4 ms·

>If you want to do open-source work on an area related to your job you must talk to your employer first I promise you that's not the law. A bartender that mak

by mjolk 13y ago

>If you want to do open-source work on an area related to your job you must talk to your employer first I promise you that's not the law. A bartender that makes drinks for his friends at a house party doesn't have to reimburse his employer for skills learned when tending a bar. > and whatever open source work you do you should be sure you're either not using company resources or have permission to use them But this is a valid point. If you're using company hardware and resources, you're arguably spending resources owned by the company.

bennylope 13y ago
>If you want to do open-source work on an area related to your job you must talk to your employer first It isn't the law, but a some employment agreements give de factor ownership of any intellectual property an employee produces to the company, own time or not.
kzahel 13y ago
I would argue that this is a moot point since computer hardware is a commodity. Most companies around here buy their employees new hardware and said employees will simply use them for all their computing needs as is convenient (would you travel with 2 laptops just to be able to claim you didn't use company hardware). I frankly find this kind of legal posturing by companies abhorrent and immoral. It's almost like treating employees as slaves.
- mjolk 13y ago
  >I would argue that this is a moot point since computer hardware is a commodity. The cost of the hardware is recognized (in accounting) over the life of the machine. >(would you travel with 2 laptops just to be able to claim you didn't use company hardware). I have a really nice computer from work and an old laptop at home. I use my old laptop for all personal projects to avoid just such an issue.
- sleepybrett 13y ago
  > (would you travel with 2 laptops just to be able to claim you didn't use company hardware) I do.
- waterfowl 13y ago
  Oh come on two MBPs is not an unreasonable travel burden(though for a while I was doing it with an MBP(personal) and a W520 and that made people mad at me at airport security)
xenophonf 13y ago
My employment agreements typically include something about work product and rights assignments to the employer. I gather that my employers' contracts with their customers have similar intellectual property transfers (from the contractor to the customer). As a result, I've always explicitly sought exceptions from both employers and customers. Even if it isn't required, it doesn't hurt to have something on paper that says my contributions to some free software project are on the up-and-up.
dllthomas 13y ago
A bartender is typically an hourly employee, clearly paid for the time they are "clocked in". A salaried, "exempt" employee is a little bit of a different thing. Which isn't to say that the quoted imperative is "the law" - that depends on jurisdiction and the wording of contracts that have been signed. In any event, the imperative is great advice, though!
greggman 13y ago
That is the law in many places, California being one. Companies generally own anything you do related to their business. Related is up to a judge to decide if it gets to that point but some arguably obvious examples: making a game on the side while working for a game company. Making an email website while working for a company that makes an email website. Why it makes sense IMO. Without the company owning work related to their business outside of work hours that would seem to make something along these lines legal. Employee is at home, after work hours, and thinks of solution to problem at work on his project. The next day he comes to work and demands if the company wants this solution he must be compensated for work he did on his own time that belongs to him. Your bartender case I have no idea how a judge would take that. The judge might see it as common sense. On the other hand if the bartender took a second job bartending a judge might decide that's not okay. Examples: Bartender invents new drink in Bar #2. Does Bar #2 own that? Can Bar #2 trademark the new drink? Can Bar #1 claim bartender has a conflict of interest because while working at Bar #2 it's arguably his job to lure people away from Bar #1. Here's a quote from Nolo: " Moonlighting Generally speaking, working more than one job is lawful. However, an employer has the right to limit after-hours work that is in conflict with the employer's own business. For instance, going to work for the competition could provide grounds for discipline or discharge. " http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/off-duty-conduct-employee-rights-33590.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/off-duty-conduct-empl... Here's another "Employees Owe a Duty of Loyalty to Their Employers ... Thus, an employee who improperly competes with his employer, assists a competitor during the course of employment, or makes use of the employer's confidential information to compete with the employer after termination may have breached the duty of loyalty. " etc.. http://shawvalenza.com/publications.php?id=68 http://shawvalenza.com/publications.php?id=68
- btilly 13y ago
  I should note that California is a generous state in this regard. New York is much worse - if you're a programmer, they own anything that you program on the side, related or not. I have long believed that this legal difference is a big part of why "doing a startup on the side" is far more common in California than New York.
  - 13y ago
tptacek 13y ago
Whoah. Be careful. Off-hours work doesn't statutorily belong to employers (ie, it's not "the law"), but employees can and often do sign contracts conceding the rights to their off-hours work to employers. The law most definitely sees many of those contracts as enforceable.
- JimboOmega 13y ago
  It depends on the state; in 8 states there are restrictions, most notably California. Such contracts aren't enforceable in CA: http://www.intellectualpropertylawfirms.com/resources/intellectual-property/patents/is-your-pre-inve http://www.intellectualpropertylawfirms.com/resources/intell... But of course, if you use any company resources (including computers)... then they can be.
gcb0 13y ago
> But this is a valid point. If you're using company hardware and resources, you're arguably spending resources owned by the company. Really? you are going to try to defend this point of view? OK, so he should just pay $3.50 for the electricity and internet he used for those commits and everyone will be happy.

