
Does my company have IP rights to the stuff I do in my spare time? - SandB0x
http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/19422/if-im-working-at-a-company-do-they-have-intellectual-property-rights-to-the-stu
======
grellas
A few thoughts on this:

1\. I have done transactional work and litigation in and about these areas for
nearly 30 years in Silicon Valley. Based on that experience, in practical
terms, the risk you deal with in doing side work boils down to this: it is
rare that an employer will make a claim to IP you develop on your own time and
using your own resources but, when it does happen, its effect is pretty
horrific.

2\. California gives you more scope only because it has a law on the books
that generally prohibits employers, on public policy grounds, from making
claims to IP generated by employees working on their own time and using their
own resources.

3\. Even in California, however, an employee owes duties to his employer and
one of those is that you don't misappropriate your employer's IP for your own
use. This is why the California law says that you don't keep your side-project
IP for yourself if it is in your employer's line of business or anticipated
line of business. You can imagine the chaos that would result if any employee
could state that, "no, that valuable IP that I came up with might have
directly concerned what my employer was paying me to develop, but, in fact, I
developed that particular key piece on my own time, etc."

4\. In this sense, there is a common sense element to this area of law as
applied in California. You typically will sense, without being told, whether
the work you are doing on the side is capitalizing on the things your employer
is doing or if it is truly unrelated.

5\. That said, don't mess around with this sort of thing. It is both contract-
specific and local-law-specific. That means general statements you hear from
time to time (including those I just made) may or may not apply to you. If
what you are planning to do has commercial value, then make sure to get it
checked by a good local lawyer who can guide you through the pitfalls and
explain alternatives. This is particularly so if you are not in California.

~~~
nostrademons
"If what you are planning to do has commercial value, then make sure to get it
checked by a good local lawyer who can guide you through the pitfalls and
explain alternatives."

Is being no-longer-employed by your employer an absolute defense, assuming
that you can prove that any IP in question was created after the end of your
employment?

I'm thinking of the case where an employee does something that's either not of
commercial value or lets it revert to his employer's ownership, but then quits
and founds a startup (with an entirely new codebase) afterwards.

For example, Marc Andreesen writes a web browser under the terms of his
employment with UIUC. He then drops out, moves to Silicon Valley, and founds a
company with Jim Clark, presumably with a from-scratch codebase. They get sued
for trademark infringement because they name it _Mosaic_ Communications Corp,
but UIUC has no legal claim to any of their source code or inventions
developed after the end of Andreesen's employment, right, even though he
gained quite a lot of experience working on web browsers there?

Or Larry and Sergey start Backrub at Stanford. It becomes Google before they
leave Stanford grad school. Stanford obviously owns the PageRank patent
because it was developed while they were still students, and they licensed it
for a good chunk of shares. However, would Stanford own the original Google
logo, forcing Google to redo it when they incorporated as a separate company?
How about code - presumably Google licensed the codebase from Stanford, but if
they hadn't and had started fresh instead, would Stanford have any claims on
the grounds that Larry and Sergey had built an essentially identical product
under their employment?

~~~
grellas
An employer can easily find grounds to chase you for your strictly post-
employment work if it can argue that such work misappropriates its proprietary
rights (usually but not necessarily trade secret), whether or not the work you
originally did for the employer had commercial value at the time you first did
it. Starting with a from-scratch codebase may or may not offer you a shield
but likely not - this is because the concept of "trade secrets" is much
broader than the code itself and a former employer can (normally) easily argue
that you are gaining an unfair competitive advantage from your superior
knowledge of the confidential information relating to its proprietary product
and that you would be misusing such knowledge (which, by law, belongs to the
employer exclusively) in using it to do an allegedly independent
implementation. The employer might find it hard to win such a case but this
would not stop them from making your life hell for several years as you try to
defend yourself from such an assault.

Short answer: there is no absolute defense in the fact of your no longer being
employed when you do the allegedly offending activity.

