7 ms·

Many years ago I had a job offer at Badoo in the UK. After many rounds of going back-and-forth with the contract, me trying to better understand certain clauses

Many years ago I had a job offer at Badoo in the UK. After many rounds of going back-and-forth with the contract, me trying to better understand certain clauses, them going back to the lawyers, etc. I told them I'd be happy to sign if they removed the caluses that stated pretty much anything I created on or off hours belonged to them. They went back to the lawyers and came back to me saying that this is not the first time this has been brought up, that the contract was standard across the org and was originally written for managerial types and C-suites, and that the company had never even considered taking over an employee's off-hours work, open source or otherwise. I said good, then it should not be a problem to remove the clause. They said they would have another discussion and would really like it for me to join. I said great, then once you issue me a contract with that clause I'll be happy to join, assuming I hadn't found something else. They never came back to me. For years I wondered if anything had actually changed. Reading this tweet I'm glad I declined.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
My experience from the other side of the fence is that this is pretty standard, i.e. nobody would really bother with changing the standard contract for one potential employee unless they were perceived as a crucial asset. The people who do the hiring, the ones who make the decisions and the ones who will work with you later - these are very different groups of people, with some (very temporary) overlap. The hiring ones, just like most people, prefer to avoid unnecessary problems and additional paperwork, and move on. Mind you, if many people have the same attitude as you, the hiring people may actually make the change happen forcing the people in charge to approve a variant of the contract without that clause and offer it to the ones who complain but are otherwise excellent candidates. But this is not a quick and easy process.
- caseymarquis 5y ago
  I would. I'd actually view someone asking for this as a positive.
- cassianoleal 5y ago
  This was the first time I actually came across a clause of this type in an employment contract. I knew of their existence but had never found them in the wild. I sincerely hope enough people refuse to sign those that it becomes a problem for companies. When I go into an employment, I'm agreeing to rent a certain number of hours of my skills to the company's benefit. I'm not agreeing to give the company any kind of control of what I do or don't do outside of those hours. Mind you, I'm not saying I would _never_ sign such a clause, but that would be a lot more expensive. I would probably agree to it if I could work 3-5 years and retire comfortably.
  - dcow 5y ago
    We have the same problem with terms of service. Someone wants something (salary, product) and all that registers is “I can have it if I sign/accept”. The only way to fix these things would be for some sort of organization (union) to exist that puts pressure on the industry, or legal simplification/ground rules protecting generally people’s rights.
    - rahimnathwani 5y ago
      Not the only way. California and Washington have legal protections for employees. IP you create outside working hours, on your own hardware, and wholly unrelated to your job, is your own.
      - tingletech 5y ago
        The question becomes what is wholly unrelated. If I'm hired to program, some might argue that any code I write is not wholly unrelated to my work.
        rahimnathwani 5y ago
        Right, but the law is written better than my comment :) https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/lab/division-3/2870-2872/2870/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/lab/division-3/...
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  > Mind you, if many people have the same attitude as you, the hiring people may actually make the change happen forcing the people in charge to approve a variant of the contract without that clause and offer it to the ones who complain but are otherwise excellent candidates. But this is not a quick and easy process. I agree with the rest of your post, and I think this is the most important part: if enough people do it, than it's likely that a change will happen. If no one ever bothers to complain, nothing will ever change.
- Silhouette 5y ago
  This is not a universal position. I have seen employers large and small change proposed contracts in reasonable ways when asked by individuals. Some of them see this as a positive because it demonstrates that they did negotiate reasonably and so they are not requiring a contract of adhesion.
- danschuller 5y ago
  I've had contracts amended on request, I don't think it's unusual or uncommon. Though I'm a data point of one :)
  - neltnerb 5y ago
    Honestly, my main complaint about this is that if you consider the types of people that would be willing to demand a contract amendment you can see that this kind of screws over junior employees and people who don't feel they have the social status to push back. I've also had many contracts amended on request/insistence, but I have a lot of leverage. I shouldn't need a bunch of leverage to get obviously abusive clauses removed, a brand new graduate deserves to be subjected to it no more than I do.
- wutwutwutwut 5y ago
  > nobody would really bother with changing the standard contract for one potential employee I have gotten through changes 2 times at the places I joined. I have simply told them I cant accept the agreement because of X. Making some amendment to a employment contract is probably cheaper than skipping a hire the last second after several interviews.
tomxor 5y ago
