23 ms·

My Ideas, My Boss’s Property

191 points by jcabala 13y ago

minglafille 13y ago
Confucious held that an idea or invention, once emerged, belongs to the whole world rather than the one that came up with it, this may be a contributing factor that China has such an IP issue, though it may be blasphemous, but it is another way to see the world.
rahimnathwani 13y ago
If part of your job is to create ideas within some domain, and you can't control exactly when said ideas will crystallize, should it matter whether you 'got' an idea whilst 'at work' rather than in the shower, or on the way to work? The line is difficult to draw precisely with legal language, so companies err on the side which protects them best (hoping employees will sign anyway, given they've already gone through the interview process and are likely to have similar terms at other employers).
- the_ancient 13y ago
  The bigger problem is not the ideas that relate to your every day job... But Say your a Aerospace Engineer working on rockets and on your off time you write a scifi book, after your done you take it to a publisher, they publish it, and then your employer claims ownership over that book... and sues you That type of shit happens all the time, and while that is an extreme example, there are all kinds of examples like a programmer getting paid to work on a billing system writes a childrens game for which the company claims ownership over... etc etc etc. The idea that just because your employed means you should give up any and all rights to your brain is ridiculous... There has to be a happy median there somewhere
  - ganeumann 13y ago
    you write a scifi book...and then your employer claims ownership over that book...That type of shit happens all the time Source?
  - vanattab 13y ago
    Any examples of when such a thing has happened? I see how those clauses could be construde to apply to such a situation but I have never heard of such an extreme example in practice.
    - the_ancient 13y ago
      I am trying to find the case, it was a few years ago that I read about the case... it was settled out of court I believe so never went to verdict.... That is the thing with these cases, 90% of the time the result is exactly like the post here earlier today, the former employer makes demands that the employee cease and desist distributing "their" work and the employee having little resources gives in, it never makes it to court.
  - vanattab 13y ago
    Any examples of when such a thing has happened? I see how those clauses could be construde to apply to such a situation but I have never heard of such an extreme example in practice.
  - rahimnathwani 13y ago
    I agree there has to be a happy medium. My point is that it's hard to draw that line precisely with legal language. So, employers will do what's easiest for them, given that most people don't push back, and the employer can afford to lose the few that decide not to take it.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    Actualy the courts would strike that down is not justicable its not realted to your day job at all.
    - the_ancient 13y ago
      in many cases that is true. after you have gone bankrupt in lawyer fees
      - walshemj 13y ago
        I think in such an edge case with such wildly divergent fields you could represent yourself - though if they are going afer you for a book you wrote it's likely you are published author and publishers have lawyers too. Where it gets trickier is if you work as a devloper and they go after waht you have done in the evenings
strathmeyer 13y ago
"You’ve reached your limit of 10 complimentary articles this month."
- mrtbld 13y ago
  Try this: http://web.archive.org/web/20140414122508/http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/opinion/my-ideas-my-bosss-property.html http://web.archive.org/web/20140414122508/http://mobile.nyti...
  - vacri 13y ago
    Often you can get around these limits by opening a 'private/incognito window' in your browser. In FF, you can right-click the link and 'open in new private window', and I imagine similar in Chrome.
keypusher 13y ago
I've always been particularly confused by the contract clauses which specify that all work of the employee during their time at the company is property of the company itself. Does this mean that if I develop some completely unrelated software in my spare time while working as a programmer at a large company, that the software I created at home also belongs to my employer? What if I was to write a book during that same time? Is anyone aware of legal battles fought over this type of contract clause? It seems fairly prevalent in the industry today.
- gkoberger 13y ago
  I dislike it (and most forward-thinking companies wouldn't risk scaring off people who are the type that work on their own time), however I can see the reasons. How do they know you did it at home, not during work hours? How do they know it didn't affect your work? If you're salaried, there aren't set start/stop times. How do they know they weren't paying you at the time you came up with the idea, or thought through a problem? Did you do it on a work laptop? Did you use a copy of Photoshop that work paid for? Is it something you did for your job, and now you want to sell it to other people -- even if the code has been rewritten? Again, I don't think it's very enforceable or even a good idea. However, I can understand why a lawyer would slip it in.
  - spiritplumber 13y ago
    They'd have to take my word for it. If you can't trust me, don't hire me.
  - Retric 13y ago
    The 'usual' distinction is how closely something is to the type of work your doing at the company. So, if your designing a CPU and you come up with a novel cashing algorithm it's owned by the company but if you come up with a novel shovel design it's independent. Which means there is still plenty of options to tinker in your own time but you can't sell an idea to a direct competitor. The problem though is company's like IBM cover so many areas that things get vary fuzzy.
  - goostavos 13y ago
unexistance 13y ago
pretty sure this won't go away any time soon, so in the meantime, just jot down your idea in your own device at break time. My take on it, anything done / written during 'office-hour' will be deemed company property.
- krapp 13y ago
  Don't even do that. Don't take anything with personal projects on it anywhere onto company property. Don't even dare plug it in and surf the web during your coffee break.
yoamro 13y ago
.......remind me again how the courts in Texas work? "In 2004 a court in Texas ordered a former Alcatel employee to give his former employer a software algorithm — which existed entirely in his mind. The idea, which he was still working on and was still too abstract and incomplete to be a patentable invention, was nevertheless deemed the property of Alcatel, forcing the ex-employee to turn over the algorithm in the months after he was fired."
- karmajunkie 13y ago
  Mostly, they don't. Judges in Texas are generally elected, and so you get all the same kinds of electoral corruption that you have anytime a politician raises campaign funds.
  - ewoodrich 13y ago
    Most states have local judicial elections of some sort. Texas has partisan judicial elections, and your point very much stands.
- ArkyBeagle 13y ago
  That's the infamous Evan Brown case, right? Ah, good ole DSC....
PythonicAlpha 13y ago
That is the reason, I am against the term "Intellectual Property". Ideas are (naturally) belonging to the person who had the ideal. "Intellectual property" in contrast is "owned" to those that have enough money to buy it. This notion of making more and more parts of human life own-able and thus putting a price tag on it, is just devaluating these parts and our own living. In result, we will be slaves of the big corporations and the billionaires of the world.
- dfa0 13y ago
  Yeah, but the American dreams is to have one good idea and milk it for the rest of your natural life, then pass on the rights to your offspring who can milk it...and so on. That way you can exponentially create useless people.
  - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
    Yeah, but the American dream does not function to much longer this way. Because more and more people are born in bad situations, they have to take jobs to earn some money to start -- sign such contracts ... and you are enslaved. Even if you get rid of these ... Than you have a good idea, only to find, that your idea violates dozens of corporate patents ... and your idea is waste. Thus the dream is just a shadow of the past ... and propaganda for a system that does not hold its promises any more.
kjs3 13y ago
