8 ms·

Google has a similar clause too. They own all IP including your personal projects. https://www.businessinsider.com/former-googlers-google-ip-open-source-policy-

by ystad 5y ago

Google has a similar clause too. They own all IP including your personal projects. https://www.businessinsider.com/former-googlers-google-ip-open-source-policy-iarc-2020-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/former-googlers-google-ip-op...

dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
I understand it's legal but I was always wondering how this could be morally acceptable and why developers don't lobby against this. I understand the view of the employer: if you work on a project A at work, and on a n open-source project B that is direct competition to project A, you might be acting against the interests of the company. So to save everybody's time, they claim the right to everything and it's done. However, this is hurting you as developer when you work on unrelated projects. Your work for the community is impeded (e.g. in the case of Google you need to go through a lot of bureaucracy) or completely impossible. In theory you can write some code for yourself, but what motivation do you have, knowing that your employer will be its owner anyway? You will have less motivation to explore new areas of interest for the same reason. It's terrible for personal development.
- alexchamberlain 5y ago
  IANAL, but as I understand it, it's not legal in the UK, EU or California (but it doesn't take much for a company to be able to claim the IP - using a company laptop or a company subscription to a journal, for example, would easily push it over the edge)
cmrdporcupine 5y ago
It's true but they also have a reasonable set of processes for open sourcing things. I have been through various forms of it a few times and never had problems getting permission. I can understand both points of view, but I imagine from Google's standpoint: they do an incredibly large number of things, "working hours" are often a pretty nebulous concept in the world of software development, and simple accidental leaks could lead to bad litigation situations or critical IP leakage.
- duckfang 5y ago
  > It's true but they also have a reasonable set of processes for open sourcing things. So its "mother may I?" for the 'privilege' of working for such a shit company? For a company to claim ownership of everything I do when not working is called indentured servitude or slavery.
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    I came to the conclusion early on that that is the nature of capitalist work generally, so pick your poison. I don't agree with the whole system, but also don't think this employer is worse than most others on that front. It's just formulated in a legal clause where other employers might just litigate later if they needed to. I get paid well, and have never had a problem -- or seen others have problems -- open sourcing things where it made sense; including things that I worked on at work during work hours such as abandoned/cancelled projects or things that made sense for the community to have access to. EDIT: also your tone sucks, this is HN not reddit.
  - mondoshawan 5y ago
    No, realistically, it is called exempt salary works for hire, and there are legal limits to it. No salaried job has "set hours". The limits you can work with are: working on your own equipment, non-working hours, working on it at home in an area not typically used for $dayjob, the subject of the work, and above all else your locality. These agreements are generally overreaches by the lawyers drafting them, depending on the nature of the job. Remember: no contract can limit rights granted to you under the law, every contract has limits, and you cannot be prevented from working, even if stated otherwise. Washington, for instance, has state laws against this kind of IP assignment. IANAL, so don't read into this too much, but I have consulted IP attorneys about this. If you're doing something like this, definitely consult -- the kind of work you do does matter. In this guy's case, it seems he does have a conflict of interest w.r.t. the work he does for IBM.
    - Communitivity 5y ago
      Many consultancies do, as you have billable hours and even your non-billable hours have to be accounted for. These are your hours on company time.
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
I thought California had a law - on your own time with your own tools, it belongs to you. Worked that way 20 years ago anyway.
- ridgeguy 5y ago
  It does [1]. But I believe this can be overruled by mutual assent, i.e., by contract. [1] https://www.californialaborandemploymentlaw.net/2017/intellectual-property-ownership/ https://www.californialaborandemploymentlaw.net/2017/intelle...
  - marakv2 5y ago
    How the fuck did they carve that out. No one should ever be able to contract away a right. That's bullshit. One step of signing away a right is a direct slope to slavery.
Aeolun 5y ago
I do not think that’s actually enforceable though.

by ystad 5y ago

dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago

I understand it's legal but I was always wondering how this could be morally acceptable and why developers don't lobby against this. I understand the view of the employer: if you work on a project A at work, and on a n open-source project B that is direct competition to project A, you might be acting against the interests of the company. So to save everybody's time, they claim the right to everything and it's done. However, this is hurting you as developer when you work on unrelated projects. Your work for the community is impeded (e.g. in the case of Google you need to go through a lot of bureaucracy) or completely impossible. In theory you can write some code for yourself, but what motivation do you have, knowing that your employer will be its owner anyway? You will have less motivation to explore new areas of interest for the same reason. It's terrible for personal development.

alexchamberlain 5y ago
IANAL, but as I understand it, it's not legal in the UK, EU or California (but it doesn't take much for a company to be able to claim the IP - using a company laptop or a company subscription to a journal, for example, would easily push it over the edge)

cmrdporcupine 5y ago

It's true but they also have a reasonable set of processes for open sourcing things. I have been through various forms of it a few times and never had problems getting permission. I can understand both points of view, but I imagine from Google's standpoint: they do an incredibly large number of things, "working hours" are often a pretty nebulous concept in the world of software development, and simple accidental leaks could lead to bad litigation situations or critical IP leakage.

duckfang 5y ago
> It's true but they also have a reasonable set of processes for open sourcing things. So its "mother may I?" for the 'privilege' of working for such a shit company? For a company to claim ownership of everything I do when not working is called indentured servitude or slavery.
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  I came to the conclusion early on that that is the nature of capitalist work generally, so pick your poison. I don't agree with the whole system, but also don't think this employer is worse than most others on that front. It's just formulated in a legal clause where other employers might just litigate later if they needed to. I get paid well, and have never had a problem -- or seen others have problems -- open sourcing things where it made sense; including things that I worked on at work during work hours such as abandoned/cancelled projects or things that made sense for the community to have access to. EDIT: also your tone sucks, this is HN not reddit.
- mondoshawan 5y ago
  No, realistically, it is called exempt salary works for hire, and there are legal limits to it. No salaried job has "set hours". The limits you can work with are: working on your own equipment, non-working hours, working on it at home in an area not typically used for $dayjob, the subject of the work, and above all else your locality. These agreements are generally overreaches by the lawyers drafting them, depending on the nature of the job. Remember: no contract can limit rights granted to you under the law, every contract has limits, and you cannot be prevented from working, even if stated otherwise. Washington, for instance, has state laws against this kind of IP assignment. IANAL, so don't read into this too much, but I have consulted IP attorneys about this. If you're doing something like this, definitely consult -- the kind of work you do does matter. In this guy's case, it seems he does have a conflict of interest w.r.t. the work he does for IBM.
  - Communitivity 5y ago
    Many consultancies do, as you have billable hours and even your non-billable hours have to be accounted for. These are your hours on company time.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

I thought California had a law - on your own time with your own tools, it belongs to you. Worked that way 20 years ago anyway.

ridgeguy 5y ago
It does [1]. But I believe this can be overruled by mutual assent, i.e., by contract. [1] https://www.californialaborandemploymentlaw.net/2017/intellectual-property-ownership/ https://www.californialaborandemploymentlaw.net/2017/intelle...
- marakv2 5y ago
  How the fuck did they carve that out. No one should ever be able to contract away a right. That's bullshit. One step of signing away a right is a direct slope to slavery.

Aeolun 5y ago

I do not think that’s actually enforceable though.