4 ms·

> a bunch of contract clauses that basically lets the company own all IP while employed. This is default here as well (Germany), but I only interpret this as s

> a bunch of contract clauses that basically lets the company own all IP while employed. This is default here as well (Germany), but I only interpret this as stuff done during work time. So the stuff I come up with and the code I write at the office on my workstation is automatically owned by my employee. That's fine, because if it wasn't, that would cause all kinds of legal trouble should I ever leave the company. But if I create things in my free time at home, on my own equipment, then that's MINE, and I might start a company from it -- the only trouble might come if there is reason to believe I stole code/trade secrets (e.g. starting a company in the same niche) or my employee might assume I worked on my it during my paid hours (e.g. all of a sudden bootstrapping a 100 employee company, while getting paid 40h a week until yesterday). Of course your contract is probably very different, but I have a difficult time imagining that what you're doing in your unpaid time is owned by your employee. Logic here is: You're paid to work a specified time of hours per time interval (e.g. 40h/week). What you do there is owned by your boss. Then if your boss wanted to own all you do/come up with outside of that time, he would need to buy that time from you as well. E.g. to own all you come up with, even in your sleep, you should be eligible for a 7*24h/week compensation. Of course this is more morals than law, but well, maybe you just misinterpreted the wording? //edit: Mind the discussion below this thread. IANAL, and my moral point of view might not match the legal reality.