BTW, I don't know enough about the Andreessen or Google examples to comment
intelligently on the specifics there.

~~~
chegra
(sidenote) <http://www.grellas.com/acquisitions.html> "We are sophisticated
enough to help buyers and sellers in such deals valued at many millions of
dollars and flexible ENOUGHT to provide cost-effective help for small business
deals as well."

The copy on your site needs correcting.

------
tptacek
Very often, yes. The boilerplate IP contracts provided by most law firms
usually claims one of:

* All software development work you ever do while employed by the company.

* All software development work you do using in any way any resource of the company, from computer to network connection.

* All software development work you do related to the business of the company that employs you.

* All software development work you do that isn't explicitly listed in an exhibit of exceptions you, the employee, fill out.

Before you start asking how enforceable this stuff is, note that unlike with
noncompetes (which usually aren't practically enforceable), the way _this_
issue is going to come up is, you're going to try to start a company, and your
first official act of business is going to be to start defending yourself
against legal actions from your employer that will torpedo any chance you have
of getting funding for the year or so it takes for those actions to resolve
themselves.

So, 'grellas may chime in and say "don't worry about this", in which case
ignore me, but I wouldn't dick around with this issue. If my IP contract
precluded me from working on my next company project, I'd get a clarified
official path to working on it from my employer, and leave if one wasn't
provided.

~~~
rst
This also varies somewhat by state; there's a law in California (Labor Code
section 2870[1]) that bars employers from claiming work that an employee does
"on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies,
facilities or trade secret information" unless the invention relates directly
to the employer's business. I'd still check with a lawyer, though, even if in
California --- and if elsewhere, most states are a lot less generous.

[1] [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=lab...](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2870-2872)

~~~
tptacek
It may be harder than you expect to establish that you're not in a business
related to your former employer, at least to the extent that you can quickly
end a legal action; all I'm saying is, that legal safeguard may not be as
helpful as you'd hope.

~~~
kjhghjkjh
Remember that you aren't trying to convince a bunch of HN readers - you are
trying to convince a judge (who thinks computers are magic boxes)

If your day job is Oracle DBA and your startup is iPhone apps or web design
that still equals the same "computer stuff" to a judge.

~~~
bigiain
I'm pretty sure Oracle is a good example of a company that makes you agree
that they own everything you think of while employed by them.

A friend of mine became an Oracle employee when the company he worked for got
acquired, and ended up needing to get approval from a long way up the org
chart to be able to continue doing his phd, since the university had existing
claims on ip in his phd research.

For quite a long time he described himself as " technically not being allowed
to think anything..."

~~~
kjhghjkjh
It's not oracle specificaly it's that if you are say a structural ironworker
during the day and make bronze sculptures as a hobby then a judge will
understand they are different.

But they might not understand that being a sysadmin is as different to being a
web designer in the evening.

~~~
bigiain
Sorry, I should have been more clear.

As I understand it, Oracle's standard employment agreement includes language
saying you agree that Oracle owns every idea you have while employed by them,
whether on "paid hours" or not, whether related to databases or software in
general or not - if you're a database engineer for Oracle and you invent a
better tap washer, Oracle seem to think they'll own your plumbing related
invention. There's workarounds for at least limited exceptions to that
standard rule, but it's apparently unusual and required signoff at many levels
above the typical workers management.

------
Philbrick
Google, my employer, recently refused a request that I made to release as open
source some software that I had been working on in my spare time and without
using any of their resources, on they claim that my software would compete
with one of their projects. :-(

~~~
alain94040
There's a story in there. Did Google actually have any claims to the software
you wrote? If not, then you wouldn't need their persmission (except that now
that you asked, they could fire you for disregarding their "advice").

I'd love to hear cdibona's views on that.

~~~
cdibona
I wrote them up last time this came up, you can find it here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1970191>

------
bugsy
I worked for a company that not only had this clause, but it extended to any
and all inventions pertaining to the employers line of business for 12 months
after employment terminated.

When employment terminated and I intended to go work for a competitor, I was
given a letter explaining that the business of my employer was "software and
hardware" and was told verbally they would aggressively pursue that claim. The
also notified the company I was going to work for who then withdrew the
employment offer. Probably wouldn't have stood up in court if I had a few
million to pay attorneys. As it was it cost me around $30,000 in legal fees to
deal with and I was unemployable for a full year during a time when my
expertise, which I had gained on my own time before working for these people,
was very hot.

In the end it doesn't matter one whit what the law says because to maintain
your rights you will have to fund lawyers longer than their staff attorneys
are willing to harass you. In practice, you run out of money pretty fast.

You must not sign these sorts of contracts or work for these people in any way
shape or form if you want to avoid big trouble. When they inform you of these
clauses, regardless of what the state law says, they are warning you they
intend to create legal problems for you if you ever try to work for anyone
else.

Remember this one thing. If you do not have unlimited pockets you have no
legal rights in a contest against a better funded party.