I really hate blanket IP restrictions in employee agreements, and take pains to get folks to carve out areas that we don't have rights to. But having had more than one employee who was really only skating by, only to find they were spending more than half of their work hours on their side idea, which was pretty much in competition with part of our offering, I can understand the attraction of these clauses. Ethics is a two way street. I shouldn't own every thought that comes into your head as an employee, but if you're dickish enough to think "pay me while I build a business at your expense and on your time" is a business plan, then I don't have a problem making that attitude painful.
PythonicAlpha 13y ago
Don't think, that in Germany the situation is that much better. We might not have those agreements in the contracts, since in Germany there are (luckily) many regulations what can be put into contracts. But the German law has also some specialties: For example, when you make an invention in your free time, even when it has nothing to do with your current job, you must first ask your employer, if he wants to buy the invention, if you want or not.
- unexistance 13y ago
  well if you don't tell, they won't know :) use web's anonymity to full advantage
  - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
    When you file a patent, they will. And then they will drag you to court.
- dave809 13y ago
  What's stopping you from setting an outrageous price?
  - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
    I don't think, that you are free to set your own price. But of course, I am not current in these special law topics. But in Germany, as in many other countries: If it goes to court, you will loose against a big company. It was an other situation, but a lawyer once told me, what happens when such things go to court: The corporation will bring 10 witnesses against you and will bring 10 experts certifying what the corporation needs. And than you will be very alone and be gracious to get even a little money. You will loose your job anyway.
    - Xylakant 13y ago
      You're not free to set your own price, there are guidelines set forth in the law (ArbnErfG, § 11 Vergütungsrichtlinien) - which also means that the employer cannot undercut those guidelines and force you to hand your invention over for free. If there's a disagreement about the price, there's a mediation set forth in the law, so the first thing would not be a court case. In general, german courts are quite employee friendly, so seriously, your employer would probably be at least as afraid to go to court as you'd be. Maybe not if it's a litigation-happy megacorp, but the bulk of german companies is medium-sized (Mittelstand) and they tend to shy away from court cases.
yalogin 13y ago
Do all the new startups also require such a blanket IP clause? Or is it something only the older/bigger companies do?
- morganherlocker 13y ago
  Many do, but as an employee, you should treat them as negotiable. An agreement where the company has default ownership of ideas in the vertical and you have default ownership of everything else is a reasonable compromise that I think most people can agree to. For ideas that are in the vertical, you can ask for permission on a case by case basis. I have this exact system in place and it has worked flawlessly. It requires lots of communication, and a certain amount of trust, but it is much better than the alternative. Personally, I see it as a moral imperative to not sell away exclusive rights to my thoughts.
michaelochurch 13y ago
With top talent, you never really employ it. You just sponsor it. If you fail to recognize this, people become demotivated and that talent is either meaningless, or turned against you. The problem is that employers, and almost all of them are this way, are do damn short-sighted. They'll pinch pennies on benefits, lay people off for the slightest reason or no reason, and burn hours of time on psychotic, all-consuming performance review systems, while missing the fucking point, which is: the real existential risk is when innovation stops. None of that other shit really matters. An employee "stealing an idea", except in spy work, is a minor insult at worst. As far as I'm concerned, it's the responsibility of the company to provide conditions that are good enough (e.g. job stability, resources) that people would rather stay than "steal" their ideas off to elsewhere. If they can't or don't, then I have no sympathy. The problem is that professional management culture rewards the mindless, minuscule cost-cutting that is often just externalizing costs to the future. That's where we get companies that put these onerous clauses in place, failing to realize that their pulling that kind of shit is killing the energy they'd need if they wanted true innovation. If a company wants to excel-- instead of simply being a scam through which management robs investors (of their money) and employees (of their time and careers)-- it needs to give its people support, autonomy, and trust. Yes, a few people will "steal" from the company (by which I mean abusing that autonomy) but most won't have that inclination in the slightest, and more money will be made on the latter (by orders of magnitude) than is lost on the former.
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  I wish this comment were further towards the top. Our system is clearly set up to pump the rewards for innovation into the pockets of founders, executives, and investors, but not so much inventors and builders. I don't think it naturally has to be that way. What if people got nontrivial amounts of stock for their inventions, instead of the couple grand or pat on the back most companies dole out? Would that help reinvigorate the hard tech industry, which is losing people [1] to creating the next Instagram-meets-Yelp-but-for-kittens? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/magazine/silicon-valleys-youth-problem.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/magazine/silicon-valleys-y...
- ChristianMarks 13y ago
olefoo 13y ago
One change that would lessen the burden of the patent system is mandatory licensing. It doesn't matter who invented what, everyone pays a percentage of revenue into the pot and it gets spewed out per usage. The sticky bit being that you couldn't prevent someone else from using a patented idea. Boom, no more hold ups; no more threatening to kill someones business because of greed.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
zecho 13y ago
Maybe don't sign these types of contracts? We are fortunate enough that even the most mediocre among us can hold out for the next employer that doesn't demand this kind of control over you, or start your own company. I don't give a shit what a company says about their culture of work/life balance or whatever. If I see blanket IP clauses unrelated to non-compete, or like arbitration clauses that remove us from civil courts should a problem arise, I'm whistling on my way out the door. I once saw a contract that stated I couldn't work in the field for TWO YEARS after terminating. Not just large machine equipment, but ANY mobile/web applications, related to integration with embedded systems or not. Yeah no thanks. Your mind should be available for rent for $100k/year or whatever your market rate is these days but not for sale at that price. Sorry but I'm a Human as a Service. If you want to own me, you'll have to come to a better valuation.
- rmason 13y ago
  You don't have to agree to sign such agreements. Once a company has invested in hiring you they aren't likely to let you go when you're at the proverbial starting line. Its more a case of who is going to blink first. I just know that I've refused to sign more than once. Do you think, especially in Silicon Valley, that the employer not only wants to lose the employee but be bad mouthed about restrictive agreements online where it's likely they will lose even more battles in the recruiting wars?
- A_COMPUTER 13y ago
