is Google's equipment and Google's time then Google should own the code. But if it is employees' equipment and time then it is stealing. > That said, we've cleared about 200 (75% of those requested) And you stole the other 25%.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  "Why isn't the employer prescribed to not compete with the employees' weekend project?" Because the employer is the one giving money to the employee, not the other way around. "If you get copyright then do you also pay developers overtime for all that work?" If you're salaried, there is no such thing as overtime. That's what the word "exempt" means on your tax forms. This is also why Google doesn't care when I get in to work at 1 PM, or when I take an hour long lunch break, or when I spend my whole time going to Tech Talks instead of working. As long as I get my work done over the time periods required by the business, it's none of their business how I spend my day. Employment law recognizes many different categories of employees. If you're a contractor, you're paid for your work - you and the firm agree precisely on the deliverables, they give you a lump sum for the job, and then it's completely up to you how you build those deliverables. If you're hourly (non-exempt), you're paid for your time - you receive a set hourly wage for each hour that you work, and what you do outside of that is your own business. If you're salaried (exempt), you're paid for your ideas - you can manage your time as you please, but anything you think of relating to the company's business belongs to the company. You should know exactly what you're signing up for when you sign those employment agreements, and pick the form of employment that suits your goals best. But remember that companies adjust the amount of information they share with each class of information accordingly - no contractor is going to know how Google's search infrastructure or ranking algorithm works, but a former employee will.
tocomment 16y ago
This policy is probably preventing hundreds of new startups from being created every year if you think about it. Since most people work on their startups while keeping their day jobs. Imagine if every company in the country had this policy. Our economy would grind to a halt.
- russell_h 16y ago
  Is there a major US company doesn't have that policy?
  - DenisM 16y ago
    Some don't enforce it. If a claim is not enforced it loses validity over time, so check with your lawyer - these will be some of the best $500 you spent.
  - tocomment 16y ago
    I don't know for sure, but I've worked for medium sized companies that don't have it.
jrockway 16y ago
So, has this ever been tested in court? The wording in Illinois law is: If an employment agreement entered into after January 1, 1984, 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) 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. The Act starts off clearly: "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", but then it gets in to a nasty gray area: "unless the invention relates to the business of the employer". How do you define this for software? Does an implementation of "malloc" relate to ditch digging because the phones that ditch-diggers carry to be dispatched need to allocate memory?
kevinpet 16y ago
You are incorrect that this is California. From one message at the link: "Thanks for the advice, but I don't work in California." California law is pretty clear, if you do it on your own time, on your own equipment, it's yours. Most other states have a "unless related to something your employer does, or maybe might do, or they feel like" clause, but California does not allow that.
trunnell 16y ago
My employer, Netflix, has a much simpler policy: whatever I create that relates to Netflix's business belongs to Netflix, and whatever else I create belongs to me. That's literally how the contract is worded. We have very few written policies, but the ones we do have are typically short and simple like that. Take the expense policy, for example. There are no lists of things you can or can't expense. The policy just says, "act in Netflix's best interest." It's up to you to act responsibly.

by cdibona 16y ago

cookiecaper 16y ago

Don't you think that this system is at least a little bit unfair? Why does Google automatically get claim on work that has no relation to Google, done without compensation from Google, and without any of Google's equipment or facilities? How come these people need Google permission to assert a claim on their own intellectual property that is entirely distinct from anything involving Google? It sounds like this was established simply so that Google can claim things that they have no real right to claim and misappropriate an employee's work as convenient. How come you can't just say "All work on Google-owned software is copyright Google. All work directly assigned by Google management is copyright Google. All work performed wholly independently and separate from Google by Google employees is copyright its respective owners."? I don't get it.

cdibona 16y ago
This is actually a big can of worms, what with it having so much to do with state, federal and international law and treaty (wipo, amongst others). It is often unfair. All I can act on from this fairness perspective is Google's interactions with Open Source, making it as easy as possible to release code under open source licenses, which I think we're doing a good job of.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  Right, as you stated in your first post, it's easy to open-source something as long as you let Google have the copyright. Well, that's not always a good option. We have a prominent example in the Sun/Oracle thing right now. A copyright owner can transfer or disavow its copyright. Even if state, federal, and international law allows you to steal your employees' work, you shouldn't do it. If something that should belong to employees belongs to Google due to an incongruency or other bad thing in the law and this becomes an issue in a court, Google can simply say, "We had nothing to do with this, we didn't pay for it, our facilities were not used in its creation, and therefore we transfer our copyright to employee X, who is the primary author." I can see how obtaining a pre-emptive declaration and/or copyright assignment can be beneficial, but I definitely don't think there's any need to act like it's a requirement and that an employee needs Google's permission to live as a free person and do things he wants that are entirely separate from Google, its facilities, and its businesses.
- bugsy 16y ago
  "what with it having so much to do with state, federal and international law and treaty" Would love to see specific citations showing that Google has no choice but to claim ownership of all its employee's projects during their own free time at home or elsewhere not at work. I thought slavery was banned in most countries, it's amazing to now hear that it is required under international treaty. Greatly looking forward to those specific citations of how specifically Google has no choice in this because of "state, federal and international law and treaty".

