6 ms·

I am not from US, but isn't that kind of standard practice in US? While working at any company they can hold right to everything you do in the field. While out

I am not from US, but isn't that kind of standard practice in US? While working at any company they can hold right to everything you do in the field. While outrageous at the first glance it does make a lot of sense for me. If you wan't to work on your side project you should quit your job. Otherwise there is a big risk you might quickly burn out, be less effective at your main work. People seem to critique overtime and time pressure on software engineers. At they same time they want to be able to code their startups after hours effectively working 15 hour per day. Working on open source projects instead of side gigs doesn't differ much in that regard. You might hook up on your project and spend tons of mental energy on it, making your main job suffer.

richardwhiuk 6y ago
That's a theory that develops from "work is the most important thing in your life". It's not the only correct starting assumption. Other things that develop from it are "employees shouldn't be allowed to have kids as it might sap mental energy from your job" - which is clearly a ludicrous position, but not dis-similar.
- aeonflux 6y ago
  Quite the contrary in my opinion. This kind of limitations does force many to actually rest after hours.
  - mercer 6y ago
    To rest for what? To be more productive at work? I'd argue your point isn't 'quite the contrary' but only emphasizes OP's point: you describe the time outside of work as 'after hours', and argue that 'forcing' people to spend this time in a particular way is a good thing.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    Your method of resting differs from others'.
mywittyname 6y ago
Yeah, this is standard practice at Big Cos in the US. I had to jump through hoops to send back contributions for an OSS I was modifying as part of work. This would have been a huge win for the company too, as I wouldn't have to spend time maintaining the software as updates were pushed. Alas, it took so much time to get approval that we abandon our work and the OSS software. The most I was able to give back to a project that I made serious improvements for was a few bug fixes. And those were done without approval. I work for a smaller company now and they ask for notification, but don't take ownership of OSS work.
b3kart 6y ago
Yeah, this rule is clearly enforced by companies to protect their employees' well-being. Just billion-dollar corporations being sensitive and protective, as per usual. /s
- aeonflux 6y ago
  I am not sure where the sarcasm comes from. This actually supports the company, because exhausted, overworked and sleepy coders aren't much of a use for anyone. On the other hand employees have harder times to push their own ventures. I once worked with a guy doing some personal pet project on the side. Nothing came from it in the end, but it was consuming him to the point, when he was doing some work on this during work hours.
  - b3kart 6y ago
    I am not sure how one can avoid being sarcastic here. You honestly believe top execs at these companies have sat down and decided to ban OSS contributions because that makes for exhausted, overworked employees? Not saner, more flexible working hours, not more vacation time, not on-site nap rooms and such, they've decided? All of the things that, you know, might actually help. Nah, coders are just tired because they work on OSS in their free time. Come on now. They're simply protecting their IP as much as they possibly can. If they could ban you from using a computer at all in your free time, without getting sued into oblivion for violating human rights and such, they would.
    - aeonflux 6y ago
      Apple doesn't provide any of those in your opinion? I can imagine having everything you pointed and then ban on side projects (paid or not). And yes, working on OSS might actually be even more exhausting than a day job.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        I think I can do a fairly good job at deciding what I do outside of work, thank you very much.
Rochus 6y ago
This is regulated differently in the different countries. It is common that the intellectual property you create in the course of your employment automatically belongs to your employer. But of course, it is not your employer's business what you do in your spare time (as long as you do not use infrastructure or intellectual property of your employer for this purpose). See e.g. http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/Fact-Sheet-Inventorship-Authorship-Ownership.pdf http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/...
- kec 6y ago
  Apple is a software company which produces operating systems, programming languages and applications. How are you supposed to prove that you aren’t using knowledge gleaned from Apple in your OSS side hustle? Given the breadth of Apples offerings, how could you possibly have a software project which doesn’t overlap with one of their businesses?
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Practically, you can’t. Not only is the breadth of the things they work on staggering, there’s a number of secret projects that you might be falling afoul of as well.
  - Rochus 6y ago
    Knowledge by itself is no issue and not subject to copyright. But you have an issue if you use code or libraries (i.e. everything which qualifies as a "work") or patents of which you're not the IP owner. I don't know US law, but here in Europe workers' rights are well protected. Of course, if you do work in competition with your employer in your free time, this can be a problem. But the courts will only agree with the employer if there is significant damage or risk of damage.
    - kec 6y ago
      I’m guessing things aren’t quite so clear cut as you think they are. Trivially, Apple has an engineering presence in various European countries, it wouldn’t make sense to have this clause in their employment contract if it wasn’t applicable everywhere.
disiplus 6y ago
if im less effective u fire me and that's that. if am able to do what you pay me to do in the time you pay me to do it then what i do after work is whatever i want.
- aeonflux 6y ago
  I would never hire anyone who doesn't want accept non-competitive restrictions.
t0astbread 6y ago
I understand that but when I apply to a job I want an employer, not a mother. I'm still able to decide for myself what I can do and what would burn me out. And even if that becomes a problem, I wouldn't want my employer to (more or less) own me. If I'm not productive enough for my company it should just end the employment relationship (or try to help me first because that could be mutually beneficial). Also there's a large gap between "starting an open source project" and "working on your side project full-time".
ingenieros 6y ago
Steve Jobs worked at Atari and Wozniak at Hewlett Packard during Apple's inception. Do you think Apple would even exist today if these two hadn't been able to work on their passion project while off the clock??
- aeonflux 6y ago
  Great example on why such clauses should be there. This didn't really ended well for Atari.
  - ingenieros 6y ago
    Perhaps you should read up on Atari's history because they had much bigger issues than simply letting employees moonlight.