  I basically did whistle my way out the door because of this. I worked as a contractor for a very large defense company. After a year, they offered me full time employment. I specifically asked if there was a "we own everything you make" clause in the employment agreement, but I was assured there was not. I went through about five digital form contracts, and when I got to the last one, it had the clause in there. I told the woman that I wanted to amend the contract and she huffed and told me they don't do that. I replied that I was promised that I would not have to agree to such a clause, and she told me that it was mandatory, so I could take it or leave it. I asked if there was anyone in HR I could talk to about this, and was told no. So I stood up and said "please escort me out the door, starting immediately I am resigning. At the gate, I would like the security guard to search my things." (it was a secured facility, and I didn't want anyone to claim I was stealing anything later.) She asked me if I was serious, and I said yes. I was berated for how much time and money was wasted on getting me ready for employment, and I replied I was promised repeatedly that I would not have to sign away my rights, and this was absolutely a deal breaker and I didn't appreciate being told repeatedly this would be honored until the very last minute. So really, my time was being wasted too. This really, really didn't go over well. My heart was beating like crazy the entire time. My former boss was furious, the HR person was furious. The security guard was cool about it though.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
johnrob 13y ago
I think the rule of thumb for assuring your ownership is: 1) don't use company time or equipment, 2) don't make something that could compete with your employer's products.
srs0001 13y ago
Oddly, I was thinking about this exact topic this weekend. When I joined my current company, I signed a document saying whatever I build belongs to the company. I'd like to go back and have this reversed. What is the best course of action? Write a letter saying that what I create on my own time is my property, and have the CEO or HR Manager sign it?
- Duhck 13y ago
  You need to obtain a moonlighting clause. It gives you permission to work on an idea or set of ideas. Your employer should have one available.
- brc 13y ago
  You're unlikely to get it reversed. Get a carve-out agreed. You should be able to reasonably work that out by indicating you're working on X, in your own time, on your own equipment. X belongs to you and not the company. X is not in competition with the company. Most places will grant that with little fuss.
- ht_th 13y ago
  I always wondered: does your contract really state "whatever you build", or does it state something like "whatever you build in the same (specific) domain you're working on for the company"? Let us say, you work for a cookie-cutter company, designing new cookie-cutters. I understand that, if you would invent in your spare time a doughnut cutter, the company could argue that you did so using company's resources (namely you working on cookie cutters, learning all about cutting cookies, designing cookie-cutters, and related stuff). Now, if you would invent in your spare time a flying moped, would that belong to the company as well? And if you'd write a novel about Romance on Monkey Island? That would seem odd to me as it has no bearance on your work for the cookie-cutter company, not seems your experiences at that company transfer to these domains you work on in your spare time (and vice versa, for that matter).
11thEarlOfMar 13y ago
My startup is compensating the engineers with restricted shares in the corporation. When we go for funding, we will want the highest valuation we can convince the investors of. One important valuation attribute is the corporation's legal ownership of the intellectual property produced by the engineers who build the system. That intellectual property is not just patents, but the source code, web site design, system architecture, operating processes and many other points. Basically, the intellectual property is what ever the engineers create in the process of building the startup. The restricted shares are granted under contractor agreements. Performing to those agreements qualifies the restrictions on the shares to be lifted, in effect vesting the the shares. In order for the corporation to demonstrate that it has legal ownership of everything the engineers have created, the contractor agreement they sign is very explicit and verbose [1] about their informed decision to turn over ownership of that IP to the company, and that the ownership they are being given in the company is compensation for the intellectual property they produce. The language specifically carves out -relevance- to the startup: "... that are related to the business (present or future) of the Company or its affiliates...". None of them have any qualm about this, and fully understand the purpose and value of turning over their creative fruits to the company. I'd expect that this principle has to persist regardless of the size of the company. The key to making it work is that the employee/inventor willfully signs up to the legal restrictions the company places on them as payment for their work and compensation for their creativity. I can easily imagine that corporate attorneys who work to protect their employer's interests would push the lines of what constitutes the scope of the company's claim over their work. I'd guess that for every term that seems intrusive or abusive, there is a precedent case somewhere that corporations can point to as justification for it. In the case of my startup, the language is specific that the invention is made in the course of building the company, not from other unrelated activities. [1] INVENTIONS. (a) Disclosure. I will promptly disclose In writing to the Company all discoveries, developments, designs, ideas, improvements, inventions, formulas, processes, techniques, know-how, and data (whether or not patentable or registerable under copyright or similar statutes) made, conceived, reduced to practice, or learned by me (either alone or jointly with others) during the term of the Independent Contractor Agreement between the Company and me and within 12 months thereafter (unless any such disclosure Is prohibited by the terms of a commercially reasonable non-disclosure agreement signed by me that Is meant to protect the trade secrets and confidentiality of an employer subsequently employing me), that are related to the business (present or future) of the Company or its affiliates, or which result from tasks assigned to me by the Company, or from the use of facilities or equipment owned, leased, or otherwise used by the Company or Its affiliates (all of the foregoing are referred to in this Agreement as "Inventions"). (b) Assignment of Inventions. I acknowledge and agree that all Inventions belong to and shall be the sole property of the Company, subject to the provisions of this Agreement. I hereby assign to the Company all rights, title, and interest I may have or may acquire in and to all inventions. Both during and after the term of the Independent Contractor Agreement between the Company and me, and from time to time, I agree, promptly upon the request of the Company, to sign and deliver to the Company such other documents as the Company considers desirable to evidence the assignment to the Company of all rights I may have, if any, in any Inventions and the Company's ownership of such Inventions.
jrs235 13y ago
These contracts are bunk, they are too one sided. They want to claim the upside of my ideas and work but, if I write some software for a side project which I make additional income on (which they'd want to claim ownership of) and it fails and causes harm, are they going to take on the liability of getting sued for it? Didn't think so. Edit: I understand the law doesn't think they are bunk. This is my person opinion about them and why they should be bunk.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
outside1234 13y ago
At Microsoft we don't have these contracts. You are free to work on whatever after hours (with your own equipment and not using company resources).
- solomone 13y ago
  This wasn't the case when I worked there 10 years ago. Check your paperwork.
  - outside1234 13y ago
    It changed with the launch of Windows Phone. They opened this up to enable folks to write apps on their spare time and publish them.
- DenisM 13y ago
  That is most certainly wrong. I checked with a lawyer when I was there, in 2008, and their conclusion was that MS owns everything I invent during my tenure. The key "trick" is that they own "what's relevant to the business of Microsoft", which of course any type of software is! You should check with a lawyer as well.
barryaustin 13y ago
Hyper-aggressive lawyering by a powerful entity can be an early indicator of how they treat people and use power. The important thing is to actually read and understand the agreements that employers expect you to sign. Some examples of what would catch my attention: * Restricting what activities you can't do on your own time, even when there's no harm to the company. * Playing games with definitions (especially key terms like "Invention") and loose language (like "related"). * Requiring unnecessarily high burden of proof, for example advance description of all IP that you have created and want to exclude from assigning to the employer. If you see something you don't like, negotiate changes. If the employer won't work with you to make an acceptable agreement, then don't sign. Edited for clarity