danpalmer 7y ago
This may sounds like a reasonable wording, but is very often not the case unfortunately. I believe it’s because you’re salaried rather than paid by the hour. Even though your contract is for a set number of hours, you’re expected to have just one job, and for that job to get your focus and attention in a way that you wouldn’t be expected to do if you were paid hourly. This means that companies often technically own the IP you develop in your own time, and big ones will enforce that.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Related reading: https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-legally-own-another-person-4145a1802bf6 https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-legally-own-another-person...
stingraycharles 7y ago
> This is default here as well (Germany), but I only interpret this as stuff done during work time. This is a very dangerous attitude. I'm from The Netherlands, consulted a lawyer on this matter, and she confirmed it was definitely an issue. I proceeded to make it explicit in the contract that it only covers IP created during work time and/or on company hardware. What you're saying is definitely understandable, but in my experience, it's not how the legal system is currently looking at these matters.
- archi42 7y ago
  Wow, okay. I honestly didn't believe that was legally possible - and thanks for pointing out that I'm probably wrong. I checked the wording of my contract, and regarding "my employer has ownership of my work" it explicitly says "im Rahmen dieses Arbeitsverhältnisses" -> "as part of this employment relationship". So I suppose I'm safe (there is a clause that I have to ask for permission to do side jobs; but I know company policy is that permission is always granted and this is about informing them about it). edit: see geocar's reply.
  - stingraycharles 7y ago
    Right, and it also depends upon your role (I was in a leadership position). Regardless, the law is intentionally vague (“could be related to your work” leaves room for interpretation), and it’s better to get explicit permission.
    - icedchai 7y ago
      I'd say it's always better to ask forgiveness. They probably won't find out anyway, so why waste everyone's time (especially your own.) You'll spend more time writing useless emails to HR / lawyers than working on your side project. The simplest thing is to just do your thing, keep it to yourself. In the very unlikely event someone brings it up, you just play dumb. (Your Tetris clone isn't infringing on the company anyway.)
  - i_don_t_know 7y ago
geocar 7y ago
> But if I create things in my free time at home, on my own equipment, then that's MINE, and I might start a company from it That's not entirely accurate: You're required to submit it to your employer if it could be related to your work, see especially §18 (1-2) and §19 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/arbnerfg/BJNR007560957.html#BJNR007560957BJNG000400306 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/arbnerfg/BJNR007560957.ht...
- archi42 7y ago
  Oha, thanks. That's actually repeated in my contract.
- danielh 7y ago
  IANAL, but if I'm reading §2 correctly, that only applies to patentable inventions.
- thiago_fm 7y ago
  Interesting. I was always afraid of creating stuff at home since I've started working in Germany. So. I can just create my own company, register domains and so on, and as long as it doesn't have anything to do with the company I currently work for, it is mine?
pizzapill 7y ago
Germany is a very special case. AFAIK you can't lose the right to things you create here, that means the "copyright" (Urheberrecht) of code you create will always belong to you. You can't sell it or lose it in any other way. Your employer "only" has the right to use it without limitations. I would not draw conclusions based on the situation in Germany, since the law could be wildly different.
- archi42 7y ago
  As per the contract the copyright of my work goes to my employer, and I have no copyright to (on?) it. The difference is that I am not allowed to reuse that work somewhere else (e.g. my own project) with my contract, but from what you say that would always be possible. Also what you say means I could always sell work I do on the job to someone else, e.g. a direct competitor. So I am not sure if that's really right ;-)
  - pizzapill 7y ago
    Urheberrecht vs. Verwertungsrechte... > Copyright should neither be transferable in whole nor in part. Rather, the author should only be able to grant someone else the right to use the work in a certain way. Nach dem geltenden Recht kann das Urheberrecht als Ganzes und in seinen Teilen (z. B. das Vervielfältigungsrecht, das Aufführungsrecht) abgetreten werden. Nur die aus dem Urheberpersönlichkeitsrecht erwachsenden Befugnisse, wie z. B. das Recht, Entstellungen des Werkes zu verbieten, sind unübertragbar. Der Entwurf sieht - wie das österreichische Recht - von einer derartigen unterschiedlichen Regelung der Übertragbarkeit der einzelnen urheberrechtlichen Befugnisse ab. Das Urheberrecht soll zukünftig weder im ganzen noch teilweise abtretbar sein. Vielmehr soll der Urheber einem anderen nur das Recht einräumen können, das Werk in bestimmter Weise zu nutzen. Das Urheberrecht selbst verbleibt dabei, belastet mit dem Nutzungsrecht, dem Urheber. Hierdurch wird sichergestellt, daß der Urheber auch dann, wenn er die wirtschaftliche Auswertung seines Werkes einem anderen überläßt, stets eine gewisse Kontrolle über das weitere Schicksal seines Werkes behält. http://www.urheberrecht.org/law/normen/urhg/1965-09-09/materialien/ds_IV_270_A_02_04.php http://www.urheberrecht.org/law/normen/urhg/1965-09-09/mater... deepl.com english translation: Under the applicable law, copyright may be assigned in its entirety and in its parts (e.g. the right to reproduce, the right to perform). Only the powers conferred by the moral right, such as the right to prohibit the distortion of the work, are non-transferable. Like Austrian law, the draft refrains from such a different regulation of the transferability of individual copyright powers. In future, copyright should neither be transferable in whole nor in part. Rather, the author should only be able to grant someone else the right to use the work in a certain way. The copyright itself remains, burdened with the right of use, the author. This ensures that even if the author leaves the economic exploitation of his work to another person, he always retains a certain control over the further fate of his work.