I had a similar situation with my current job, but with a happy ending. The contract was "standard" but others who also read it thoroughly had the same issue with broad, overreaching clauses that essentially attempt to claim complete IP ownership of everything the employee ever touched. The directors were very reasonable and understood my concerns, we eventually managed to remove or reword all of the offending parts. The origins of these clauses appeared to be entirely from third party lawyers, probably derived from some boilerplate contract. I presume their priority is to maximise legal "protection" for the company at all cost... even if it drives employees away, so it's not necessarily something the company explicitly asked for. Whether or not you are able to push back against them probably has more to do with the company culture and whether the leaders or hiring managers are sympathetic to developers and how the FOSS world really works. I think this is probably true for most small companies, that it's incidental and intended for protection... but obviously in this case Bumble seem to actively be exploiting these clauses for gain rather than protection.
- em-bee 5y ago
  in my first fulltime job in the US, i managed to not only have the offending clauses removed but also a clause added that guaranteed that all code i'd write for the company would be released under the GPL (as i was going to work on something FOSS related anyways) with that clause ownership mattered less because i knew that i would be able to reuse any of my code under the GPL which was good enough for me.
- _odey 5y ago
  Would you be willing to copy paste (redacted if needed) exactly what the "Intellectual Property Rights" section of your contract states right now? I would like to have it on hand to use as a "this is what others have and I want the same", concrete example.
  - StrLght 5y ago
    Not OP, but here's the exact words from the contract: >You will give the Company full written details of all Inventions and of all works embodying Intellectual Property Rights made wholly or partially by You at any time during the course of Your Employment (whether or not during working hours or using Company premises or resources) which relate to, or are reasonably capable of being used in, the business of the Company or any Group Company. You acknowledge that all Intellectual Property Rights subsisting (or which may in the future subsist) in all such Inventions and works will automatically, on creation, vest in the Company absolutely. To the extent that they do not vest automatically, You hold them on trust for the Company. You agree to execute promptly all documents and to do all acts as may, in the opinion of the Company, be necessary to give effect to this clause 20.1.
teeray 5y ago
It makes me wonder if there’s a way to put together a standard rider that overrides those clauses. Then it just becomes an exchange of paper to sign.
- cellularmitosis 5y ago
  Yes, this is part of California law. I forget the url, but if you google for it, it is less than one page. You can just print it out and bring it with you and say “FAANG does this, and I expect it as well”
  - yawnxyz 5y ago
    Could you (or anyone) please post it? I'm not even sure what phrase to Google for
    - kam 5y ago
      California Labor Code section 2870
    - statquontrarian 5y ago
      https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2870 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
      - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
        It's still vague. What about something created prior to one's employment that is directly applicable to the business. Do they automatically have claim over it? Can you not make any changes while with that employer?
      - runnerup 5y ago
        This basically only protects employees of small businesses. The language makes it seem like anyone working at a FAANG definitely still can't invent anything.
ma2rten 5y ago
This reminded me of this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25281438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25281438
walshemj 5y ago
you wont get on hours removed - think about it
fiddlerwoaroof 5y ago
This is something I dislike about the rise of DocuSign contracts: with paper, I can cross out clauses before signing and then the ball is in the other party’s court to decide if the result is acceptable. DocuSign makes this sort of flexibility much more difficult and is an implicit bias towards the employer’s side of negotiations. However, in CA at least, these clauses are limited by law and, as long as your employer doesn’t work on everything, employees have fairly broad protections for side projects that don’t compete with their employer.
- stavros 5y ago
  Agreed, it should have an "amend" feature. However, I download the PDF, edit it, sign and send to them to countersign. Then it favors me.
- kenneth 5y ago
  DocuSign actually let's you download documents to paper sign and reupload. You could do the same on DocuSign.
fibbberMEN 5y ago
This is why you keep your off work hours.. work not related to your name or identity.
bitwize 5y ago
I once took a job and on my first day they gave me an employment contract, one clause of which stated that I would grant the company rights to use my name, voice, and likeness "for marketing purposes". I said hell to the no. I was prepared to walk out rather than sign that. Thankfully they drew up another contract om the spot with that bit removed. Not so thankfully, they dropped me before I could actually prove myself (about 3 weeks) so I might've pissed someone off.
- ghaff 5y ago
  That sort of thing is routine if you speak at events etc. I don't recall ever seeing it in one of the few employment contracts I've seen but companies quite commonly use employee quotes/photos/etc. to put a face on the company and, whether or not it was in a contract, most employers would probably assume it was part of the job at some level.
switch007 5y ago
That “it’s standard wording” phrase is very … standard.