- ChristianMarks 13y ago
  Suppose you do describe some IP for exclusion. Does this mean subsequent improvements or modifications undertaken on your own time and on your own equipment are not excluded?
zizee 13y ago
From Thomas Edison to Steve Jobs, the individual inventor is a hero in our popular imagination Am I reading this incorrectly? Are they promoting the idea that Steve Jobs is an individual inventor?
- redwall_hp 13y ago
  He definitely wasn't. And more importantly, neither was Edison.
  - jonny_eh 13y ago
    Patents with his name on it: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/24/technology/steve-jobs-patents.html?ref=multimedia http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/24/technology/ste... While he didn't invent all that stuff himself, it's not like he had nothing to do with any of it.
    - judk 13y ago
      That's not what "individual" means. Both of then ran organizations of inventors.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  I read that as promoting the opposite, that both Jobs & Edison did very well on the work of others.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
rukugu 13y ago
I worked at such a company. I was given the contract to sign. No thanks.I quit a short while after. Basically everything I built while working there was supposedly their property.
gobengo 13y ago
My solution to this has been: * When I need to work on something, I think of the library I wish existed to get it done. Anything I need that is employer-specific should be configurable * I make the library and release it with an MIT license * I then use that library to accomplish my goal This has the benefit of usually making me write better software. And it motivates me to make the open code better quality and better documented. This means the work is more valuable even to my colleagues that also eventually need to work with it.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  > * I make the library and release it with an MIT license This might get you into trouble. Basically, anything you touch during your work hours is tainted by your employers copyrights. You're not allowed to decide which license that code should be under. So either you write that whole library in your spare time (and on top of that do your regular day job) or get your employers permission to release the code. In general the approach is sound and I'd support it, but others might or might not.
- mattip 13y ago
  Is your company's product open sourced? I think that is the exception, not the rule, and makes takes the discussion in a different direction
- Cabal 13y ago
  Be careful, I was sued for doing this (and lost). Had to pay up big.
ChristianMarks 13y ago
I turned down a software job due to its all-encompassing, amoeba-like intellectual property terms. Instead, I chose to work in the public sector, which does not limit the freedom to pursue and own the intellectual work one does on one's own time.
naringas 13y ago
what you grow on this land is mine; this land is mine. - civilization this machine is mine; what you manufacture with it is mine -- industrialization the ideas you come up with are mine; that idea is mine - ??
ChuckFrank 13y ago
I signed one of these contracts in 2006. I went to work for a company in product design and development, and since my work was new product design and development, everything I worked on at that time became the property of the company. There was also a two-year non-compete clause that forbid me from working with any of their direct competitors afterwards. I signed the contract because I wanted to do the work, and because I knew that all the other places would have me sign the same contract. I also thought that this company was the most progressive of the group. Finally, I wanted my ideas to be funded, and so in exchange for the time and the resources that they promised to put towards my work, I would provide them with the ideas. We were both taking risks to achieve a greater goal together. In the end, they reneged on their side of the bargain and didn't provide the necessary funding to complete the production and testing that the product design needed. After trying to get the work done myself in-house by funneling time and energy away from other projects towards mine, it came to a head and it was acknowledged that they weren't going to fund the work and that we needed to part ways. On the day that decision was made, I was escorted out, leaving everything behind, my notebooks, and all my digital research files. Several years later, when they won a large contract for work that was in the area that I was working on, my manager took me out for lunch and said that I had just been about 5 years ahead of the curve, and that they hadn't had the resources to carry that type of research and development that far ahead of a clear billable opportunity. When I asked him about the files and the notebooks, he said that nothing ever happened to them, they were all just filed away in the archives. I left understanding their situation well. It's hard to fund something when it's not clear when the payoff will materialize, and when it did materialize, they were able to get there first anyways. So the loss of five years in R&D wasn't noticed, by them, their clients, or the industry. The lesson that I did learn was - back up your files offsite, and have duplicate notebooks, one that is your private notebook and one that is your office notebook. Because when you sign a contract like this, you have to be prepared to leave everything onsite when it ends. The irony with the 2 year non-compete is that after I left, non of the other firms were interested in even discussing the work that I had done. Which is why these guys were the only ones that I could have worked with in the first place, and it's why they were the only ones able to secure the contracts when the need for the technology finally arrived. And there wasn't much I could do with the technology myself, since it was untested and unproved and I couldn't fund the research myself. So the non-compete clause didn't impact me much either. Perhaps this sheds some light on why the contracts exist and why people like me sign them.
collyw 13y ago
I worked for a major mobile phone manufacturer a while ago. They offered a pathetic £200 (I think) for any inventions you submitted to them, and they got a patent on. Funnily enough, I kept the ideas to myself. (Has anyone come up with a phone / camera that does automatic tagging based on GPS location? Your phone knows you are in front of some famous landmark, and tags the photos with the name. I assume it has been done by now, but this was when the first phones were starting to incorporate GPS and it seemed like a novel idea).
walshemj 13y ago
If Mr Lobel is claiming to be a legal academic (a professor for fracks sake) his lack of knowledge in how employment law devoped in common law jurestrictions is truly shocking. Employers owning employees ideas "related" to thier employment has been the case for a very long time.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  "jurestrictions", can't tell if typo, clever pun on jure, or unknown legalese. Google gives me 2 English language pages with it on, a blog and a forum thread - I'm going with typo for "jurisdiction".
  - walshemj 13y ago
    Yeh my proper pc died with a dead HDD last week I am on my backup notebook which doesn't have all the plugines i normaly use :-)
jbrooksuk 13y ago
I'm extremely lucky that my employer has the "do whatever you want out of work" attitude to things. I wanted to start selling Smart Watches, so I asked my boss and his reply was "it's your time, so long as it doesn't take up paid work time, you're free to do whatever".
anonymousDan 13y ago
This is the number one thing I would like to see any kind of IT labour organization campaign against. I don't really care about much else, so long as I am free to work on whatever I want in my own time and with my own resources so long as it doesn't interfere directly with my employer's line of business.
Unosolo 13y ago
On the topic of Restraint of trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade) clause which some companies insist on: in very few cases a company will take a former employee to court over a breach of such clause and then the company is still likely to lose the case unless the restriction was narrow, specific, reasonable. Usually there also need to be consideration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration) for giving up some of the freedom of trade.
islon 13y ago
We’ve seen the end of physical slavery just to go into an era of intelectual slavery.