lcabral 7y ago
yes, I think I had the same type of clauses (haven't read my contract in a long time) So I did clear out that with my current (to be at the time) direct manager and that was the consensus. So my advice for the original question would be to clear that with the (future) manager on what those clauses do indeed mean. And I don't feel that question is endangering getting the job in any way... I feel nowadays many people have side projects that they have not intention of relinquishing of its rights even if nothing more that a side hobby. So managers are probably asked those question all the time. PS: But I wouldn't go straight the manager and state that I'm planing on start my own business wight at the same time I start working for him... That probably raises the flag that you will not be 100% committed and might leave in a short period. I would just bring it up as "side projects".
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
throwawayb104b0 7y ago
[Part 1] Sadly, it sucks even more than some people imagine. So while I'm also not a lawyer, I will gladly play the Devil's advocate here. If you have a salary, you are actually paid for the work product of the whole month. (As opposed to a wage for time worked.) Well, actually you are paid for honestly trying, but your contract transfers usage rights related to your work, so this has nothing to do with hours worked. They would also have to pay your salary, if they say you can stay at home and do nothing, because nothing to do. Having your work time limited to 40h a week has nothing to do with transfer of rights, as it is a different realm of law. This is just to protect you (or your employer) from you being overworked. (Cynics might say: this was invented by politicians/unions to get votes, or by employers that don't want their human resources damaged.) Anyway: this has nothing to do with your pay and the rights you sell. It might even work against you, as you have to use your "free time", to get fit for work again. (Yes, yes!) While secondary employment is not generally forbidden in Germany (and contract clauses which say so don't last in court), except for competition, your employer of course needs to know, because he also has a say in whether or not your other activities are against their legitimate interest: e.g. if it is indeed to be deemed competion or you are overworking yourself this way and having this drain your energy away from your employers work might be a valid reason to stop it. (Of course: in the end, the court may decide if one side sues, hopefully in a commensurate way.) But you may say: but this is like overtime (it is not: you did it voluntarily and overtime is ordered), and overtime has to be paid even for salaried employees in certain cases (again: different laws, has nothing to with the rights you sell as part of your employment and only with protection from overworking and your compensation for time because of the imbalance between stipulatory and accomplished hours -- hint: if your employer or a labour court thinks your employer owes you (as a salaried employee) overtime compensation, it is because you are still way below a decent salary ... but this is getting off topic). So while it is true you cannot transfer your Urheberrecht in Germany, as pizzapill wrote, (because it is connected to you as a person, with one exception: it is transfered to your heirs after your dead, but if you're dead, you rights are very limited anyway) you transfer the Nutzungsrechte (usage rights) as part of your contract. And here the employers try to get as much as possible. Not only because of greed (but we would not rule that out, would we?), but simply for legal safety: you cannot easily disentangle one work from another if it is basically the same in the law (like "computer program" -- if the creation of these type of work is your job). Sure you and I can easily see, this program has nothing to do with your dayjob, but can your employer? In a tiny shop, maybe. In a big corporation: not so much. A big software company has so many fields of business, products and services, your manager and their manager and their manager cannot possibly know if your free time project goes against the business interest of the company if you do it independently of the company, so the contracts generally assume it does. (And it probably actually does: given a big enough company you will most certainly have teams in other divisions building similar things as you do in your free time, even if it is only in some tiny research departement on the other side of the world. And I mean plural "teams": they often don't know from each other. Think your boring business software employer does not do cool IoT stuff in some unknown lab? Think again, you haven't networked enough and don't know your company.) And for the work time + work equipment / free time + private equipment argument: yeah, I would also say so, I am paid for this, but not for that ... but this is a very weak argument. Not only for the obvious reason that it would be very problematic if some employee chooses to do the work for this employer in his free time on his