brundolf 5y ago
To add an anecdote: on my last job search I got offers from two different but very similar companies (both around ~200 people). I got one first, read through the contract, saw the standard clause about owning your whole life. I told them it was a deal-breaker if we couldn't get it changed. I got the standard response "oh we never act on that, lots of people here have side-projects", etc. I told them if that was the policy, it needed to be in writing. They escalated internally, talked with legal, etc, but the decision-makers ultimately wouldn't budge. I walked away, and told them in very plain terms that their legal department was responsible for how things turned out. Shortly afterward I started the process with the second company. Got to the end, saw the clause, told them it was a deal-breaker. Discussed it on multiple calls with different people, eventually the CTO himself who was still reluctant to change it but was sympathetic. Eventually they were able to come back with a contract where that entire section was cut out. I took the offer and it's been a great job so far. I guess what I'm saying is: hold out. Make a stink about these draconian contracts, and you'll eventually get through and find someone willing to be reasonable. Who knows, if enough people draw a line in the sand maybe it'll become a big enough roadblock that they'll stop putting it in the "standard" contracts.
- willhinsa 5y ago
  Thank you for sharing those anecdotes. Holding out seems like the right thing to do, game theory wise. Plus, it just feels right to me. P.S. I really enjoyed your website. I'm a type 1 and 3 mix myself :)
  - brundolf 5y ago
    Thank you! :)
- stavros 5y ago
  Thirded, I would never knowingly work for a company with a clause like that. Whenever I see it, I strike it out and return the signed contract. Usually it's easier for them to just sign and get it over with than to go into a whole thing with legal. This is startups, though. YMMV with big companies. Still, no way I'd accept them owning my considerable volume of (FOSS) side-projects.
INTPenis 5y ago
Have to add my own anecdote to yours because this type of shifty behaviour is apparently common. I was not hired as a developer, more like devops. But I ended up creating a lot of code. And through sheer principle I did it all open source. Created public repos of everything and then private branches for our internal Git. Fast forward 7-8 years and we're using our parent orgs system to manage salary, vacation and stuff like that. My manager wants me to approve something in this new system so I login and I'm greeted with a new employee contract. The system says I have to sign this to proceed, and in this country we have digital identities so signing it would be as simple as taking out my mobile phone, starting an eID app, challenge, response, code, voilá signed. Luckily I became very suspicious, downloaded the PDF version instead of signing it. Read it carefully, showed friends who are in the business. Turns out it was the exact same clause, everything I create, on or off hours, belongs to parent org. I simply refused to sign it and since I was already hired from a previous contract they removed the requirement from the system so I could proceed. Now I believe this was a simple case of Hanlon's razor, but damn it would have caught a lot of less vigilant people. And to be fair, I have nothing against keeping certain code private. If my employer tells me that a project cannot be open source then I will comply. But by default anything I write is open source unless anyone requests otherwise, or I consider it a bad idea due to some reason that is usually about security.
- infinite8s 5y ago
  What kind of principle lets you open source code you created at your employer? Or are saying you were employed as DevOps but wrote lots of code in your free time?
  - INTPenis 5y ago
    Both kinda. There is nothing in my contract saying that what I create is owned by my employer. Likely because of mergers and because I wasn't hired for a developer role. If you're hired today the contract will absolutely say that they own everything. And most of the stuff I write has a use outside of work, even if it's just for myself to learn something. So that's why in 90% of cases I start with making something open source and just use it at work. So it's no different than me using someone elses open source code, it's just written by me, both on and off duty.
therealdrag0 5y ago
It’s much easier when you can resist in numbers. I worked at a company that tried to get existing employees to sign a new contract like this abs we were all like naw. After multiple meetings and negotiations they scrapped it and narrowed it down to certain high level employees and sales.
b8 5y ago
Most tech companies in the US require for their employees to give their IP rights away. Apple has been known in to do this, but I remember reading about a Apple employee releasing a app he made under his S.O's account to bypass his agreement.
toshk 5y ago
In Dutch law it's actually by default the case that your employee can claim the ip of your work, if you want to prevent it you need to put the clause in, most people are not aware. Very disturbing.
- toshk 5y ago
  I mean employer
aforwardslash 5y ago
I was once presented with such a contract; After returning them a redacted version of the contract with all the offending clauses and pointing out that it was both abusive and unenforceable (as I was working from a country where these clauses, while not completely uncommon, aren't legal), they still insisted. I did them a counter-offer; I calculated how much money it would cost them to own everything I would produce or think of during the contract, and even told them I would carry a recorder to record every dumb idea, plus a bag to collect all the poop, so they could have all their precious IP. It was a fun discussion.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

