4 ms·
> HN may find this unpalatable, but it’s still legal and permissible. It's obviously legal and for obvious reasons, but it's both hostile to the culture of the
by himinlomax 7y ago
> HN may find this unpalatable, but it’s still legal and permissible.
It's obviously legal and for obvious reasons, but it's both hostile to the culture of the profession at large AND counterproductive.
- floatingatoll 7y agoIt's not obviously legal. Highlights from today's discussion here indicate some confusion about that point: > Being the status quo for technical companies doesn't make it legal > Is that even legal? > That position, legally enforceable or otherwise
- woodrowbarlow 7y agoit is not obvious. the law in question (for california) is CA labor code 2870. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/lab/division-3/2870-2872/2870 https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/lab/division-3/... the law says that employers cannot claim ownership of inventions made without work resources, even if the employee signed such a clause, unless the invention is in competition with the employer.
- nomel 7y ago> unless the invention is in competition with the employer. Companies like Google, Apple, and Amazon work on all sorts of projects. I don't think it's possible to know what is actually in competition with companies like this, at any given time. This is probably why most require permission. With somewhere like Apple, where everything is kept secret, asking and being told no would confirm the existence of a project.