191 points by jcabala 13y ago

Confucious held that an idea or invention, once emerged, belongs to the whole world rather than the one that came up with it, this may be a contributing factor that China has such an IP issue, though it may be blasphemous, but it is another way to see the world.

rahimnathwani 13y ago

If part of your job is to create ideas within some domain, and you can't control exactly when said ideas will crystallize, should it matter whether you 'got' an idea whilst 'at work' rather than in the shower, or on the way to work? The line is difficult to draw precisely with legal language, so companies err on the side which protects them best (hoping employees will sign anyway, given they've already gone through the interview process and are likely to have similar terms at other employers).

the_ancient 13y ago
The bigger problem is not the ideas that relate to your every day job... But Say your a Aerospace Engineer working on rockets and on your off time you write a scifi book, after your done you take it to a publisher, they publish it, and then your employer claims ownership over that book... and sues you That type of shit happens all the time, and while that is an extreme example, there are all kinds of examples like a programmer getting paid to work on a billing system writes a childrens game for which the company claims ownership over... etc etc etc. The idea that just because your employed means you should give up any and all rights to your brain is ridiculous... There has to be a happy median there somewhere
- ganeumann 13y ago
  you write a scifi book...and then your employer claims ownership over that book...That type of shit happens all the time Source?
- vanattab 13y ago
  Any examples of when such a thing has happened? I see how those clauses could be construde to apply to such a situation but I have never heard of such an extreme example in practice.
  - the_ancient 13y ago
    I am trying to find the case, it was a few years ago that I read about the case... it was settled out of court I believe so never went to verdict.... That is the thing with these cases, 90% of the time the result is exactly like the post here earlier today, the former employer makes demands that the employee cease and desist distributing "their" work and the employee having little resources gives in, it never makes it to court.
- vanattab 13y ago
  Any examples of when such a thing has happened? I see how those clauses could be construde to apply to such a situation but I have never heard of such an extreme example in practice.
- rahimnathwani 13y ago
  I agree there has to be a happy medium. My point is that it's hard to draw that line precisely with legal language. So, employers will do what's easiest for them, given that most people don't push back, and the employer can afford to lose the few that decide not to take it.
- walshemj 13y ago
  Actualy the courts would strike that down is not justicable its not realted to your day job at all.
  - the_ancient 13y ago
    in many cases that is true. after you have gone bankrupt in lawyer fees
    - walshemj 13y ago
      I think in such an edge case with such wildly divergent fields you could represent yourself - though if they are going afer you for a book you wrote it's likely you are published author and publishers have lawyers too. Where it gets trickier is if you work as a devloper and they go after waht you have done in the evenings

strathmeyer 13y ago

"You’ve reached your limit of 10 complimentary articles this month."

mrtbld 13y ago
Try this: http://web.archive.org/web/20140414122508/http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/opinion/my-ideas-my-bosss-property.html http://web.archive.org/web/20140414122508/http://mobile.nyti...
- vacri 13y ago
  Often you can get around these limits by opening a 'private/incognito window' in your browser. In FF, you can right-click the link and 'open in new private window', and I imagine similar in Chrome.

keypusher 13y ago

I've always been particularly confused by the contract clauses which specify that all work of the employee during their time at the company is property of the company itself. Does this mean that if I develop some completely unrelated software in my spare time while working as a programmer at a large company, that the software I created at home also belongs to my employer? What if I was to write a book during that same time? Is anyone aware of legal battles fought over this type of contract clause? It seems fairly prevalent in the industry today.

gkoberger 13y ago
I dislike it (and most forward-thinking companies wouldn't risk scaring off people who are the type that work on their own time), however I can see the reasons. How do they know you did it at home, not during work hours? How do they know it didn't affect your work? If you're salaried, there aren't set start/stop times. How do they know they weren't paying you at the time you came up with the idea, or thought through a problem? Did you do it on a work laptop? Did you use a copy of Photoshop that work paid for? Is it something you did for your job, and now you want to sell it to other people -- even if the code has been rewritten? Again, I don't think it's very enforceable or even a good idea. However, I can understand why a lawyer would slip it in.
- spiritplumber 13y ago
  They'd have to take my word for it. If you can't trust me, don't hire me.
- Retric 13y ago
  The 'usual' distinction is how closely something is to the type of work your doing at the company. So, if your designing a CPU and you come up with a novel cashing algorithm it's owned by the company but if you come up with a novel shovel design it's independent. Which means there is still plenty of options to tinker in your own time but you can't sell an idea to a direct competitor. The problem though is company's like IBM cover so many areas that things get vary fuzzy.
- goostavos 13y ago

unexistance 13y ago

pretty sure this won't go away any time soon, so in the meantime, just jot down your idea in your own device at break time. My take on it, anything done / written during 'office-hour' will be deemed company property.

krapp 13y ago
Don't even do that. Don't take anything with personal projects on it anywhere onto company property. Don't even dare plug it in and surf the web during your coffee break.

yoamro 13y ago

.......remind me again how the courts in Texas work? "In 2004 a court in Texas ordered a former Alcatel employee to give his former employer a software algorithm — which existed entirely in his mind. The idea, which he was still working on and was still too abstract and incomplete to be a patentable invention, was nevertheless deemed the property of Alcatel, forcing the ex-employee to turn over the algorithm in the months after he was fired."

karmajunkie 13y ago
Mostly, they don't. Judges in Texas are generally elected, and so you get all the same kinds of electoral corruption that you have anytime a politician raises campaign funds.
- ewoodrich 13y ago
  Most states have local judicial elections of some sort. Texas has partisan judicial elections, and your point very much stands.
ArkyBeagle 13y ago
That's the infamous Evan Brown case, right? Ah, good ole DSC....

PythonicAlpha 13y ago

That is the reason, I am against the term "Intellectual Property". Ideas are (naturally) belonging to the person who had the ideal. "Intellectual property" in contrast is "owned" to those that have enough money to buy it. This notion of making more and more parts of human life own-able and thus putting a price tag on it, is just devaluating these parts and our own living. In result, we will be slaves of the big corporations and the billionaires of the world.

dfa0 13y ago
Yeah, but the American dreams is to have one good idea and milk it for the rest of your natural life, then pass on the rights to your offspring who can milk it...and so on. That way you can exponentially create useless people.
- PythonicAlpha 13y ago
  Yeah, but the American dream does not function to much longer this way. Because more and more people are born in bad situations, they have to take jobs to earn some money to start -- sign such contracts ... and you are enslaved. Even if you get rid of these ... Than you have a good idea, only to find, that your idea violates dozens of corporate patents ... and your idea is waste. Thus the dream is just a shadow of the past ... and propaganda for a system that does not hold its promises any more.

kjs3 13y ago

I really hate blanket IP restrictions in employee agreements, and take pains to get folks to carve out areas that we don't have rights to. But having had more than one employee who was really only skating by, only to find they were spending more than half of their work hours on their side idea, which was pretty much in competition with part of our offering, I can understand the attraction of these clauses. Ethics is a two way street. I shouldn't own every thought that comes into your head as an employee, but if you're dickish enough to think "pay me while I build a business at your expense and on your time" is a business plan, then I don't have a problem making that attitude painful.

