5 ms·

> Any programmer who thinks that they should have any right to have "their own time" and "side projects" should leave for a more friendly state. Like California

> Any programmer who thinks that they should have any right to have "their own time" and "side projects" should leave for a more friendly state. Like California. In New York, you can negotiate a contract to get this clause - it's quite common. The only difference is that contracts without the exemption (ie, total assignments) are considered enforceable, whereas in California, they aren't. That doesn't mean that Californian contracts don't sometimes include those clauses anyway - from a legal strategy standpoint, it's in the company's best interest to do so. Furthermore, my understanding is that this Californian precedent is rather limited in practice, since it's easy for a company to claim that your product is related to something that the company is doing or is planning on doing (and hard to prove otherwise), and similarly easy for them to claim that you've used company resources and/or time to do the project, as people sometimes do without thinking about it. When you start picking it apart, the Californian exemption is very narrow in letter, and even more so in practice. In short, you're definitely not missing out on anything automatically by coming to New York, because it depends on what kind of a contract you negotiate. And Californian law won't get you home free either, because there are too many other variables at play, and too many other ways for them to wiggle around the law - they just need the incentive to do so.

btilly 14y ago
The difference is much larger than you acknowledge. First of all in California it is against the law to fail to inform people of their rights. Thus even in the cases when contracts include those clauses, the impact is severely watered down. Secondly in New York, even contracts without these clauses by default have them implicitly included. Thirdly the "claim we're working on everything" issue is real in California, but only for people working for large corporations. People working for small companies can usually make a good case that they are working on something different. Fourth, there is a real difference in culture. In California it is common for people to do things like"start companies on the side", and therefore the natural response upon finding that someone has done so is to not try to contest it unless they have specific cause to. By contrast in New York this is not common, which means that employers are much, much more likely to try to explore their legal options. I am sure that it is possible to live in New York, sign careful contracts, and find people who will be supportive. However if management changes, or different lawyers examine those contracts, or someone just does the calculation that you won't be able to afford to assert your rights, I believe that your odds of running into trouble in New York are significantly higher than in California. Maybe I'm overreacting. But once burned, twice shy. This is among the reasons why I never again want to live in New York. (The weather would be another. The fact that it never quiets enough for me to sleep soundly would be a third.)
- walshemj 14y ago
  But can you a force the lawyers to enforce your rights in this case a company with deep pockets can drag out a law case for a long and costly time. Decades in some cases the long running section A pension case went on for well over a decade in the UK conveniently for the employer that meant that the people effected by the decision started dieing off reducing the cost.

btilly 14y ago

The difference is much larger than you acknowledge. First of all in California it is against the law to fail to inform people of their rights. Thus even in the cases when contracts include those clauses, the impact is severely watered down. Secondly in New York, even contracts without these clauses by default have them implicitly included. Thirdly the "claim we're working on everything" issue is real in California, but only for people working for large corporations. People working for small companies can usually make a good case that they are working on something different. Fourth, there is a real difference in culture. In California it is common for people to do things like"start companies on the side", and therefore the natural response upon finding that someone has done so is to not try to contest it unless they have specific cause to. By contrast in New York this is not common, which means that employers are much, much more likely to try to explore their legal options. I am sure that it is possible to live in New York, sign careful contracts, and find people who will be supportive. However if management changes, or different lawyers examine those contracts, or someone just does the calculation that you won't be able to afford to assert your rights, I believe that your odds of running into trouble in New York are significantly higher than in California. Maybe I'm overreacting. But once burned, twice shy. This is among the reasons why I never again want to live in New York. (The weather would be another. The fact that it never quiets enough for me to sleep soundly would be a third.)

walshemj 14y ago
But can you a force the lawyers to enforce your rights in this case a company with deep pockets can drag out a law case for a long and costly time. Decades in some cases the long running section A pension case went on for well over a decade in the UK conveniently for the employer that meant that the people effected by the decision started dieing off reducing the cost.