~~~
ajays
Can you please name the employer so the rest of us can avoid them? Thanks!

~~~
bugsy
They don't exist anymore! It may appeal to your Schadenfreude to know that
shortly after this they went bankrupt - because I wasn't there and so they
couldn't complete contracts and got sued into oblivion by their clients.

I guess I'll mention the basic problem was I had a contract with them
licensing one of my patents to them when I went to work there. They then told
me they wanted me to transfer complete ownership of my patent to them when it
became an issue that they wanted to license it to another company, which my
license did not allow (non-transferable) and they didn't want to pay for. I
said no, and so they fired me, but told me if I gave them the patent I could
come back to work - blackmail!

The other company then wanted to hire me and deal with me directly, and that's
when my former employer launched legal proceedings and sabotaged my new job
offer.

That is when I found out that a qualified and experienced IP attorney who
knows the law costs a lot more ($600/hr) than a regular family attorney
($100/hr). My attorneys were top guys nationally and were very clear that the
company had absolutely no case whatsoever on any of their claims.

It soon became apparent though that the company attorney was scheduling
meetings with my attorneys solely for the purpose of bleeding me dry. For
example, company attorney would demand to meet with multiple members of my
firm to discuss things, and then talk slow, fumble with papers and act stupid,
at a cost of $2400/hr to me because there were 4 attorneys there. My attorneys
told me straight up that that was what the deal was and they called the
company on their BS but the company kept trying these tactics. Eventually the
company got buried in their own bad karma and gave up, but it still cost me a
fortune to deal with and stole a year from my life and caused incredible
stress and dismay. Lesson learned was that it simply does not matter that the
law is on your side and the other people don't have a case if they are acting
in bad faith.

The good part was that I came out of it a lot wiser and since then I
absolutely will not deal with any company that insists I agree to terms I
don't feel are completely fair. That decision is still the right one, decades
later, and completely changed the amount of BS I was dealing with in jobs. Any
one who feels uncomfortable with any clause should not agree to it and be
firm. If you have talent, you will find work for reasonable people and that
work will be better paid and less stress than dealing with the jerks.

------
btilly
The advice in that forum is an illustration of why you should not believe
legal advice that is given to you by non-lawyers. Much of it is wrong,
dangerously so.

For example one person claims that by default what you do on your own time is
owned by you. Sorry, that varies by jurisdiction and local laws. It is true in
CA, but false in NY.

Several people claim that CA offers strong protections. That is true, but the
protections are not nearly as strong as they are claiming.

And so on. If you, personally, care about this topic, talk to a good IP lawyer
who knows the local laws for your state.

~~~
bugsy
Do you have a citation for your statement that "what you do in your spare
time" is _not_ owned by you in New York?

~~~
btilly
My reference was what I was informed was the law by multiple lawyers when I
lived in New York. It is possible that I misunderstood or the rules have
changed in the last decade, but I am pretty sure neither is the case. Still
you should confirm this with a qualified attorney before accepting what I say
as being absolutely true.

More precisely I was told that New York recognizes 3 types of employee
relationships. They are hourly, contractor, and professional employee. The
first two are obvious. You are aware if you have to punch in on a clock, or
are a contractor. The default for software development is therefore the third.

As a professional employee there are no set place or hours for your
employment. (That is why you don't get overtime.) Therefore anything that you
do that could possibly relate to your employment is by default assumed to be a
work for hire that took place during the course of your employment. There are
admittedly some complications there. If a programmer writes a novel, that's
going to not be a work for hire. If a programmer writes a program, that's
likely going to be a work for hire. But there are gray areas. For instance a
VB programmer by day who works a C device driver for Linux by night _might_
have a case that their side project doesn't relate to their employment.

But just in case, virtually every New York company makes sure that employees
sign contracts that clarifies any possible ambiguity..in favor of the
employer. So the reality is that if you live in New York, you can't assume
that you own your side project.

Incidentally this is the reason that the FSF (which is very careful on
intellectual property) requires that they get copyright assignment both from
contributers and from the contributers' employers. Because they don't want to
get into a situation where they think they have copyright, but someone else
has a legal claim to copyright that code.

~~~
bugsy
Thanks for the detailed reply. I found a post from 2002 with a similar
citation regarding NY's classes of employees:
<http://www.perlmonks.org/?displaytype=print;node_id=153046>

He doesn't explicitly state if his open source work was entirely done on his
own time and equipment or done during down time at work or such, but it might
be the case in his post there.

It's strange. As you probably know, the work for hire exception to copyright
comes from the 1976 Federal Copyright Act. It doesn't extend to times when you
are not at work, or have a 24/7 idea for professionals. It's also the case
that nearly every state has hourly, contract and salary/overtime exempt
employment categories, yet no other states I know of extend work for hire to
off hours in the absence of a contract. If this doctrine can indeed be found
in NY State Law, it would seem to be a state regulating something that only
Congress has a right to regulate, which is copyright law (Article I, Section
8, Clause 8).