richardwhiuk 6y ago

That's a theory that develops from "work is the most important thing in your life". It's not the only correct starting assumption. Other things that develop from it are "employees shouldn't be allowed to have kids as it might sap mental energy from your job" - which is clearly a ludicrous position, but not dis-similar.

aeonflux 6y ago
Quite the contrary in my opinion. This kind of limitations does force many to actually rest after hours.
- mercer 6y ago
  To rest for what? To be more productive at work? I'd argue your point isn't 'quite the contrary' but only emphasizes OP's point: you describe the time outside of work as 'after hours', and argue that 'forcing' people to spend this time in a particular way is a good thing.
- inetknght 6y ago
  Your method of resting differs from others'.

mywittyname 6y ago

Yeah, this is standard practice at Big Cos in the US. I had to jump through hoops to send back contributions for an OSS I was modifying as part of work. This would have been a huge win for the company too, as I wouldn't have to spend time maintaining the software as updates were pushed. Alas, it took so much time to get approval that we abandon our work and the OSS software. The most I was able to give back to a project that I made serious improvements for was a few bug fixes. And those were done without approval. I work for a smaller company now and they ask for notification, but don't take ownership of OSS work.

b3kart 6y ago

Yeah, this rule is clearly enforced by companies to protect their employees' well-being. Just billion-dollar corporations being sensitive and protective, as per usual. /s

aeonflux 6y ago
I am not sure where the sarcasm comes from. This actually supports the company, because exhausted, overworked and sleepy coders aren't much of a use for anyone. On the other hand employees have harder times to push their own ventures. I once worked with a guy doing some personal pet project on the side. Nothing came from it in the end, but it was consuming him to the point, when he was doing some work on this during work hours.
- b3kart 6y ago
  I am not sure how one can avoid being sarcastic here. You honestly believe top execs at these companies have sat down and decided to ban OSS contributions because that makes for exhausted, overworked employees? Not saner, more flexible working hours, not more vacation time, not on-site nap rooms and such, they've decided? All of the things that, you know, might actually help. Nah, coders are just tired because they work on OSS in their free time. Come on now. They're simply protecting their IP as much as they possibly can. If they could ban you from using a computer at all in your free time, without getting sued into oblivion for violating human rights and such, they would.
  - aeonflux 6y ago
    Apple doesn't provide any of those in your opinion? I can imagine having everything you pointed and then ban on side projects (paid or not). And yes, working on OSS might actually be even more exhausting than a day job.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I think I can do a fairly good job at deciding what I do outside of work, thank you very much.

Rochus 6y ago

This is regulated differently in the different countries. It is common that the intellectual property you create in the course of your employment automatically belongs to your employer. But of course, it is not your employer's business what you do in your spare time (as long as you do not use infrastructure or intellectual property of your employer for this purpose). See e.g. http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/Fact-Sheet-Inventorship-Authorship-Ownership.pdf http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/...

kec 6y ago
Apple is a software company which produces operating systems, programming languages and applications. How are you supposed to prove that you aren’t using knowledge gleaned from Apple in your OSS side hustle? Given the breadth of Apples offerings, how could you possibly have a software project which doesn’t overlap with one of their businesses?
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Practically, you can’t. Not only is the breadth of the things they work on staggering, there’s a number of secret projects that you might be falling afoul of as well.
- Rochus 6y ago
  Knowledge by itself is no issue and not subject to copyright. But you have an issue if you use code or libraries (i.e. everything which qualifies as a "work") or patents of which you're not the IP owner. I don't know US law, but here in Europe workers' rights are well protected. Of course, if you do work in competition with your employer in your free time, this can be a problem. But the courts will only agree with the employer if there is significant damage or risk of damage.
  - kec 6y ago
    I’m guessing things aren’t quite so clear cut as you think they are. Trivially, Apple has an engineering presence in various European countries, it wouldn’t make sense to have this clause in their employment contract if it wasn’t applicable everywhere.

disiplus 6y ago

if im less effective u fire me and that's that. if am able to do what you pay me to do in the time you pay me to do it then what i do after work is whatever i want.

aeonflux 6y ago
I would never hire anyone who doesn't want accept non-competitive restrictions.

t0astbread 6y ago

I understand that but when I apply to a job I want an employer, not a mother. I'm still able to decide for myself what I can do and what would burn me out. And even if that becomes a problem, I wouldn't want my employer to (more or less) own me. If I'm not productive enough for my company it should just end the employment relationship (or try to help me first because that could be mutually beneficial). Also there's a large gap between "starting an open source project" and "working on your side project full-time".

ingenieros 6y ago

Steve Jobs worked at Atari and Wozniak at Hewlett Packard during Apple's inception. Do you think Apple would even exist today if these two hadn't been able to work on their passion project while off the clock??

aeonflux 6y ago
Great example on why such clauses should be there. This didn't really ended well for Atari.
- ingenieros 6y ago
  Perhaps you should read up on Atari's history because they had much bigger issues than simply letting employees moonlight.