3 ms·

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 i

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.
- tptacek 13y ago
  I'm not sure that it matters all that much what state you're in; whatever the state defaults are, they're "corrected" by boilerplate employment rights assignment contracts.
  - JohnHaugeland 13y ago
    It matters intensely which state you're in, because quite a few states, such as California, have declared that kind of rights assignment contract unenforceable / illegal. Don't forget how common it is for companies to sign their staff to nonsense in the hope of scaring them out of their rights through ignorance.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      From what I can tell, California requires IP assignment to be narrowly construed, but that's probably not enough to keep you out of court.
      - JohnHaugeland 13y ago
        Well in the vernacular, "you can sue for a ham sandwich;" virtually nothing can keep you out of court. I can sue you, and get you into court, for murdering my pet vampire using the power of forgiveness, if I want to, and am willing to waste the money. I mean, to your actual point, yes, there are cases where this can come up and be valid, but my understanding of this part of the thread was that we were making comparison to New York state boilerplate contracts that would take ownership of anything produced on side time, and that has been tested and there is a significant body of "oh hell no" in California law. IANAL, TINLA, etc ad nauseum.
        tptacek 13y ago
        I think the vernacular is that you can indict a ham sandwich. But yes, my point is just that no matter what US jurisdiction you work in, you probably won't go wrong by adopting the most conservative interpretation of your employment contract.
mjolk 13y ago
>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. The first example made me cringe. Let's say that I work at EA (I don't), coding up the next iteration of Sport Ball 2k15. In this example, at home, I'm writing Yet-Another-Dungeon-Crawler (YADC) (tm). All the two have in common is that they are video games. Should EA get rights to YADC(tm)? What's the scope? On the second, this is even worse. If I worked at Ford building cars all day and was working on a Go Karts on the weekend, is there a gray area here? What if I repaired and sold vintage Jaguars on the side? Can I not apply skills that I've learned in my side-pursuits? Why would I not be able to use my training to produce things for myself? Why should companies be the default owner of the fruits of our personal labors? >Your bartender case I have no idea how a judge would take that. The judge might see it as common sense. I think it's a fun thought experiment. Of course the bartender won't have to pay the bar owner for his labors outside of work, he's just making drinks! However, when your skills are technical, the non-technical audience treats it differently.
- svachalek 13y ago
  It's more like, what would happen if the bartender invented the next margarita, i.e. something that becomes an international standard? Can the bar he works at claim some kind of trademark or patent to it? Or it would be, if it weren't nearly impossible to get any sort of IP for food.
- greggman 13y ago
  Yes, EA would own your work. 1. You're making a competing product. EA makes games. You're making a game 2. You're have a conflict of interest. If you figure out how to speed something up 20% at home you arguably have a duty to share that at work. If you have a game idea for your game at home you think it unique you arguably have a duty to share that at work. It would be up to a judge to decide what "related to their business" means. There's a spectrum. Both are FPS games, One is FPS, one is RTS. One is Online, on is offline. Is a gaming web site related? EA runs a gaming website. I have no idea. Do you want to find out after spending XXX hours on something it belongs to your employer? No? Then maybe you should ask them. Note: Many companies will sign an agreement on request and review that allow you to make things that might have a conflict of interest. My understanding is EA specifically does this because so many of their employees wanted to make mobile games on the side. I have no idea what that agreement says. It might say EA gets the first right to publish it. Again I have no idea. I know Google allows outside projects with permission. You submit a description of your project. They review it. If they don't see a conflict of interest they'll give you a signed document saying so so you can work on it with no issues.

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.

tptacek 13y ago
I'm not sure that it matters all that much what state you're in; whatever the state defaults are, they're "corrected" by boilerplate employment rights assignment contracts.
- JohnHaugeland 13y ago
  It matters intensely which state you're in, because quite a few states, such as California, have declared that kind of rights assignment contract unenforceable / illegal. Don't forget how common it is for companies to sign their staff to nonsense in the hope of scaring them out of their rights through ignorance.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    From what I can tell, California requires IP assignment to be narrowly construed, but that's probably not enough to keep you out of court.
    - JohnHaugeland 13y ago
      Well in the vernacular, "you can sue for a ham sandwich;" virtually nothing can keep you out of court. I can sue you, and get you into court, for murdering my pet vampire using the power of forgiveness, if I want to, and am willing to waste the money. I mean, to your actual point, yes, there are cases where this can come up and be valid, but my understanding of this part of the thread was that we were making comparison to New York state boilerplate contracts that would take ownership of anything produced on side time, and that has been tested and there is a significant body of "oh hell no" in California law. IANAL, TINLA, etc ad nauseum.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I think the vernacular is that you can indict a ham sandwich. But yes, my point is just that no matter what US jurisdiction you work in, you probably won't go wrong by adopting the most conservative interpretation of your employment contract.

mjolk 13y ago

>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. The first example made me cringe. Let's say that I work at EA (I don't), coding up the next iteration of Sport Ball 2k15. In this example, at home, I'm writing Yet-Another-Dungeon-Crawler (YADC) (tm). All the two have in common is that they are video games. Should EA get rights to YADC(tm)? What's the scope? On the second, this is even worse. If I worked at Ford building cars all day and was working on a Go Karts on the weekend, is there a gray area here? What if I repaired and sold vintage Jaguars on the side? Can I not apply skills that I've learned in my side-pursuits? Why would I not be able to use my training to produce things for myself? Why should companies be the default owner of the fruits of our personal labors? >Your bartender case I have no idea how a judge would take that. The judge might see it as common sense. I think it's a fun thought experiment. Of course the bartender won't have to pay the bar owner for his labors outside of work, he's just making drinks! However, when your skills are technical, the non-technical audience treats it differently.

svachalek 13y ago
It's more like, what would happen if the bartender invented the next margarita, i.e. something that becomes an international standard? Can the bar he works at claim some kind of trademark or patent to it? Or it would be, if it weren't nearly impossible to get any sort of IP for food.
greggman 13y ago
Yes, EA would own your work. 1. You're making a competing product. EA makes games. You're making a game 2. You're have a conflict of interest. If you figure out how to speed something up 20% at home you arguably have a duty to share that at work. If you have a game idea for your game at home you think it unique you arguably have a duty to share that at work. It would be up to a judge to decide what "related to their business" means. There's a spectrum. Both are FPS games, One is FPS, one is RTS. One is Online, on is offline. Is a gaming web site related? EA runs a gaming website. I have no idea. Do you want to find out after spending XXX hours on something it belongs to your employer? No? Then maybe you should ask them. Note: Many companies will sign an agreement on request and review that allow you to make things that might have a conflict of interest. My understanding is EA specifically does this because so many of their employees wanted to make mobile games on the side. I have no idea what that agreement says. It might say EA gets the first right to publish it. Again I have no idea. I know Google allows outside projects with permission. You submit a description of your project. They review it. If they don't see a conflict of interest they'll give you a signed document saying so so you can work on it with no issues.