equipment and thus trying to circumvent the usage rights transfer, but also (and maybe more importantly) because this is all in your head and how do you prove it, that e.g. your private work and employer ordered work did not influence earch other. And what about employer-relevant work you were not ordered to do? Say e.g. something you think could be useful at work: this could easily go against your employers interest (if you try to sell it to them or the competition or even if you wrote it and they don't get it), which is at odds with your duty of loyality. That being said, I doubt contract clauses which automatically transfer exclusive usage rights of your free time works to your employer without extra compensation are enforcable to the full extent in Germany for "everything copyrightable you might create regardless what". (Speaking of contracts, I don't think I have seen it in this form yet, the sane companies write it more like this: if you create some work out of your area of duty, you have to offer exclusive rights to us, like you do for on-duty work, except if it is obvious, we cannot use this in the company.) So with a dayjob as programmer and writing poems / painting pictures in the evening, you can savely say: this has nothing to do with each other and therefore it is not the business of my employer.
throwawayb104b0 7y ago
[Part 2] But same kind of work (programming), and company can possibly use it for their business (you don't know, even if you think you do) or using even similar code snippets in both programs (and that happens, even only in non-business logic parts of the code doing unimportant stuff) would unfortunately lead to a situation with possibility of conflict. After all, they pay you, to program "things that can be useful to them", so that's your job. Does that mean you can sell them this specific program, just because they haven't yet ordered you to write it in your work time? What do you want to do if they order you at work to write something like you have written in your free time? Being sulky? Writing a "totally different" program from your free time program just because you want to waste their time and money? Bringing your home-grown program which violates all company quality standards to work? You cannot win either way. As said before, the time when you did it, does not matter. (Except of course: before the start and after the end of the employment, you are free (from this employer), but as long as you are emloyed, it does not matter if it weekend.) It is all complicated, because it is not just some stupid and easy to follow rules. Law is not what one side thinks is right, but often times a reconciliation of interests, and it gets messy. Ask yourself: could a reasonable third party, without knowing your or your employers intentions or even technical details, draw a clear line between your free time work and the stuff you are paid to work on, only by looking at your free time project and the kind of work you and your colleages do in the office? If the only product of your employer is monitoring software and you write the stereotypical Tetris clone: yeah, that case might be easy. Real companies and useful free time projects? Not so much. Also to train you to think like a reasonable third party: think of a bricklayer laying bricks in his "free time". (Sounds a bit odd, doesn't it?) When would this be acceptable, when wouldn't it? Not so easy. Of course you have to give something up for getting paid. I would suggest not being a salary slave, but that would be hypocritical of me, because I am. Get paid enough, save enough, make a clean cut, start project later. Have other hobbies, go out in the sun, meet some friends, life is too short. As others wrote: the programming is the easy part of a business, you can easily solve that after you lost your chains. The line I draw: if it is only for my amusement and noone else can access the work, I will do it for myself. (Strictly speaking, this may also be a relevant work, but that's the line I draw. Some may say: daring, some may say: cowardly. Probably right. Both of them.) Getting an exception for works within your area of work, for which you do not have to to transfer rights into contract supplement, should be possible at reasonable employers, but check before you start creating the work, don't let them think your work as employee will suffer, and if is commercial, a side-business or similar: that's another independent problem to take care of (no competition, maximum work time as required by law may be applicable, and so on). (Contract supplements are done all the time for more trivial stuff, no big deal. The world changes, and so do contracts.) A small employer might even say: if your work is not in this and this business field, we don't care. For bigger ones it will be the other way around: you will have to be specific on what you want to do and some legal department will check business interests, IP problems, if it is far enough away from your departments work, and so on. This might as well limit the work you can do in the company, so check your career plans. Check if you need to program at all. The ready solution might be available as open source already. These days many employers also have open source policies, giving you some additional free space for your programming projects while employed, see if you can use that to your advantage. If you are good at project management / people skills: let others do the work. So let's all stop bitching about the lawyers (a lawyer would have written a more understandable and concise text, but would have charged you more) and the law: the world is complicated and full of conflicting interests, don't expect the business world to work like your hobby projects with your friends. Don't be sad, grow up.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