It would be really interesting to see the text of the NY state law on this,
maybe I'll be able to find it some time.

~~~
btilly
_AHEM_

I am intimately familiar with that case. :-)

~~~
bugsy
Ah, OK, I should have noticed! Thanks.

------
modoc
In general you should avoid signing the standard contracts at any job. I've
always made changes to protect my after-hours work, and they've been okayed
every single time.

~~~
updog
Have you worked at any large companies and had success with that? I'm used to
dealing with people who don't know who wrote the agreement, have given it to
thousands of others "without a problem", and treat me like I am a bit odd for
actually reading it, let alone trying to change something.

~~~
modoc
Yes actually I've pushed changes back at companies like Cingular and AT&T, and
semi-large consulting firms like NCS Tech, and others. The HR rep will usually
think I'm odd, but it's saved my butt at least once, so it's worth a couple
odd looks:)

------
wallflower
As a condition of employment, back when I didn't know any better, I signed the
All-your-IP-belong-to-us contract. I tried digging through my archives at my
parent's house last year to try to find it but couldn't. I'm not sure I want
to bring it up with my boss and Legal (red flagged). Then again, maybe I want
to be the nail that sticks out and doesn't get hammered down.

Now that I am doing substantial freelance and collaborative projects - my
strategy is to work on either a) side projects with diffuse ownership b) pro-
bono projects or c) projects where we don't own the product - the client does
- while I plot my eventual jumping ship. I hope they won't go after me.

Going to another company is kind of ridiculous because they tell you in the
interview that 'as long as you don't use any of the code that you work on
during the day'. Any good coder knows that reusing code is part of the job -
and it would be difficult if not insane to pretend that you can keep code out
of side projects. My strategy, if I were to take such a job, would be to open
source the code I do on my own time that I might use at the company - and get
permission to use my own open source library.

However, I've done enough freelance hours to know freelancing isn't a bed of
roses - a bed of roses with thorns. There is no concept of weekends or
holidays with client deadlines...

Ah, health care...

~~~
alok-g
I requested a copy of my contract from HR (without even going to my boss) and
they provided me information on how to access a copy of it on our internal
website.

I was worrying about being red-flagged just like you. But a lawyer told me
that I should not be worried about this at all, and should just politely tell
them something like, "I am missing copy of so-and-so contract from my file,
can I get a copy." It proved to be even easier in my case.

------
trotsky
It's a seller's market, don't take a job at a company with policies you don't
agree with, regardless of how common they are or how enforceable they might
be[1]. It's quite easy to find employers in the bay area that don't demand
such things or will waive the clause.

Make sure to tell them why you didn't take the job.

[1] I suppose if it's clearly and completely unenforceable little harm is done

~~~
zem
in what way is it a seller's market? as far as i can see, high-tech employment
is still not all the way back up to pre-recession levels.

~~~
jswinghammer
If you tried to hire in the past few years in an area like Boston this
wouldn't require further explanation.

~~~
zem
are you speaking from experience? if so, i'm curious - is it that you confined
your search to boston, or that people elsewhere were unwilling to relocate?

------
ChuckMcM
Very much state dependent, and very much modified by the employment agreement
(if you had one) when you joined a company. You can, and should, strike any
objectionable material from the employment agreement, have the HR person who
is helping you with your first day paperwork sign off on the changes, make a
copy of the document, have the HR person sign the copy acknowledging it is a
true copy of what was signed, and put that somewhere safe.

If the company won't accept your changes, then that is your signal that not
only do they intend to own IP rights to perhaps everything you have done or
will do, they also intend to litigate for those rights which you will have
signed over to them with the agreement.

That is a good time to decide if you want to work there or not.

For folks who are thinking about changing companys but have yet to make the
jump, ask your future employer to give you a copy of the employment agreement
before you accept their offer. Have it reviewed by a lawyer. That way you can
find out before you give notice that you weren't going to work there anyway.

At least for tech employees there is enough demand on the hiring side to give
you an advantage.

------
motters
I recently came up against this sort of nonsense in a job interview. I do a
lot of technological stuff in my spare time, so as soon as they mentioned that
I would have to agree to stop engaging in such extra-curricular activities I
ended the negotiations.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
IANAL, but in the UK, unless you have a contract that specifically says
otherwise, yes.

On the other hand, if the outside work provably used no employer resources,
and provably is unrelated, then you can probably defend yourself against an
action. But you really, really don't want to depend on that.

