3 ms·

Not sure if this is true, but I heard that Google takes ownership of any IT projects that you work on your spare time. If this is true, then I certainly wouldn

Not sure if this is true, but I heard that Google takes ownership of any IT projects that you work on your spare time. If this is true, then I certainly wouldn't want to work for them. Is this true?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
tejaswiy 15y ago
Joel's answer on this. Am pretty sure I can't do better: http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/19422/if-im-working-at-a-company-do-they-have-intellectual-property-rights-to-the-stu http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/19422/if-im-working-...
rxin 15y ago
It is not true. Google is actually fairly open about this. For projects that fall into the grey area, there is a committee of engineers and lawyers that you can submit your (personal) projects to, and they can give you a clear answer that the IP is owned by you. From anecdotes I've heard, the committee is very friendly to employees.
- dstein 15y ago
  I find the idea of bringing a personal project into the office and having a committee decide whether I own it or not, to be rather distasteful. The obvious course of action is for developers to universally stop signing over their rights willingly like this. Nobody should ever have to sign these invention clauses to be employed.
  - rxin 15y ago
    Often is it hard to justify whether you completely own the IP. For example, you could've used the company resource to respond to an email related to your personal project. Or some ideas for your personal project might've been influenced by your day work. Rather than delaying this type of problems till later stage, it is easier to just resolve such issues explicitly.
  - MattLaroche 15y ago
    It's about avoiding situations where your work and your personal life are in conflict ("conflict of interest") and many employers ask you to sign such a thing. If you're not working on something similar to what the employer is working on, it's not a problem. If you're working on something that will compete with what your employer is doing, there's a problem. If you were running a sports team, you wouldn't let your employees run a betting parlor - they'd have too much incentive to throw a game and profit off it. In the same way, employers don't want their employees having situations where the company's goals and the employee's goals are at odds.
    - dstein 15y ago
      If you're not working on something similar to what the employer is working on, it's not a problem. Depends on the contract you sign. A lot of employers demand their employees automatically sign over all invention rights (past and future), and then have a process to (maybe) give your rights back -- and it sounds like this is how Google approaches it.
- nostrademons 15y ago
  It's probably a bit more true than that. You got the process right, but the problem is that Google is in so many lines of business that almost anything you do could be considered "along the lines of business of your employer". The success of getting IP rights assigned to you personally is heavily dependent upon what you're doing. If it's just a Chrome extension for your favorite website or a webapp that caters to a niche interest you have, no problem. If it's a casual game (now that Google+ has launched) or a mobile app, it can be very, very difficult, as those are industries of pretty heavy strategic importance to Google.
  - pfedor 15y ago
    My personal experience: I submitted two personal projects http://kartofel.jfedor.org/ http://kartofel.jfedor.org/ and https://market.android.com/details?id=org.jfedor.frozenbubble https://market.android.com/details?id=org.jfedor.frozenbubbl... last year (in July I believe) and both were rejected (i.e., the committee said that Google would not release copyright). However, recently (a month or two ago) I was told that the rules changed and now they were happy to release the copyright for both. In the meantime I tried to get my employment agreement altered to state that my personal projects belong to me, not to Google, but I found there was absolutely no room for negotiation there (despite the fact that my manager, an eng director, supported this). I was told by the legal department that the only person in the company who could approve such thing was Larry Page. It is true that Google has a very easy process to open-source your projects. One practical pain is that if you want to accept patches you have to get every contributor to sign Google's CLA.
1010011010 15y ago
In my experience, all computer/technology corporations do that. But Google lets you open-source your personal stuff with essentially no friction. edit: added "in my experience".
- metajack 15y ago
  No they don't, and you don't have to settle for it.
rachelbythebay 15y ago
True. Unless you're one of the chosen few. Also, it's not a simple open-and-shut "yep, we own it" response. It takes ages, while you lose whatever enthusiasm you might have had going in to the idea.

Not sure if this is true, but I heard that Google takes ownership of any IT projects that you work on your spare time. If this is true, then I certainly wouldn't want to work for them. Is this true?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

tejaswiy 15y ago

Joel's answer on this. Am pretty sure I can't do better: http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/19422/if-im-working-at-a-company-do-they-have-intellectual-property-rights-to-the-stu http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/19422/if-im-working-...

rxin 15y ago

It is not true. Google is actually fairly open about this. For projects that fall into the grey area, there is a committee of engineers and lawyers that you can submit your (personal) projects to, and they can give you a clear answer that the IP is owned by you. From anecdotes I've heard, the committee is very friendly to employees.

dstein 15y ago
I find the idea of bringing a personal project into the office and having a committee decide whether I own it or not, to be rather distasteful. The obvious course of action is for developers to universally stop signing over their rights willingly like this. Nobody should ever have to sign these invention clauses to be employed.
- rxin 15y ago
  Often is it hard to justify whether you completely own the IP. For example, you could've used the company resource to respond to an email related to your personal project. Or some ideas for your personal project might've been influenced by your day work. Rather than delaying this type of problems till later stage, it is easier to just resolve such issues explicitly.
- MattLaroche 15y ago
  It's about avoiding situations where your work and your personal life are in conflict ("conflict of interest") and many employers ask you to sign such a thing. If you're not working on something similar to what the employer is working on, it's not a problem. If you're working on something that will compete with what your employer is doing, there's a problem. If you were running a sports team, you wouldn't let your employees run a betting parlor - they'd have too much incentive to throw a game and profit off it. In the same way, employers don't want their employees having situations where the company's goals and the employee's goals are at odds.
  - dstein 15y ago
    If you're not working on something similar to what the employer is working on, it's not a problem. Depends on the contract you sign. A lot of employers demand their employees automatically sign over all invention rights (past and future), and then have a process to (maybe) give your rights back -- and it sounds like this is how Google approaches it.
nostrademons 15y ago
It's probably a bit more true than that. You got the process right, but the problem is that Google is in so many lines of business that almost anything you do could be considered "along the lines of business of your employer". The success of getting IP rights assigned to you personally is heavily dependent upon what you're doing. If it's just a Chrome extension for your favorite website or a webapp that caters to a niche interest you have, no problem. If it's a casual game (now that Google+ has launched) or a mobile app, it can be very, very difficult, as those are industries of pretty heavy strategic importance to Google.
- pfedor 15y ago
  My personal experience: I submitted two personal projects http://kartofel.jfedor.org/ http://kartofel.jfedor.org/ and https://market.android.com/details?id=org.jfedor.frozenbubble https://market.android.com/details?id=org.jfedor.frozenbubbl... last year (in July I believe) and both were rejected (i.e., the committee said that Google would not release copyright). However, recently (a month or two ago) I was told that the rules changed and now they were happy to release the copyright for both. In the meantime I tried to get my employment agreement altered to state that my personal projects belong to me, not to Google, but I found there was absolutely no room for negotiation there (despite the fact that my manager, an eng director, supported this). I was told by the legal department that the only person in the company who could approve such thing was Larry Page. It is true that Google has a very easy process to open-source your projects. One practical pain is that if you want to accept patches you have to get every contributor to sign Google's CLA.

1010011010 15y ago

In my experience, all computer/technology corporations do that. But Google lets you open-source your personal stuff with essentially no friction. edit: added "in my experience".

metajack 15y ago
No they don't, and you don't have to settle for it.

rachelbythebay 15y ago

True. Unless you're one of the chosen few. Also, it's not a simple open-and-shut "yep, we own it" response. It takes ages, while you lose whatever enthusiasm you might have had going in to the idea.