4 ms·

> most contracts require that even outside of work the company owns your IP unless otherwise stated Assuming the outside work was performed on the employee's o

by mgomez 5y ago

> most contracts require that even outside of work the company owns your IP unless otherwise stated Assuming the outside work was performed on the employee's own time/equipment and doesn't compete with the employer's business, such contracts would be unenforceable in California. See section 2870 of the California Labor Code: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2870 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Assuming the outside work was performed on the employee's own time/equipment and doesn't compete with the employer's business The rule actually encompasses more than simple competition, but in any case work on OS components for an alternative (and therefore competing) OS for the employer’s hardware for which they also sell proprietary OS software does compete with the employer’s business, so... (The particular thing the employee was denied permission to work on seems to be VNIC for IBM Power)
- fiddlerwoaroof 5y ago
  Yeah, this is the loophole in the law: if you work for a big company, there are very few areas that meet the criteria specified in the law.
shagie 5y ago
> Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either: > (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer or ... I am not a lawyer, but I think it would not be unreasonable to believe that work on the kernel would be related to IBM's business (like RedHat). Its not just that it doesn't compete with the employer's business but if it is related to the employer's business. Furthermore, while the own time/equipment is there, there is also trade secret information mentioned beyond the time and equipment constraint.
- mlyle 5y ago
  Here it's not just work on the kernel, but work on the kernel on a driver for IBM hardware that two other IBM employees maintain, and that the employee in question was -also- previously a contributor to during work hours.
yongjik 5y ago
Yep, that "employer's business" part is relevant here. The person in question is writing a kernel driver for an IBM hardware while being an IBM employee. IANAL but I'm pretty sure that means "Employer fully owns employee's work" even in California.
- adrr 5y ago
  Doesn’t own the work but they can be terminated and even charged with a crime if they were misappropriating trade secrets.
staticassertion 5y ago
Oh yeah, true true. You'll want to avoid using any company time, equipment (including the network), code, etc. and that should cover you, i think, but only so long as your work doesn't "compete" with your employers iirc.

by mgomez 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Assuming the outside work was performed on the employee's own time/equipment and doesn't compete with the employer's business The rule actually encompasses more than simple competition, but in any case work on OS components for an alternative (and therefore competing) OS for the employer’s hardware for which they also sell proprietary OS software does compete with the employer’s business, so... (The particular thing the employee was denied permission to work on seems to be VNIC for IBM Power)

fiddlerwoaroof 5y ago
Yeah, this is the loophole in the law: if you work for a big company, there are very few areas that meet the criteria specified in the law.

shagie 5y ago

> Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either: > (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer or ... I am not a lawyer, but I think it would not be unreasonable to believe that work on the kernel would be related to IBM's business (like RedHat). Its not just that it doesn't compete with the employer's business but if it is related to the employer's business. Furthermore, while the own time/equipment is there, there is also trade secret information mentioned beyond the time and equipment constraint.

mlyle 5y ago
Here it's not just work on the kernel, but work on the kernel on a driver for IBM hardware that two other IBM employees maintain, and that the employee in question was -also- previously a contributor to during work hours.

yongjik 5y ago

Yep, that "employer's business" part is relevant here. The person in question is writing a kernel driver for an IBM hardware while being an IBM employee. IANAL but I'm pretty sure that means "Employer fully owns employee's work" even in California.

adrr 5y ago
Doesn’t own the work but they can be terminated and even charged with a crime if they were misappropriating trade secrets.

staticassertion 5y ago

Oh yeah, true true. You'll want to avoid using any company time, equipment (including the network), code, etc. and that should cover you, i think, but only so long as your work doesn't "compete" with your employers iirc.