PythonicAlpha 13y ago

Don't think, that in Germany the situation is that much better. We might not have those agreements in the contracts, since in Germany there are (luckily) many regulations what can be put into contracts. But the German law has also some specialties: For example, when you make an invention in your free time, even when it has nothing to do with your current job, you must first ask your employer, if he wants to buy the invention, if you want or not.

unexistance 13y ago
well if you don't tell, they won't know :) use web's anonymity to full advantage
- PythonicAlpha 13y ago
  When you file a patent, they will. And then they will drag you to court.
dave809 13y ago
What's stopping you from setting an outrageous price?
- PythonicAlpha 13y ago
  I don't think, that you are free to set your own price. But of course, I am not current in these special law topics. But in Germany, as in many other countries: If it goes to court, you will loose against a big company. It was an other situation, but a lawyer once told me, what happens when such things go to court: The corporation will bring 10 witnesses against you and will bring 10 experts certifying what the corporation needs. And than you will be very alone and be gracious to get even a little money. You will loose your job anyway.
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    You're not free to set your own price, there are guidelines set forth in the law (ArbnErfG, § 11 Vergütungsrichtlinien) - which also means that the employer cannot undercut those guidelines and force you to hand your invention over for free. If there's a disagreement about the price, there's a mediation set forth in the law, so the first thing would not be a court case. In general, german courts are quite employee friendly, so seriously, your employer would probably be at least as afraid to go to court as you'd be. Maybe not if it's a litigation-happy megacorp, but the bulk of german companies is medium-sized (Mittelstand) and they tend to shy away from court cases.

yalogin 13y ago

Do all the new startups also require such a blanket IP clause? Or is it something only the older/bigger companies do?

morganherlocker 13y ago
Many do, but as an employee, you should treat them as negotiable. An agreement where the company has default ownership of ideas in the vertical and you have default ownership of everything else is a reasonable compromise that I think most people can agree to. For ideas that are in the vertical, you can ask for permission on a case by case basis. I have this exact system in place and it has worked flawlessly. It requires lots of communication, and a certain amount of trust, but it is much better than the alternative. Personally, I see it as a moral imperative to not sell away exclusive rights to my thoughts.

michaelochurch 13y ago

With top talent, you never really employ it. You just sponsor it. If you fail to recognize this, people become demotivated and that talent is either meaningless, or turned against you. The problem is that employers, and almost all of them are this way, are do damn short-sighted. They'll pinch pennies on benefits, lay people off for the slightest reason or no reason, and burn hours of time on psychotic, all-consuming performance review systems, while missing the fucking point, which is: the real existential risk is when innovation stops. None of that other shit really matters. An employee "stealing an idea", except in spy work, is a minor insult at worst. As far as I'm concerned, it's the responsibility of the company to provide conditions that are good enough (e.g. job stability, resources) that people would rather stay than "steal" their ideas off to elsewhere. If they can't or don't, then I have no sympathy. The problem is that professional management culture rewards the mindless, minuscule cost-cutting that is often just externalizing costs to the future. That's where we get companies that put these onerous clauses in place, failing to realize that their pulling that kind of shit is killing the energy they'd need if they wanted true innovation. If a company wants to excel-- instead of simply being a scam through which management robs investors (of their money) and employees (of their time and careers)-- it needs to give its people support, autonomy, and trust. Yes, a few people will "steal" from the company (by which I mean abusing that autonomy) but most won't have that inclination in the slightest, and more money will be made on the latter (by orders of magnitude) than is lost on the former.

acjohnson55 13y ago
I wish this comment were further towards the top. Our system is clearly set up to pump the rewards for innovation into the pockets of founders, executives, and investors, but not so much inventors and builders. I don't think it naturally has to be that way. What if people got nontrivial amounts of stock for their inventions, instead of the couple grand or pat on the back most companies dole out? Would that help reinvigorate the hard tech industry, which is losing people [1] to creating the next Instagram-meets-Yelp-but-for-kittens? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/magazine/silicon-valleys-youth-problem.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/magazine/silicon-valleys-y...
ChristianMarks 13y ago

olefoo 13y ago

One change that would lessen the burden of the patent system is mandatory licensing. It doesn't matter who invented what, everyone pays a percentage of revenue into the pot and it gets spewed out per usage. The sticky bit being that you couldn't prevent someone else from using a patented idea. Boom, no more hold ups; no more threatening to kill someones business because of greed.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

zecho 13y ago

Maybe don't sign these types of contracts? We are fortunate enough that even the most mediocre among us can hold out for the next employer that doesn't demand this kind of control over you, or start your own company. I don't give a shit what a company says about their culture of work/life balance or whatever. If I see blanket IP clauses unrelated to non-compete, or like arbitration clauses that remove us from civil courts should a problem arise, I'm whistling on my way out the door. I once saw a contract that stated I couldn't work in the field for TWO YEARS after terminating. Not just large machine equipment, but ANY mobile/web applications, related to integration with embedded systems or not. Yeah no thanks. Your mind should be available for rent for $100k/year or whatever your market rate is these days but not for sale at that price. Sorry but I'm a Human as a Service. If you want to own me, you'll have to come to a better valuation.

