7 ms·

> Obviously, if I work as a developer making a stock trading app, I shouldn't be making a competing stock trading app after hours. Why is that obvious? If I wo

> Obviously, if I work as a developer making a stock trading app, I shouldn't be making a competing stock trading app after hours. Why is that obvious? If I work as a studio musician can I also be working on my own album after hours?

an_opabinia 5y ago
> If I work as a studio musician can I also be working on my own album after hours? Yes. > Why is that obvious? Just because there's a law somewhere that covers both a part of making music and part of making software, and just because some programmers make music and some musicians write software, and both are sometimes creative, doesn't mean they have much in common.
lifeformed 5y ago
If you're using melodies and samples from work hours, then maybe not. And it would be tough to argue that your at-home trading app code is completely uninfluenced by ideas you have at work.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  True, but you can’t use the studio’s IP regardless of whether you work for the studio.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > If you're using melodies and samples from work hours, then maybe not. That would not be a question of competition, but of IP theft. > And it would be tough to argue that your at-home trading app code is completely uninfluenced by ideas you have at work. How is that of any relevance? I can have ideas about a better way to wipe my ass at work, is my novel ass-wiping implement competing with the company? And even if it were, mere competition should not be enough for NCCs to trigger. NCCs should be about unfair advantage owing to the exploitation of sensitive or confidential information.
  - MajorBee 5y ago
    Well, if your company is in the ass-wiping business...
    - masklinn 5y ago
      Even then I don't think so. Not unless the novel implement is straight up IP theft in which case… there's no need for an NCC, IP theft is already a crime.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    This depends. You're drawing a very restricted form of noncompete, one which is that a noncompete is only valid if for example I walk away with, say information about customer priorities and take them to a competitor. But there is a broader though still imo legitimate view that a company, paying a knowledge worker to solve a particular class of problems, has a right to the result of that work. An extreme example would be a company giving you a lab and research assistants, you working there a year and then parenting the results yourself and licensing them to a different company. It might not have required any insider info, and all the IP is ostensibly yours, but that feels abusive. Granted we're overlapping into IP assignment and moonlighting clauses, but they're all closely related.
- Scarblac 5y ago
  > And it would be tough to argue that your at-home trading app code is completely uninfluenced by ideas you have at work. And that your at-work trading app code would be influenced by ideas you have at home. You're a craftsman making trading apps, some for an employer, some for yourself, it's what you do. It's strange for an employer to be allowed to force you to stop doing the others without compensating you for it.
  - YetAnotherNick 5y ago
    > And that your at-work trading app code would be influenced by ideas you have at home. Umm, but you are also taking money from your employer so you can't say that in reverse.
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      Umm, but your employer is also taking time from you so you definitely can say that in reverse. In fact, your employer is taking your a fragment of your life, and human life is worth more than currency, so actually, it's really quite inappropriate if your employer was found accidentally using ideas that you had while you were in the shower at home when they weren't paying you. (internet you-can't-hear-my-voice disclaimer: this is obviously hyperbole meant to really drive home the point.) I'm generally a fan of market-based methods of structuring economic activity, but this sort of implicit assertion that the owner of capital is just obviously more important than the owner of labor really puts the "ism" is Capitalism. Labor is a market, and markets are determined by both the players and the rules under which the players compete. Companies use the force of law to coerce laborers (see: every other post in this tread where supposedly free people worry about being sued). It's completely fair game for labor-force participants to turn around are use that same force to coerce employers.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      It just depends on your agreement with the company. There's no reason that by default they own everything you do, beyond the fact that business has normalized it (and many other practices with the magic words 'it's just business').
- Siira 5y ago
  Laws should be written to increase long-term production, and protect the weak. I do not see how this law does either. It's classic bullying.
k__ 5y ago
Many employers see their markets as zero sum game.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Many markets are zero sum
rich_sasha 5y ago
You have a good idea for improving the product at 10 am. You think about it between 10 am and 4 pm. At 4 pm you discard the idea, not gonna work or sth. At 6 pm you type it into your app at home. Of course most people wouldn’t, but this is one narrow area where I think it is reasonable to limit employees.
CPLX 5y ago
For the most part artists signed to songwriting or publishing deals as well as run if the mill record deals sign over the rights to everything they produce during the covered period.
mabbo 5y ago
You know, you're right? I've been so indoctrinated in how non-competes work that I didn't even see that this wasn't obvious. Gah.
orangecat 5y ago
Why is that obvious? Because it creates a clear conflict of interest; stock trading apps compete with each other much more directly than do music albums.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > Because it creates a clear conflict of interest If you're not doing your job anymore, or are sabotaging your dayjob, then it's an employment issue. NCCs have no reason whatsoever to enter the equation before or after.
walshemj 5y ago
Yes that's a totally different employment relationship - you could be sued for plagiarism though.
jedimastert 5y ago
The implication isn't that you can't work in the same field, but that you could use inside knowledge trusted to you as an employee to get a leg up, which would be more analogues to taking licks and ideas from a hit album and using them in your own.
- II2II 5y ago
  What if that recording studio considered inside knowledge of the publishing industry gained from your employment with them as getting a leg up? That is more-or-less analogous to what a family member was told when asked to sign a non-compete for a job as a grocery store clerk. (To be specific, the company viewed knowing who their supplies were as reason for a non-compete.)