My experience from the other side of the fence is that this is pretty standard, i.e. nobody would really bother with changing the standard contract for one potential employee unless they were perceived as a crucial asset. The people who do the hiring, the ones who make the decisions and the ones who will work with you later - these are very different groups of people, with some (very temporary) overlap. The hiring ones, just like most people, prefer to avoid unnecessary problems and additional paperwork, and move on. Mind you, if many people have the same attitude as you, the hiring people may actually make the change happen forcing the people in charge to approve a variant of the contract without that clause and offer it to the ones who complain but are otherwise excellent candidates. But this is not a quick and easy process.

caseymarquis 5y ago
I would. I'd actually view someone asking for this as a positive.
cassianoleal 5y ago
This was the first time I actually came across a clause of this type in an employment contract. I knew of their existence but had never found them in the wild. I sincerely hope enough people refuse to sign those that it becomes a problem for companies. When I go into an employment, I'm agreeing to rent a certain number of hours of my skills to the company's benefit. I'm not agreeing to give the company any kind of control of what I do or don't do outside of those hours. Mind you, I'm not saying I would _never_ sign such a clause, but that would be a lot more expensive. I would probably agree to it if I could work 3-5 years and retire comfortably.
- dcow 5y ago
  We have the same problem with terms of service. Someone wants something (salary, product) and all that registers is “I can have it if I sign/accept”. The only way to fix these things would be for some sort of organization (union) to exist that puts pressure on the industry, or legal simplification/ground rules protecting generally people’s rights.
  - rahimnathwani 5y ago
    Not the only way. California and Washington have legal protections for employees. IP you create outside working hours, on your own hardware, and wholly unrelated to your job, is your own.
    - tingletech 5y ago
      The question becomes what is wholly unrelated. If I'm hired to program, some might argue that any code I write is not wholly unrelated to my work.
      - rahimnathwani 5y ago
        Right, but the law is written better than my comment :) https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/lab/division-3/2870-2872/2870/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/lab/division-3/...
vladvasiliu 5y ago
> Mind you, if many people have the same attitude as you, the hiring people may actually make the change happen forcing the people in charge to approve a variant of the contract without that clause and offer it to the ones who complain but are otherwise excellent candidates. But this is not a quick and easy process. I agree with the rest of your post, and I think this is the most important part: if enough people do it, than it's likely that a change will happen. If no one ever bothers to complain, nothing will ever change.
Silhouette 5y ago
This is not a universal position. I have seen employers large and small change proposed contracts in reasonable ways when asked by individuals. Some of them see this as a positive because it demonstrates that they did negotiate reasonably and so they are not requiring a contract of adhesion.
danschuller 5y ago
I've had contracts amended on request, I don't think it's unusual or uncommon. Though I'm a data point of one :)
- neltnerb 5y ago
  Honestly, my main complaint about this is that if you consider the types of people that would be willing to demand a contract amendment you can see that this kind of screws over junior employees and people who don't feel they have the social status to push back. I've also had many contracts amended on request/insistence, but I have a lot of leverage. I shouldn't need a bunch of leverage to get obviously abusive clauses removed, a brand new graduate deserves to be subjected to it no more than I do.
wutwutwutwut 5y ago
> nobody would really bother with changing the standard contract for one potential employee I have gotten through changes 2 times at the places I joined. I have simply told them I cant accept the agreement because of X. Making some amendment to a employment contract is probably cheaper than skipping a hire the last second after several interviews.

tomxor 5y ago

I had a similar situation with my current job, but with a happy ending. The contract was "standard" but others who also read it thoroughly had the same issue with broad, overreaching clauses that essentially attempt to claim complete IP ownership of everything the employee ever touched. The directors were very reasonable and understood my concerns, we eventually managed to remove or reword all of the offending parts. The origins of these clauses appeared to be entirely from third party lawyers, probably derived from some boilerplate contract. I presume their priority is to maximise legal "protection" for the company at all cost... even if it drives employees away, so it's not necessarily something the company explicitly asked for. Whether or not you are able to push back against them probably has more to do with the company culture and whether the leaders or hiring managers are sympathetic to developers and how the FOSS world really works. I think this is probably true for most small companies, that it's incidental and intended for protection... but obviously in this case Bumble seem to actively be exploiting these clauses for gain rather than protection.