by mjolk 13y ago

bennylope 13y ago

>If you want to do open-source work on an area related to your job you must talk to your employer first It isn't the law, but a some employment agreements give de factor ownership of any intellectual property an employee produces to the company, own time or not.

kzahel 13y ago

I would argue that this is a moot point since computer hardware is a commodity. Most companies around here buy their employees new hardware and said employees will simply use them for all their computing needs as is convenient (would you travel with 2 laptops just to be able to claim you didn't use company hardware). I frankly find this kind of legal posturing by companies abhorrent and immoral. It's almost like treating employees as slaves.

mjolk 13y ago
>I would argue that this is a moot point since computer hardware is a commodity. The cost of the hardware is recognized (in accounting) over the life of the machine. >(would you travel with 2 laptops just to be able to claim you didn't use company hardware). I have a really nice computer from work and an old laptop at home. I use my old laptop for all personal projects to avoid just such an issue.
sleepybrett 13y ago
> (would you travel with 2 laptops just to be able to claim you didn't use company hardware) I do.
waterfowl 13y ago
Oh come on two MBPs is not an unreasonable travel burden(though for a while I was doing it with an MBP(personal) and a W520 and that made people mad at me at airport security)

xenophonf 13y ago

My employment agreements typically include something about work product and rights assignments to the employer. I gather that my employers' contracts with their customers have similar intellectual property transfers (from the contractor to the customer). As a result, I've always explicitly sought exceptions from both employers and customers. Even if it isn't required, it doesn't hurt to have something on paper that says my contributions to some free software project are on the up-and-up.

dllthomas 13y ago

A bartender is typically an hourly employee, clearly paid for the time they are "clocked in". A salaried, "exempt" employee is a little bit of a different thing. Which isn't to say that the quoted imperative is "the law" - that depends on jurisdiction and the wording of contracts that have been signed. In any event, the imperative is great advice, though!

greggman 13y ago

That is the law in many places, California being one. Companies generally own anything you do related to their business. Related is up to a judge to decide if it gets to that point but some arguably obvious examples: making a game on the side while working for a game company. Making an email website while working for a company that makes an email website. Why it makes sense IMO. Without the company owning work related to their business outside of work hours that would seem to make something along these lines legal. Employee is at home, after work hours, and thinks of solution to problem at work on his project. The next day he comes to work and demands if the company wants this solution he must be compensated for work he did on his own time that belongs to him. Your bartender case I have no idea how a judge would take that. The judge might see it as common sense. On the other hand if the bartender took a second job bartending a judge might decide that's not okay. Examples: Bartender invents new drink in Bar #2. Does Bar #2 own that? Can Bar #2 trademark the new drink? Can Bar #1 claim bartender has a conflict of interest because while working at Bar #2 it's arguably his job to lure people away from Bar #1. Here's a quote from Nolo: " Moonlighting Generally speaking, working more than one job is lawful. However, an employer has the right to limit after-hours work that is in conflict with the employer's own business. For instance, going to work for the competition could provide grounds for discipline or discharge. " http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/off-duty-conduct-employee-rights-33590.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/off-duty-conduct-empl... Here's another "Employees Owe a Duty of Loyalty to Their Employers ... Thus, an employee who improperly competes with his employer, assists a competitor during the course of employment, or makes use of the employer's confidential information to compete with the employer after termination may have breached the duty of loyalty. " etc.. http://shawvalenza.com/publications.php?id=68 http://shawvalenza.com/publications.php?id=68

btilly 13y ago
I should note that California is a generous state in this regard. New York is much worse - if you're a programmer, they own anything that you program on the side, related or not. I have long believed that this legal difference is a big part of why "doing a startup on the side" is far more common in California than New York.
- 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

Whoah. Be careful. Off-hours work doesn't statutorily belong to employers (ie, it's not "the law"), but employees can and often do sign contracts conceding the rights to their off-hours work to employers. The law most definitely sees many of those contracts as enforceable.

JimboOmega 13y ago
It depends on the state; in 8 states there are restrictions, most notably California. Such contracts aren't enforceable in CA: http://www.intellectualpropertylawfirms.com/resources/intellectual-property/patents/is-your-pre-inve http://www.intellectualpropertylawfirms.com/resources/intell... But of course, if you use any company resources (including computers)... then they can be.

gcb0 13y ago

> But this is a valid point. If you're using company hardware and resources, you're arguably spending resources owned by the company. Really? you are going to try to defend this point of view? OK, so he should just pay $3.50 for the electricity and internet he used for those commits and everyone will be happy.