37 ms·

Has Google or any other company actually used this for "evil" though? It sounds like it's just a necessary part of doing business in the US. Don't hate the play

by Aunche 7y ago

Has Google or any other company actually used this for "evil" though? It sounds like it's just a necessary part of doing business in the US. Don't hate the player. Hate the game. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure rules like these make it easier to sue someone if they steal your source code like with Levandowski.

danShumway 7y ago
> Has Google or any other company actually used this for "evil" though? From the original Twitter thread: > usbmuxd was rejected without an explanation. My follow-up email asking for clarification was ignored. > I ended up having to hand over maintainership of usbmuxd. Different people have different thresholds for evil, but I consider that to be at least unethical. OP was working on usbmuxd before they joined Google. If Google wanted ownership, that should have been discussed during the hiring process. To hire someone, require them to submit a 'request' to retain ownership, and then pull the rug out from under their feet -- I think that's unethical, even if usbmuxd was a conflict of interest. But of course, OP wasn't working on anything that would make usbmuxd a conflict of interest. Google's policy was, "because someone somewhere in our company is working on something similar, we own it." I think that's also an unethical overreach. If I'm hired to work on A, I don't think I should need to care that someone else at the company is working on B. My conflicts of interest and related software should be determined based on the parts of the software I'm involved in. I would posit that this stuff isn't a theoretical concern, that OP demonstrated its an unethical policy that is actively being used for unethical reasons.
- Aunche 7y ago
  I mean. You can just always ignore what lawyers say, and just work on open source projects under a pseudonym while you're employed there, which is what the OP did anyways. The worst thing that happened to the OP is that he pissed off some lawyers, and got into an argument with a guy. Also, Google can't own any of your code you did before you're employed there, just any new code from when you're employed by them.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    > The worst thing that happened to the OP is that he pissed off some lawyers, and got into an argument with a guy The worst thing that happened to OP was that he lost control of his project. > I ended up having to hand over maintainership of usbmuxd. ---- > You can just always ignore what lawyers say, and just work on open source projects under a pseudonym while you're employed there I am not a lawyer, but this seems like very bad advice. Even ignoring the potential legal risks, many Open Source maintainers like to be able to talk openly about their projects using their real names, especially at conferences, to friends, and to future potential employers. Even ignoring that, some side projects aren't Open Source. I'm working on commercial, proprietary software outside of work. My company knows it. Even if I wanted to keep it a secret from them, there's no real good way I could do so -- at a certain point, most commercial software gets linked to real people. You're taking on a lot of extra risk that could potentially turn into a nightmare during a discovery process later.
    - Aunche 7y ago
      > I am not a lawyer, but this seems like very bad advice. That's kind of my point. Millions of people have been employed by companies with similar policies, and undoubtably many of them chose to ignore the "correct" legal moves because it's just easier. If Google really wanted to screw people over, they could, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
      - danShumway 7y ago
        > If Google really wanted to screw people over, they could, but that doesn't seem to be happening. But again > I ended up having to hand over maintainership of usbmuxd. What's your personal criteria for getting screwed over? From my perspective, it already happened with OP.
        Aunche 7y ago
        I mean like take ownership of a project or start up based on a technicality. Taking someone's app money would be another one. I don't think that making someone else maintain your project is unreasonable, especially if that someone can be a mysterious anon that comes in at the right time.
- testingitout56 7y ago
  > Google's policy was, "because someone somewhere in our company is working on something similar, we own it." I think that's also an unethical overreach. If I'm hired to work on A, I don't think I should need to care that someone else at the company is working on B. My conflicts of interest and related software should be determined based on the parts of the software I'm involved in. That's nice that you don't think there's a conflict of interest, but that doesn't mean you are correct or that it's an unethical overreach. Especially given their policy, it's pretty clear there is a conflict of interest between Google and this persons software, ignoring that and looking entirely from the employee perspective is just silly.
lolinder 7y ago
In the original Twitter thread, Google stole ownership of a pre-existing side project when the maintainer filed for approval. That's evil. It may not have been a personal evil, but bureaucratic evil is very real.
- Aunche 7y ago
  Do you have the text of where he says this? It sounds like it's just the work that you do while you're employed there. Even then, it seems like it's just a formality that they don't really bother enforcing.
Sean1708 7y ago
Why is it a necessary part of doing business in the US? What is different about the US compared to countries where this practice is unheard of?
pjc50 7y ago
At their size, Google get to dictate the rules of the game. And it's very convenient for them if employees can't have portfolios that make them easier to poach, and can't start side businesses and so on. Don't expect the public to support IP protection if their only experience is having it used against them.

