4 ms·

>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

by 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.
- wlesieutre 13y ago
  Under what authority is "We own everything you do in a related market" the default condition? From what I understand on this kind of stuff, it's completely determined by what contracts an employee has signed. "We own everything you do on company property or with company equipment" is basically universal and things done at your job are understood to be works-for-hire, but a company can't just claim "We own everything you do in your free time if it's related to computers" unless the employee has agreed to that in a contact. Am I wrong here? For your Google example, I would assume their review framework was set up by an agreement with the employees. I had an offer for a job where I was told "Anything you do on your own time is yours. And if you want to put that in a written agreement for a particular project, we're happy to." From what you say, maybe Google doesn't have quite as lax an approach, but their ability to decide what you can and can't work on must have been specified in an employment contract.
  - greggman 13y ago
    No, it is the default of the law. They don't need an employment agreement. See the links in my replies in this thread. The laws says the own nothing...EXCEPT...anything related to their business. They are being generous (or maybe just trying to make sure people don't quit) by signing agreements that let you out of the default law.
- WalterBright 13y ago
  I've found that employers are quite accommodating when an employee asks for permission to do a side project. Even if you're not obliged to, it's a matter of professional courtesy.

by mjolk 13y ago

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.

wlesieutre 13y ago
Under what authority is "We own everything you do in a related market" the default condition? From what I understand on this kind of stuff, it's completely determined by what contracts an employee has signed. "We own everything you do on company property or with company equipment" is basically universal and things done at your job are understood to be works-for-hire, but a company can't just claim "We own everything you do in your free time if it's related to computers" unless the employee has agreed to that in a contact. Am I wrong here? For your Google example, I would assume their review framework was set up by an agreement with the employees. I had an offer for a job where I was told "Anything you do on your own time is yours. And if you want to put that in a written agreement for a particular project, we're happy to." From what you say, maybe Google doesn't have quite as lax an approach, but their ability to decide what you can and can't work on must have been specified in an employment contract.
- greggman 13y ago
  No, it is the default of the law. They don't need an employment agreement. See the links in my replies in this thread. The laws says the own nothing...EXCEPT...anything related to their business. They are being generous (or maybe just trying to make sure people don't quit) by signing agreements that let you out of the default law.
WalterBright 13y ago
I've found that employers are quite accommodating when an employee asks for permission to do a side project. Even if you're not obliged to, it's a matter of professional courtesy.