em-bee 5y ago
in my first fulltime job in the US, i managed to not only have the offending clauses removed but also a clause added that guaranteed that all code i'd write for the company would be released under the GPL (as i was going to work on something FOSS related anyways) with that clause ownership mattered less because i knew that i would be able to reuse any of my code under the GPL which was good enough for me.
_odey 5y ago
Would you be willing to copy paste (redacted if needed) exactly what the "Intellectual Property Rights" section of your contract states right now? I would like to have it on hand to use as a "this is what others have and I want the same", concrete example.
- StrLght 5y ago
  Not OP, but here's the exact words from the contract: >You will give the Company full written details of all Inventions and of all works embodying Intellectual Property Rights made wholly or partially by You at any time during the course of Your Employment (whether or not during working hours or using Company premises or resources) which relate to, or are reasonably capable of being used in, the business of the Company or any Group Company. You acknowledge that all Intellectual Property Rights subsisting (or which may in the future subsist) in all such Inventions and works will automatically, on creation, vest in the Company absolutely. To the extent that they do not vest automatically, You hold them on trust for the Company. You agree to execute promptly all documents and to do all acts as may, in the opinion of the Company, be necessary to give effect to this clause 20.1.

teeray 5y ago

It makes me wonder if there’s a way to put together a standard rider that overrides those clauses. Then it just becomes an exchange of paper to sign.

cellularmitosis 5y ago
Yes, this is part of California law. I forget the url, but if you google for it, it is less than one page. You can just print it out and bring it with you and say “FAANG does this, and I expect it as well”
- yawnxyz 5y ago
  Could you (or anyone) please post it? I'm not even sure what phrase to Google for
  - kam 5y ago
    California Labor Code section 2870
  - statquontrarian 5y ago
    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2870 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
    - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
      It's still vague. What about something created prior to one's employment that is directly applicable to the business. Do they automatically have claim over it? Can you not make any changes while with that employer?
    - runnerup 5y ago
      This basically only protects employees of small businesses. The language makes it seem like anyone working at a FAANG definitely still can't invent anything.

ma2rten 5y ago

This reminded me of this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25281438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25281438

walshemj 5y ago

you wont get on hours removed - think about it

fiddlerwoaroof 5y ago

This is something I dislike about the rise of DocuSign contracts: with paper, I can cross out clauses before signing and then the ball is in the other party’s court to decide if the result is acceptable. DocuSign makes this sort of flexibility much more difficult and is an implicit bias towards the employer’s side of negotiations. However, in CA at least, these clauses are limited by law and, as long as your employer doesn’t work on everything, employees have fairly broad protections for side projects that don’t compete with their employer.

stavros 5y ago
Agreed, it should have an "amend" feature. However, I download the PDF, edit it, sign and send to them to countersign. Then it favors me.
kenneth 5y ago
DocuSign actually let's you download documents to paper sign and reupload. You could do the same on DocuSign.

fibbberMEN 5y ago

This is why you keep your off work hours.. work not related to your name or identity.

bitwize 5y ago

I once took a job and on my first day they gave me an employment contract, one clause of which stated that I would grant the company rights to use my name, voice, and likeness "for marketing purposes". I said hell to the no. I was prepared to walk out rather than sign that. Thankfully they drew up another contract om the spot with that bit removed. Not so thankfully, they dropped me before I could actually prove myself (about 3 weeks) so I might've pissed someone off.

ghaff 5y ago
That sort of thing is routine if you speak at events etc. I don't recall ever seeing it in one of the few employment contracts I've seen but companies quite commonly use employee quotes/photos/etc. to put a face on the company and, whether or not it was in a contract, most employers would probably assume it was part of the job at some level.

switch007 5y ago

That “it’s standard wording” phrase is very … standard.