rmason 13y ago
You don't have to agree to sign such agreements. Once a company has invested in hiring you they aren't likely to let you go when you're at the proverbial starting line. Its more a case of who is going to blink first. I just know that I've refused to sign more than once. Do you think, especially in Silicon Valley, that the employer not only wants to lose the employee but be bad mouthed about restrictive agreements online where it's likely they will lose even more battles in the recruiting wars?
A_COMPUTER 13y ago
I basically did whistle my way out the door because of this. I worked as a contractor for a very large defense company. After a year, they offered me full time employment. I specifically asked if there was a "we own everything you make" clause in the employment agreement, but I was assured there was not. I went through about five digital form contracts, and when I got to the last one, it had the clause in there. I told the woman that I wanted to amend the contract and she huffed and told me they don't do that. I replied that I was promised that I would not have to agree to such a clause, and she told me that it was mandatory, so I could take it or leave it. I asked if there was anyone in HR I could talk to about this, and was told no. So I stood up and said "please escort me out the door, starting immediately I am resigning. At the gate, I would like the security guard to search my things." (it was a secured facility, and I didn't want anyone to claim I was stealing anything later.) She asked me if I was serious, and I said yes. I was berated for how much time and money was wasted on getting me ready for employment, and I replied I was promised repeatedly that I would not have to sign away my rights, and this was absolutely a deal breaker and I didn't appreciate being told repeatedly this would be honored until the very last minute. So really, my time was being wasted too. This really, really didn't go over well. My heart was beating like crazy the entire time. My former boss was furious, the HR person was furious. The security guard was cool about it though.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

johnrob 13y ago

I think the rule of thumb for assuring your ownership is: 1) don't use company time or equipment, 2) don't make something that could compete with your employer's products.

srs0001 13y ago

Oddly, I was thinking about this exact topic this weekend. When I joined my current company, I signed a document saying whatever I build belongs to the company. I'd like to go back and have this reversed. What is the best course of action? Write a letter saying that what I create on my own time is my property, and have the CEO or HR Manager sign it?

Duhck 13y ago
You need to obtain a moonlighting clause. It gives you permission to work on an idea or set of ideas. Your employer should have one available.
brc 13y ago
You're unlikely to get it reversed. Get a carve-out agreed. You should be able to reasonably work that out by indicating you're working on X, in your own time, on your own equipment. X belongs to you and not the company. X is not in competition with the company. Most places will grant that with little fuss.
ht_th 13y ago
I always wondered: does your contract really state "whatever you build", or does it state something like "whatever you build in the same (specific) domain you're working on for the company"? Let us say, you work for a cookie-cutter company, designing new cookie-cutters. I understand that, if you would invent in your spare time a doughnut cutter, the company could argue that you did so using company's resources (namely you working on cookie cutters, learning all about cutting cookies, designing cookie-cutters, and related stuff). Now, if you would invent in your spare time a flying moped, would that belong to the company as well? And if you'd write a novel about Romance on Monkey Island? That would seem odd to me as it has no bearance on your work for the cookie-cutter company, not seems your experiences at that company transfer to these domains you work on in your spare time (and vice versa, for that matter).

11thEarlOfMar 13y ago

My startup is compensating the engineers with restricted shares in the corporation. When we go for funding, we will want the highest valuation we can convince the investors of. One important valuation attribute is the corporation's legal ownership of the intellectual property produced by the engineers who build the system. That intellectual property is not just patents, but the source code, web site design, system architecture, operating processes and many other points. Basically, the intellectual property is what ever the engineers create in the process of building the startup. The restricted shares are granted under contractor agreements. Performing to those agreements qualifies the restrictions on the shares to be lifted, in effect vesting the the shares. In order for the corporation to demonstrate that it has legal ownership of everything the engineers have created, the contractor agreement they sign is very explicit and verbose [1] about their informed decision to turn over ownership of that IP to the company, and that the ownership they are being given in the company is compensation for the intellectual property they produce. The language specifically carves out -relevance- to the startup: "... that are related to the business (present or future) of the Company or its affiliates...". None of them have any qualm about this, and fully understand the purpose and value of turning over their creative fruits to the company. I'd expect that this principle has to persist regardless of the size of the company. The key to making it work is that the employee/inventor willfully signs up to the legal restrictions the company places on them as payment for their work and compensation for their creativity. I can easily imagine that corporate attorneys who work to protect their employer's interests would push the lines of what constitutes the scope of the company's claim over their work. I'd guess that for every term that seems intrusive or abusive, there is a precedent case somewhere that corporations can point to as justification for it. In the case of my startup, the language is specific that the invention is made in the course of building the company, not from other unrelated activities. [1] INVENTIONS. (a) Disclosure. I will promptly disclose In writing to the Company all discoveries, developments, designs, ideas, improvements, inventions, formulas, processes, techniques, know-how, and data (whether or not patentable or registerable under copyright or similar statutes) made, conceived, reduced to practice, or learned by me (either alone or jointly with others) during the term of the Independent Contractor Agreement between the Company and me and within 12 months thereafter (unless any such disclosure Is prohibited by the terms of a commercially reasonable non-disclosure agreement signed by me that Is meant to protect the trade secrets and confidentiality of an employer subsequently employing me), that are related to the business (present or future) of the Company or its affiliates, or which result from tasks assigned to me by the Company, or from the use of facilities or equipment owned, leased, or otherwise used by the Company or Its affiliates (all of the foregoing are referred to in this Agreement as "Inventions"). (b) Assignment of Inventions. I acknowledge and agree that all Inventions belong to and shall be the sole property of the Company, subject to the provisions of this Agreement. I hereby assign to the Company all rights, title, and interest I may have or may acquire in and to all inventions. Both during and after the term of the Independent Contractor Agreement between the Company and me, and from time to time, I agree, promptly upon the request of the Company, to sign and deliver to the Company such other documents as the Company considers desirable to evidence the assignment to the Company of all rights I may have, if any, in any Inventions and the Company's ownership of such Inventions.

jrs235 13y ago

These contracts are bunk, they are too one sided. They want to claim the upside of my ideas and work but, if I write some software for a side project which I make additional income on (which they'd want to claim ownership of) and it fails and causes harm, are they going to take on the liability of getting sued for it? Didn't think so. Edit: I understand the law doesn't think they are bunk. This is my person opinion about them and why they should be bunk.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

outside1234 13y ago

At Microsoft we don't have these contracts. You are free to work on whatever after hours (with your own equipment and not using company resources).

solomone 13y ago
This wasn't the case when I worked there 10 years ago. Check your paperwork.
- outside1234 13y ago
  It changed with the launch of Windows Phone. They opened this up to enable folks to write apps on their spare time and publish them.
DenisM 13y ago
That is most certainly wrong. I checked with a lawyer when I was there, in 2008, and their conclusion was that MS owns everything I invent during my tenure. The key "trick" is that they own "what's relevant to the business of Microsoft", which of course any type of software is! You should check with a lawyer as well.

barryaustin 13y ago

Hyper-aggressive lawyering by a powerful entity can be an early indicator of how they treat people and use power. The important thing is to actually read and understand the agreements that employers expect you to sign. Some examples of what would catch my attention: * Restricting what activities you can't do on your own time, even when there's no harm to the company. * Playing games with definitions (especially key terms like "Invention") and loose language (like "related"). * Requiring unnecessarily high burden of proof, for example advance description of all IP that you have created and want to exclude from assigning to the employer. If you see something you don't like, negotiate changes. If the employer won't work with you to make an acceptable agreement, then don't sign. Edited for clarity