mark_l_watson 16y ago

Thanks Chris, that clears things up and generally makes sense. I never much minded similar constraints when I worked as an employee at a company. OTOH, trying to constrain own-time works of part time consultants is annoying (but that is not the case here).

rdtsc 16y ago

> you are prescribed from competing with your employer even on your own time or on your own equipment. Why isn't the employer prescribed to not compete with the employees' weekend project? > Recognizing that, we, Google, make it very easy to get permission to open source things, but under Google copyright. If you get copyright then do you also pay developers overtime for all that work? If you want to own the code you have to pay for it. Or I guess if you are multi-billion dollar corporation with fully staffed legal team, then I guess you can just take the code, yap, make sense ... > It's easy to get knee-jerk about this and get upset Sometimes peoples' gut reactions to what is fair kicks in before corporate newspeak does. > This system works. Of course it does -- for Google. > Googlers can work on Google equipment and during their 20% on these kinds of projects. No problem with that. If it is Google's equipment and Google's time then Google should own the code. But if it is employees' equipment and time then it is stealing. > That said, we've cleared about 200 (75% of those requested) And you stole the other 25%.

nostrademons 16y ago
"Why isn't the employer prescribed to not compete with the employees' weekend project?" Because the employer is the one giving money to the employee, not the other way around. "If you get copyright then do you also pay developers overtime for all that work?" If you're salaried, there is no such thing as overtime. That's what the word "exempt" means on your tax forms. This is also why Google doesn't care when I get in to work at 1 PM, or when I take an hour long lunch break, or when I spend my whole time going to Tech Talks instead of working. As long as I get my work done over the time periods required by the business, it's none of their business how I spend my day. Employment law recognizes many different categories of employees. If you're a contractor, you're paid for your work - you and the firm agree precisely on the deliverables, they give you a lump sum for the job, and then it's completely up to you how you build those deliverables. If you're hourly (non-exempt), you're paid for your time - you receive a set hourly wage for each hour that you work, and what you do outside of that is your own business. If you're salaried (exempt), you're paid for your ideas - you can manage your time as you please, but anything you think of relating to the company's business belongs to the company. You should know exactly what you're signing up for when you sign those employment agreements, and pick the form of employment that suits your goals best. But remember that companies adjust the amount of information they share with each class of information accordingly - no contractor is going to know how Google's search infrastructure or ranking algorithm works, but a former employee will.

tocomment 16y ago

This policy is probably preventing hundreds of new startups from being created every year if you think about it. Since most people work on their startups while keeping their day jobs. Imagine if every company in the country had this policy. Our economy would grind to a halt.

russell_h 16y ago
Is there a major US company doesn't have that policy?
- DenisM 16y ago
  Some don't enforce it. If a claim is not enforced it loses validity over time, so check with your lawyer - these will be some of the best $500 you spent.
- tocomment 16y ago
  I don't know for sure, but I've worked for medium sized companies that don't have it.

jrockway 16y ago

So, has this ever been tested in court? The wording in Illinois law is: If an employment agreement entered into after January 1, 1984, 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) 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. The Act starts off clearly: "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", but then it gets in to a nasty gray area: "unless the invention relates to the business of the employer". How do you define this for software? Does an implementation of "malloc" relate to ditch digging because the phones that ditch-diggers carry to be dispatched need to allocate memory?

kevinpet 16y ago

You are incorrect that this is California. From one message at the link: "Thanks for the advice, but I don't work in California." California law is pretty clear, if you do it on your own time, on your own equipment, it's yours. Most other states have a "unless related to something your employer does, or maybe might do, or they feel like" clause, but California does not allow that.

trunnell 16y ago

My employer, Netflix, has a much simpler policy: whatever I create that relates to Netflix's business belongs to Netflix, and whatever else I create belongs to me. That's literally how the contract is worded. We have very few written policies, but the ones we do have are typically short and simple like that. Take the expense policy, for example. There are no lists of things you can or can't expense. The policy just says, "act in Netflix's best interest." It's up to you to act responsibly.