brundolf 5y ago

To add an anecdote: on my last job search I got offers from two different but very similar companies (both around ~200 people). I got one first, read through the contract, saw the standard clause about owning your whole life. I told them it was a deal-breaker if we couldn't get it changed. I got the standard response "oh we never act on that, lots of people here have side-projects", etc. I told them if that was the policy, it needed to be in writing. They escalated internally, talked with legal, etc, but the decision-makers ultimately wouldn't budge. I walked away, and told them in very plain terms that their legal department was responsible for how things turned out. Shortly afterward I started the process with the second company. Got to the end, saw the clause, told them it was a deal-breaker. Discussed it on multiple calls with different people, eventually the CTO himself who was still reluctant to change it but was sympathetic. Eventually they were able to come back with a contract where that entire section was cut out. I took the offer and it's been a great job so far. I guess what I'm saying is: hold out. Make a stink about these draconian contracts, and you'll eventually get through and find someone willing to be reasonable. Who knows, if enough people draw a line in the sand maybe it'll become a big enough roadblock that they'll stop putting it in the "standard" contracts.

willhinsa 5y ago
Thank you for sharing those anecdotes. Holding out seems like the right thing to do, game theory wise. Plus, it just feels right to me. P.S. I really enjoyed your website. I'm a type 1 and 3 mix myself :)
- brundolf 5y ago
  Thank you! :)
stavros 5y ago
Thirded, I would never knowingly work for a company with a clause like that. Whenever I see it, I strike it out and return the signed contract. Usually it's easier for them to just sign and get it over with than to go into a whole thing with legal. This is startups, though. YMMV with big companies. Still, no way I'd accept them owning my considerable volume of (FOSS) side-projects.

INTPenis 5y ago

Have to add my own anecdote to yours because this type of shifty behaviour is apparently common. I was not hired as a developer, more like devops. But I ended up creating a lot of code. And through sheer principle I did it all open source. Created public repos of everything and then private branches for our internal Git. Fast forward 7-8 years and we're using our parent orgs system to manage salary, vacation and stuff like that. My manager wants me to approve something in this new system so I login and I'm greeted with a new employee contract. The system says I have to sign this to proceed, and in this country we have digital identities so signing it would be as simple as taking out my mobile phone, starting an eID app, challenge, response, code, voilá signed. Luckily I became very suspicious, downloaded the PDF version instead of signing it. Read it carefully, showed friends who are in the business. Turns out it was the exact same clause, everything I create, on or off hours, belongs to parent org. I simply refused to sign it and since I was already hired from a previous contract they removed the requirement from the system so I could proceed. Now I believe this was a simple case of Hanlon's razor, but damn it would have caught a lot of less vigilant people. And to be fair, I have nothing against keeping certain code private. If my employer tells me that a project cannot be open source then I will comply. But by default anything I write is open source unless anyone requests otherwise, or I consider it a bad idea due to some reason that is usually about security.

infinite8s 5y ago
What kind of principle lets you open source code you created at your employer? Or are saying you were employed as DevOps but wrote lots of code in your free time?
- INTPenis 5y ago
  Both kinda. There is nothing in my contract saying that what I create is owned by my employer. Likely because of mergers and because I wasn't hired for a developer role. If you're hired today the contract will absolutely say that they own everything. And most of the stuff I write has a use outside of work, even if it's just for myself to learn something. So that's why in 90% of cases I start with making something open source and just use it at work. So it's no different than me using someone elses open source code, it's just written by me, both on and off duty.

therealdrag0 5y ago

It’s much easier when you can resist in numbers. I worked at a company that tried to get existing employees to sign a new contract like this abs we were all like naw. After multiple meetings and negotiations they scrapped it and narrowed it down to certain high level employees and sales.

b8 5y ago

Most tech companies in the US require for their employees to give their IP rights away. Apple has been known in to do this, but I remember reading about a Apple employee releasing a app he made under his S.O's account to bypass his agreement.

toshk 5y ago

In Dutch law it's actually by default the case that your employee can claim the ip of your work, if you want to prevent it you need to put the clause in, most people are not aware. Very disturbing.

toshk 5y ago
I mean employer

aforwardslash 5y ago

I was once presented with such a contract; After returning them a redacted version of the contract with all the offending clauses and pointing out that it was both abusive and unenforceable (as I was working from a country where these clauses, while not completely uncommon, aren't legal), they still insisted. I did them a counter-offer; I calculated how much money it would cost them to own everything I would produce or think of during the contract, and even told them I would carry a recorder to record every dumb idea, plus a bag to collect all the poop, so they could have all their precious IP. It was a fun discussion.