an_opabinia 5y ago

> If I work as a studio musician can I also be working on my own album after hours? Yes. > Why is that obvious? Just because there's a law somewhere that covers both a part of making music and part of making software, and just because some programmers make music and some musicians write software, and both are sometimes creative, doesn't mean they have much in common.

lifeformed 5y ago

If you're using melodies and samples from work hours, then maybe not. And it would be tough to argue that your at-home trading app code is completely uninfluenced by ideas you have at work.

tshaddox 5y ago
True, but you can’t use the studio’s IP regardless of whether you work for the studio.
masklinn 5y ago
> If you're using melodies and samples from work hours, then maybe not. That would not be a question of competition, but of IP theft. > And it would be tough to argue that your at-home trading app code is completely uninfluenced by ideas you have at work. How is that of any relevance? I can have ideas about a better way to wipe my ass at work, is my novel ass-wiping implement competing with the company? And even if it were, mere competition should not be enough for NCCs to trigger. NCCs should be about unfair advantage owing to the exploitation of sensitive or confidential information.
- MajorBee 5y ago
  Well, if your company is in the ass-wiping business...
  - masklinn 5y ago
    Even then I don't think so. Not unless the novel implement is straight up IP theft in which case… there's no need for an NCC, IP theft is already a crime.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  This depends. You're drawing a very restricted form of noncompete, one which is that a noncompete is only valid if for example I walk away with, say information about customer priorities and take them to a competitor. But there is a broader though still imo legitimate view that a company, paying a knowledge worker to solve a particular class of problems, has a right to the result of that work. An extreme example would be a company giving you a lab and research assistants, you working there a year and then parenting the results yourself and licensing them to a different company. It might not have required any insider info, and all the IP is ostensibly yours, but that feels abusive. Granted we're overlapping into IP assignment and moonlighting clauses, but they're all closely related.
Scarblac 5y ago
> And it would be tough to argue that your at-home trading app code is completely uninfluenced by ideas you have at work. And that your at-work trading app code would be influenced by ideas you have at home. You're a craftsman making trading apps, some for an employer, some for yourself, it's what you do. It's strange for an employer to be allowed to force you to stop doing the others without compensating you for it.
- YetAnotherNick 5y ago
  > And that your at-work trading app code would be influenced by ideas you have at home. Umm, but you are also taking money from your employer so you can't say that in reverse.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    Umm, but your employer is also taking time from you so you definitely can say that in reverse. In fact, your employer is taking your a fragment of your life, and human life is worth more than currency, so actually, it's really quite inappropriate if your employer was found accidentally using ideas that you had while you were in the shower at home when they weren't paying you. (internet you-can't-hear-my-voice disclaimer: this is obviously hyperbole meant to really drive home the point.) I'm generally a fan of market-based methods of structuring economic activity, but this sort of implicit assertion that the owner of capital is just obviously more important than the owner of labor really puts the "ism" is Capitalism. Labor is a market, and markets are determined by both the players and the rules under which the players compete. Companies use the force of law to coerce laborers (see: every other post in this tread where supposedly free people worry about being sued). It's completely fair game for labor-force participants to turn around are use that same force to coerce employers.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    It just depends on your agreement with the company. There's no reason that by default they own everything you do, beyond the fact that business has normalized it (and many other practices with the magic words 'it's just business').
Siira 5y ago
Laws should be written to increase long-term production, and protect the weak. I do not see how this law does either. It's classic bullying.

k__ 5y ago

Many employers see their markets as zero sum game.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Many markets are zero sum

rich_sasha 5y ago

You have a good idea for improving the product at 10 am. You think about it between 10 am and 4 pm. At 4 pm you discard the idea, not gonna work or sth. At 6 pm you type it into your app at home. Of course most people wouldn’t, but this is one narrow area where I think it is reasonable to limit employees.

CPLX 5y ago

For the most part artists signed to songwriting or publishing deals as well as run if the mill record deals sign over the rights to everything they produce during the covered period.

mabbo 5y ago

You know, you're right? I've been so indoctrinated in how non-competes work that I didn't even see that this wasn't obvious. Gah.

orangecat 5y ago

Why is that obvious? Because it creates a clear conflict of interest; stock trading apps compete with each other much more directly than do music albums.

masklinn 5y ago
> Because it creates a clear conflict of interest If you're not doing your job anymore, or are sabotaging your dayjob, then it's an employment issue. NCCs have no reason whatsoever to enter the equation before or after.

walshemj 5y ago

Yes that's a totally different employment relationship - you could be sued for plagiarism though.

jedimastert 5y ago

The implication isn't that you can't work in the same field, but that you could use inside knowledge trusted to you as an employee to get a leg up, which would be more analogues to taking licks and ideas from a hit album and using them in your own.

II2II 5y ago
What if that recording studio considered inside knowledge of the publishing industry gained from your employment with them as getting a leg up? That is more-or-less analogous to what a family member was told when asked to sign a non-compete for a job as a grocery store clerk. (To be specific, the company viewed knowing who their supplies were as reason for a non-compete.)