danpalmer 7y ago

This may sounds like a reasonable wording, but is very often not the case unfortunately. I believe it’s because you’re salaried rather than paid by the hour. Even though your contract is for a set number of hours, you’re expected to have just one job, and for that job to get your focus and attention in a way that you wouldn’t be expected to do if you were paid hourly. This means that companies often technically own the IP you develop in your own time, and big ones will enforce that.

coldtea 7y ago
Related reading: https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-legally-own-another-person-4145a1802bf6 https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-legally-own-another-person...

stingraycharles 7y ago

> This is default here as well (Germany), but I only interpret this as stuff done during work time. This is a very dangerous attitude. I'm from The Netherlands, consulted a lawyer on this matter, and she confirmed it was definitely an issue. I proceeded to make it explicit in the contract that it only covers IP created during work time and/or on company hardware. What you're saying is definitely understandable, but in my experience, it's not how the legal system is currently looking at these matters.

archi42 7y ago
Wow, okay. I honestly didn't believe that was legally possible - and thanks for pointing out that I'm probably wrong. I checked the wording of my contract, and regarding "my employer has ownership of my work" it explicitly says "im Rahmen dieses Arbeitsverhältnisses" -> "as part of this employment relationship". So I suppose I'm safe (there is a clause that I have to ask for permission to do side jobs; but I know company policy is that permission is always granted and this is about informing them about it). edit: see geocar's reply.
- stingraycharles 7y ago
  Right, and it also depends upon your role (I was in a leadership position). Regardless, the law is intentionally vague (“could be related to your work” leaves room for interpretation), and it’s better to get explicit permission.
  - icedchai 7y ago
    I'd say it's always better to ask forgiveness. They probably won't find out anyway, so why waste everyone's time (especially your own.) You'll spend more time writing useless emails to HR / lawyers than working on your side project. The simplest thing is to just do your thing, keep it to yourself. In the very unlikely event someone brings it up, you just play dumb. (Your Tetris clone isn't infringing on the company anyway.)
- i_don_t_know 7y ago

geocar 7y ago

> But if I create things in my free time at home, on my own equipment, then that's MINE, and I might start a company from it That's not entirely accurate: You're required to submit it to your employer if it could be related to your work, see especially §18 (1-2) and §19 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/arbnerfg/BJNR007560957.html#BJNR007560957BJNG000400306 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/arbnerfg/BJNR007560957.ht...

archi42 7y ago
Oha, thanks. That's actually repeated in my contract.
danielh 7y ago
IANAL, but if I'm reading §2 correctly, that only applies to patentable inventions.
thiago_fm 7y ago
Interesting. I was always afraid of creating stuff at home since I've started working in Germany. So. I can just create my own company, register domains and so on, and as long as it doesn't have anything to do with the company I currently work for, it is mine?

pizzapill 7y ago

Germany is a very special case. AFAIK you can't lose the right to things you create here, that means the "copyright" (Urheberrecht) of code you create will always belong to you. You can't sell it or lose it in any other way. Your employer "only" has the right to use it without limitations. I would not draw conclusions based on the situation in Germany, since the law could be wildly different.

archi42 7y ago
As per the contract the copyright of my work goes to my employer, and I have no copyright to (on?) it. The difference is that I am not allowed to reuse that work somewhere else (e.g. my own project) with my contract, but from what you say that would always be possible. Also what you say means I could always sell work I do on the job to someone else, e.g. a direct competitor. So I am not sure if that's really right ;-)
- pizzapill 7y ago
  Urheberrecht vs. Verwertungsrechte... > Copyright should neither be transferable in whole nor in part. Rather, the author should only be able to grant someone else the right to use the work in a certain way. Nach dem geltenden Recht kann das Urheberrecht als Ganzes und in seinen Teilen (z. B. das Vervielfältigungsrecht, das Aufführungsrecht) abgetreten werden. Nur die aus dem Urheberpersönlichkeitsrecht erwachsenden Befugnisse, wie z. B. das Recht, Entstellungen des Werkes zu verbieten, sind unübertragbar. Der Entwurf sieht - wie das österreichische Recht - von einer derartigen unterschiedlichen Regelung der Übertragbarkeit der einzelnen urheberrechtlichen Befugnisse ab. Das Urheberrecht soll zukünftig weder im ganzen noch teilweise abtretbar sein. Vielmehr soll der Urheber einem anderen nur das Recht einräumen können, das Werk in bestimmter Weise zu nutzen. Das Urheberrecht selbst verbleibt dabei, belastet mit dem Nutzungsrecht, dem Urheber. Hierdurch wird sichergestellt, daß der Urheber auch dann, wenn er die wirtschaftliche Auswertung seines Werkes einem anderen überläßt, stets eine gewisse Kontrolle über das weitere Schicksal seines Werkes behält. http://www.urheberrecht.org/law/normen/urhg/1965-09-09/materialien/ds_IV_270_A_02_04.php http://www.urheberrecht.org/law/normen/urhg/1965-09-09/mater... deepl.com english translation: Under the applicable law, copyright may be assigned in its entirety and in its parts (e.g. the right to reproduce, the right to perform). Only the powers conferred by the moral right, such as the right to prohibit the distortion of the work, are non-transferable. Like Austrian law, the draft refrains from such a different regulation of the transferability of individual copyright powers. In future, copyright should neither be transferable in whole nor in part. Rather, the author should only be able to grant someone else the right to use the work in a certain way. The copyright itself remains, burdened with the right of use, the author. This ensures that even if the author leaves the economic exploitation of his work to another person, he always retains a certain control over the further fate of his work.