ChristianMarks 13y ago
Suppose you do describe some IP for exclusion. Does this mean subsequent improvements or modifications undertaken on your own time and on your own equipment are not excluded?

zizee 13y ago

From Thomas Edison to Steve Jobs, the individual inventor is a hero in our popular imagination Am I reading this incorrectly? Are they promoting the idea that Steve Jobs is an individual inventor?

redwall_hp 13y ago
He definitely wasn't. And more importantly, neither was Edison.
- jonny_eh 13y ago
  Patents with his name on it: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/24/technology/steve-jobs-patents.html?ref=multimedia http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/24/technology/ste... While he didn't invent all that stuff himself, it's not like he had nothing to do with any of it.
  - judk 13y ago
    That's not what "individual" means. Both of then ran organizations of inventors.
jacquesm 13y ago
I read that as promoting the opposite, that both Jobs & Edison did very well on the work of others.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

rukugu 13y ago

I worked at such a company. I was given the contract to sign. No thanks.I quit a short while after. Basically everything I built while working there was supposedly their property.

gobengo 13y ago

My solution to this has been: * When I need to work on something, I think of the library I wish existed to get it done. Anything I need that is employer-specific should be configurable * I make the library and release it with an MIT license * I then use that library to accomplish my goal This has the benefit of usually making me write better software. And it motivates me to make the open code better quality and better documented. This means the work is more valuable even to my colleagues that also eventually need to work with it.

Xylakant 13y ago
> * I make the library and release it with an MIT license This might get you into trouble. Basically, anything you touch during your work hours is tainted by your employers copyrights. You're not allowed to decide which license that code should be under. So either you write that whole library in your spare time (and on top of that do your regular day job) or get your employers permission to release the code. In general the approach is sound and I'd support it, but others might or might not.
mattip 13y ago
Is your company's product open sourced? I think that is the exception, not the rule, and makes takes the discussion in a different direction
Cabal 13y ago
Be careful, I was sued for doing this (and lost). Had to pay up big.

ChristianMarks 13y ago

I turned down a software job due to its all-encompassing, amoeba-like intellectual property terms. Instead, I chose to work in the public sector, which does not limit the freedom to pursue and own the intellectual work one does on one's own time.

naringas 13y ago

what you grow on this land is mine; this land is mine. - civilization this machine is mine; what you manufacture with it is mine -- industrialization the ideas you come up with are mine; that idea is mine - ??

ChuckFrank 13y ago

I signed one of these contracts in 2006. I went to work for a company in product design and development, and since my work was new product design and development, everything I worked on at that time became the property of the company. There was also a two-year non-compete clause that forbid me from working with any of their direct competitors afterwards. I signed the contract because I wanted to do the work, and because I knew that all the other places would have me sign the same contract. I also thought that this company was the most progressive of the group. Finally, I wanted my ideas to be funded, and so in exchange for the time and the resources that they promised to put towards my work, I would provide them with the ideas. We were both taking risks to achieve a greater goal together. In the end, they reneged on their side of the bargain and didn't provide the necessary funding to complete the production and testing that the product design needed. After trying to get the work done myself in-house by funneling time and energy away from other projects towards mine, it came to a head and it was acknowledged that they weren't going to fund the work and that we needed to part ways. On the day that decision was made, I was escorted out, leaving everything behind, my notebooks, and all my digital research files. Several years later, when they won a large contract for work that was in the area that I was working on, my manager took me out for lunch and said that I had just been about 5 years ahead of the curve, and that they hadn't had the resources to carry that type of research and development that far ahead of a clear billable opportunity. When I asked him about the files and the notebooks, he said that nothing ever happened to them, they were all just filed away in the archives. I left understanding their situation well. It's hard to fund something when it's not clear when the payoff will materialize, and when it did materialize, they were able to get there first anyways. So the loss of five years in R&D wasn't noticed, by them, their clients, or the industry. The lesson that I did learn was - back up your files offsite, and have duplicate notebooks, one that is your private notebook and one that is your office notebook. Because when you sign a contract like this, you have to be prepared to leave everything onsite when it ends. The irony with the 2 year non-compete is that after I left, non of the other firms were interested in even discussing the work that I had done. Which is why these guys were the only ones that I could have worked with in the first place, and it's why they were the only ones able to secure the contracts when the need for the technology finally arrived. And there wasn't much I could do with the technology myself, since it was untested and unproved and I couldn't fund the research myself. So the non-compete clause didn't impact me much either. Perhaps this sheds some light on why the contracts exist and why people like me sign them.

collyw 13y ago

I worked for a major mobile phone manufacturer a while ago. They offered a pathetic £200 (I think) for any inventions you submitted to them, and they got a patent on. Funnily enough, I kept the ideas to myself. (Has anyone come up with a phone / camera that does automatic tagging based on GPS location? Your phone knows you are in front of some famous landmark, and tags the photos with the name. I assume it has been done by now, but this was when the first phones were starting to incorporate GPS and it seemed like a novel idea).

walshemj 13y ago

If Mr Lobel is claiming to be a legal academic (a professor for fracks sake) his lack of knowledge in how employment law devoped in common law jurestrictions is truly shocking. Employers owning employees ideas "related" to thier employment has been the case for a very long time.

pbhjpbhj 13y ago
"jurestrictions", can't tell if typo, clever pun on jure, or unknown legalese. Google gives me 2 English language pages with it on, a blog and a forum thread - I'm going with typo for "jurisdiction".
- walshemj 13y ago
  Yeh my proper pc died with a dead HDD last week I am on my backup notebook which doesn't have all the plugines i normaly use :-)

jbrooksuk 13y ago

I'm extremely lucky that my employer has the "do whatever you want out of work" attitude to things. I wanted to start selling Smart Watches, so I asked my boss and his reply was "it's your time, so long as it doesn't take up paid work time, you're free to do whatever".

anonymousDan 13y ago

This is the number one thing I would like to see any kind of IT labour organization campaign against. I don't really care about much else, so long as I am free to work on whatever I want in my own time and with my own resources so long as it doesn't interfere directly with my employer's line of business.

Unosolo 13y ago

On the topic of Restraint of trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade) clause which some companies insist on: in very few cases a company will take a former employee to court over a breach of such clause and then the company is still likely to lose the case unless the restriction was narrow, specific, reasonable. Usually there also need to be consideration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration) for giving up some of the freedom of trade.

islon 13y ago

We’ve seen the end of physical slavery just to go into an era of intelectual slavery.