by Aunche 7y ago

danShumway 7y ago

> Has Google or any other company actually used this for "evil" though? From the original Twitter thread: > usbmuxd was rejected without an explanation. My follow-up email asking for clarification was ignored. > I ended up having to hand over maintainership of usbmuxd. Different people have different thresholds for evil, but I consider that to be at least unethical. OP was working on usbmuxd before they joined Google. If Google wanted ownership, that should have been discussed during the hiring process. To hire someone, require them to submit a 'request' to retain ownership, and then pull the rug out from under their feet -- I think that's unethical, even if usbmuxd was a conflict of interest. But of course, OP wasn't working on anything that would make usbmuxd a conflict of interest. Google's policy was, "because someone somewhere in our company is working on something similar, we own it." I think that's also an unethical overreach. If I'm hired to work on A, I don't think I should need to care that someone else at the company is working on B. My conflicts of interest and related software should be determined based on the parts of the software I'm involved in. I would posit that this stuff isn't a theoretical concern, that OP demonstrated its an unethical policy that is actively being used for unethical reasons.

Aunche 7y ago
I mean. You can just always ignore what lawyers say, and just work on open source projects under a pseudonym while you're employed there, which is what the OP did anyways. The worst thing that happened to the OP is that he pissed off some lawyers, and got into an argument with a guy. Also, Google can't own any of your code you did before you're employed there, just any new code from when you're employed by them.
- danShumway 7y ago
  > The worst thing that happened to the OP is that he pissed off some lawyers, and got into an argument with a guy The worst thing that happened to OP was that he lost control of his project. > I ended up having to hand over maintainership of usbmuxd. ---- > You can just always ignore what lawyers say, and just work on open source projects under a pseudonym while you're employed there I am not a lawyer, but this seems like very bad advice. Even ignoring the potential legal risks, many Open Source maintainers like to be able to talk openly about their projects using their real names, especially at conferences, to friends, and to future potential employers. Even ignoring that, some side projects aren't Open Source. I'm working on commercial, proprietary software outside of work. My company knows it. Even if I wanted to keep it a secret from them, there's no real good way I could do so -- at a certain point, most commercial software gets linked to real people. You're taking on a lot of extra risk that could potentially turn into a nightmare during a discovery process later.
  - Aunche 7y ago
    > I am not a lawyer, but this seems like very bad advice. That's kind of my point. Millions of people have been employed by companies with similar policies, and undoubtably many of them chose to ignore the "correct" legal moves because it's just easier. If Google really wanted to screw people over, they could, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
    - danShumway 7y ago
      > If Google really wanted to screw people over, they could, but that doesn't seem to be happening. But again > I ended up having to hand over maintainership of usbmuxd. What's your personal criteria for getting screwed over? From my perspective, it already happened with OP.
      - Aunche 7y ago
        I mean like take ownership of a project or start up based on a technicality. Taking someone's app money would be another one. I don't think that making someone else maintain your project is unreasonable, especially if that someone can be a mysterious anon that comes in at the right time.
testingitout56 7y ago
> Google's policy was, "because someone somewhere in our company is working on something similar, we own it." I think that's also an unethical overreach. If I'm hired to work on A, I don't think I should need to care that someone else at the company is working on B. My conflicts of interest and related software should be determined based on the parts of the software I'm involved in. That's nice that you don't think there's a conflict of interest, but that doesn't mean you are correct or that it's an unethical overreach. Especially given their policy, it's pretty clear there is a conflict of interest between Google and this persons software, ignoring that and looking entirely from the employee perspective is just silly.

lolinder 7y ago

In the original Twitter thread, Google stole ownership of a pre-existing side project when the maintainer filed for approval. That's evil. It may not have been a personal evil, but bureaucratic evil is very real.

Aunche 7y ago
Do you have the text of where he says this? It sounds like it's just the work that you do while you're employed there. Even then, it seems like it's just a formality that they don't really bother enforcing.

Sean1708 7y ago

Why is it a necessary part of doing business in the US? What is different about the US compared to countries where this practice is unheard of?

pjc50 7y ago

At their size, Google get to dictate the rules of the game. And it's very convenient for them if employees can't have portfolios that make them easier to poach, and can't start side businesses and so on. Don't expect the public to support IP protection if their only experience is having it used against them.