lcabral 7y ago

yes, I think I had the same type of clauses (haven't read my contract in a long time) So I did clear out that with my current (to be at the time) direct manager and that was the consensus. So my advice for the original question would be to clear that with the (future) manager on what those clauses do indeed mean. And I don't feel that question is endangering getting the job in any way... I feel nowadays many people have side projects that they have not intention of relinquishing of its rights even if nothing more that a side hobby. So managers are probably asked those question all the time. PS: But I wouldn't go straight the manager and state that I'm planing on start my own business wight at the same time I start working for him... That probably raises the flag that you will not be 100% committed and might leave in a short period. I would just bring it up as "side projects".

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

throwawayb104b0 7y ago

[Part 1] Sadly, it sucks even more than some people imagine. So while I'm also not a lawyer, I will gladly play the Devil's advocate here. If you have a salary, you are actually paid for the work product of the whole month. (As opposed to a wage for time worked.) Well, actually you are paid for honestly trying, but your contract transfers usage rights related to your work, so this has nothing to do with hours worked. They would also have to pay your salary, if they say you can stay at home and do nothing, because nothing to do. Having your work time limited to 40h a week has nothing to do with transfer of rights, as it is a different realm of law. This is just to protect you (or your employer) from you being overworked. (Cynics might say: this was invented by politicians/unions to get votes, or by employers that don't want their human resources damaged.) Anyway: this has nothing to do with your pay and the rights you sell. It might even work against you, as you have to use your "free time", to get fit for work again. (Yes, yes!) While secondary employment is not generally forbidden in Germany (and contract clauses which say so don't last in court), except for competition, your employer of course needs to know, because he also has a say in whether or not your other activities are against their legitimate interest: e.g. if it is indeed to be deemed competion or you are overworking yourself this way and having this drain your energy away from your employers work might be a valid reason to stop it. (Of course: in the end, the court may decide if one side sues, hopefully in a commensurate way.) But you may say: but this is like overtime (it is not: you did it voluntarily and overtime is ordered), and overtime has to be paid even for salaried employees in certain cases (again: different laws, has nothing to with the rights you sell as part of your employment and only with protection from overworking and your compensation for time because of the imbalance between stipulatory and accomplished hours -- hint: if your employer or a labour court thinks your employer owes you (as a salaried employee) overtime compensation, it is because you are still way below a decent salary ... but this is getting off topic). So while it is true you cannot transfer your Urheberrecht in Germany, as pizzapill wrote, (because it is connected to you as a person, with one exception: it is transfered to your heirs after your dead, but if you're dead, you rights are very limited anyway) you transfer the Nutzungsrechte (usage rights) as part of your contract. And here the employers try to get as much as possible. Not only because of greed (but we would not rule that out, would we?), but simply for legal safety: you cannot easily disentangle one work from another if it is basically the same in the law (like "computer program" -- if the creation of these type of work is your job). Sure you and I can easily see, this program has nothing to do with your dayjob, but can your employer? In a tiny shop, maybe. In a big corporation: not so much. A big software company has so many fields of business, products and services, your manager and their manager and their manager cannot possibly know if your free time project goes against the business interest of the company if you do it independently of the company, so the contracts generally assume it does. (And it probably actually does: given a big enough company you will most certainly have teams in other divisions building similar things as you do in your free time, even if it is only in some tiny research departement on the other side of the world. And I mean plural "teams": they often don't know from each other. Think your boring business software employer does not do cool IoT stuff in some unknown lab? Think again, you haven't networked enough and don't know your company.) And for the work time + work equipment / free time + private equipment argument: yeah, I would also say so, I am paid for this, but not for that ... but this is a very weak argument. Not only for the obvious reason that it would be very problematic if some employee chooses to do the work for this employer in his free time on his equipment and thus trying to circumvent the usage rights transfer, but also (and maybe more importantly) because this is all in your head and how do you prove it, that e.g. your private work and employer ordered work did not influence earch other. And what about employer-relevant work you were not ordered to do? Say e.g. something you think could be useful at work: this could easily go against your employers interest (if you try to sell it to them or the competition or even if you wrote it and they don't get it), which is at odds with your duty of loyality. That being said, I doubt contract clauses which automatically transfer exclusive usage rights of your free time works to your employer without extra compensation are enforcable to the full extent in Germany for "everything copyrightable you might create regardless what". (Speaking of contracts, I don't think I have seen it in this form yet, the sane companies write it more like this: if you create some work out of your area of duty, you have to offer exclusive rights to us, like you do for on-duty work, except if it is obvious, we cannot use this in the company.) So with a dayjob as programmer and writing poems / painting pictures in the evening, you can savely say: this has nothing to do with each other and therefore it is not the business of my employer.

throwawayb104b0 7y ago

[Part 2] But same kind of work (programming), and company can possibly use it for their business (you don't know, even if you think you do) or using even similar code snippets in both programs (and that happens, even only in non-business logic parts of the code doing unimportant stuff) would unfortunately lead to a situation with possibility of conflict. After all, they pay you, to program "things that can be useful to them", so that's your job. Does that mean you can sell them this specific program, just because they haven't yet ordered you to write it in your work time? What do you want to do if they order you at work to write something like you have written in your free time? Being sulky? Writing a "totally different" program from your free time program just because you want to waste their time and money? Bringing your home-grown program which violates all company quality standards to work? You cannot win either way. As said before, the time when you did it, does not matter. (Except of course: before the start and after the end of the employment, you are free (from this employer), but as long as you are emloyed, it does not matter if it weekend.) It is all complicated, because it is not just some stupid and easy to follow rules. Law is not what one side thinks is right, but often times a reconciliation of interests, and it gets messy. Ask yourself: could a reasonable third party, without knowing your or your employers intentions or even technical details, draw a clear line between your free time work and the stuff you are paid to work on, only by looking at your free time project and the kind of work you and your colleages do in the office? If the only product of your employer is monitoring software and you write the stereotypical Tetris clone: yeah, that case might be easy. Real companies and useful free time projects? Not so much. Also to train you to think like a reasonable third party: think of a bricklayer laying bricks in his "free time". (Sounds a bit odd, doesn't it?) When would this be acceptable, when wouldn't it? Not so easy. Of course you have to give something up for getting paid. I would suggest not being a salary slave, but that would be hypocritical of me, because I am. Get paid enough, save enough, make a clean cut, start project later. Have other hobbies, go out in the sun, meet some friends, life is too short. As others wrote: the programming is the easy part of a business, you can easily solve that after you lost your chains. The line I draw: if it is only for my amusement and noone else can access the work, I will do it for myself. (Strictly speaking, this may also be a relevant work, but that's the line I draw. Some may say: daring, some may say: cowardly. Probably right. Both of them.) Getting an exception for works within your area of work, for which you do not have to to transfer rights into contract supplement, should be possible at reasonable employers, but check before you start creating the work, don't let them think your work as employee will suffer, and if is commercial, a side-business or similar: that's another independent problem to take care of (no competition, maximum work time as required by law may be applicable, and so on). (Contract supplements are done all the time for more trivial stuff, no big deal. The world changes, and so do contracts.) A small employer might even say: if your work is not in this and this business field, we don't care. For bigger ones it will be the other way around: you will have to be specific on what you want to do and some legal department will check business interests, IP problems, if it is far enough away from your departments work, and so on. This might as well limit the work you can do in the company, so check your career plans. Check if you need to program at all. The ready solution might be available as open source already. These days many employers also have open source policies, giving you some additional free space for your programming projects while employed, see if you can use that to your advantage. If you are good at project management / people skills: let others do the work. So let's all stop bitching about the lawyers (a lawyer would have written a more understandable and concise text, but would have charged you more) and the law: the world is complicated and full of conflicting interests, don't expect the business world to work like your hobby projects with your friends. Don't be sad, grow up.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]