Get it sorted up front. Get an explicit agreement with your employer that non-
competing work done without their resources and without impacting your work,
belongs to you.

Otherwise it's murky and dangerous.

~~~
rlpb
> and provably is unrelated

I've been told by a professional that "unrelated" generally means work that
might be in a different profession - and that to a court, "computers" could be
considered a single profession in this sort of case. Work done in the field of
"computers" outside of work, and you work for a "computer" firm? Related. Ergo
your employer owns the IP.

So yeah, don't depend on it. At all.

This is the advice I was given when verifying that I had the IP relating to my
startup. To avoid any doubt, I got the IP signed over with a contract I paid a
solicitor for. This cost money, but more importantly it helped that my former
employer was willing to do this.

Thinking about it, this default is the sort of thing that stifles innovation.
If the Government wants to promote innovation, perhaps they should change the
rules.

Edited to add: I'm in the UK.

------
zach
Maybe, but if you don't actually create IP yourself -- you hire a contractor
to do what you do at your day job -- you will stay in the clear and gain
valuable experience.

Managing a contracted worker in your field of expertise, within the creative
restriction that you cannot perform their work for them, is itself a highly
educational exercise for someone with entrepreneurial interests.

Be sure to document well, though.

~~~
cryptoz
That's all fine and good for legal reasons, but frankly the whole point of
doing stuff in my free time is that _I_ want to be the one doing it. Otherwise
I wouldn't be doing it in my free time.

I get what you're saying from a financial and legal perspective, but it
definitely does not solve the greater problem.

~~~
zach
Yeah, I understand. You would think that employers would prize the kind of
employee who wants to do the same thing in their spare time as they do at the
office, wouldn't you?

And yet everywhere they are treated with suspicion.

------
mkramlich
I wouldn't mind allowing a company to have rights over what I do on my own
time as long as I get ownership rights over everything else the company is
doing, regardless of whether I'm involved or not. Fair's fair.

~~~
alok-g
It does not depend unfortunately whether you mind or not.

~~~
mkramlich
where there's a will there's a way :P

~~~
CapitalistCartr
Where there's a will, there's billable hours.

~~~
mkramlich
i like that. "if you can't beat 'em, bill em!" :)

------
daimyoyo
I'm in sales and in my spare time I am creating a program for online data
management(which will also create leads although they're B2B and my company
does B2C). Can I use the "not work related" exemption or should I renegotiate
my employment agreement? I work in Nevada. Thank you for any help you can give
me.

~~~
alok-g
PS: I am not a lawyer, although have done extensive online research on these
issues.

1\. "Not work related" gives you an incomplete picture (not related to who's
work?). That it is not related to your work is not enough. It must not be
related to the employer's line of work, or anticipated line of work. Even if
one person in the company is working on a related item, the your work may
belong to the company. Even if one person in the company is anticipating the
same, you have a potential issue. (See item 3 below for a related issue.)

2\. The normal meaning of "related" also should not be taken at face value. If
you are making burgers for MacDonald's while making a software side project,
you are likely to be OK (and I am guessing that McDonald's would make you sign
an employment agreement for these issues also). If you are in sales for a
technical company and are making a software, they can easily be considered to
be "related" by your company or the court.

3\. Keep in mind that in any case the onus of proving is on you, so you the
legal costs of proving you are clean would fall on you. That also means that
in case of trouble, the court may initially side the employer and wait for you
to prove you are clean to turn to your side.

~~~
alok-g
Correction: "and I am guessing that McDonald's would NOT make you sign an
employment agreement for these issues"

------
SandB0x
Interested to hear perspectives from Europe/UK as well as the US, so if you
mention specifics please say where this is relevant.

------
pyre
I think that the most ridiculous contracts are the ones that attempt to assert
ownership of things you have produced _before you even worked at the company._
(i.e. anything that you have created, are creating, and will create in the
future) Companies/lawyers will do this claiming that it's only a defensive
measure, but once they have that power over you, they _will not hesitate_ to
go on the offensive if they think they have something to gain by doing so.

------
bcrawford
[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=lab...](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2870-2872)

Unless I'm reading this wrong: if you work on it solely on your time, with
your equipment, it's yours (in California, anyway).

UPDATE: Oh, also it can't compete with their business.

~~~
alok-g
People, this link talks about "inventions". Nothing else is included in this.
Please do not generalize this to "work".

If you invent something while adhering to the statutes stated here, and write
software implementing that invention, then the invention would belong to you.
But the software doesn't! Software is subject to copyrights, not inventions.

~~~
sabat
Regardless of the word used, this law does apply to copyrighted works in
practice. "Invention" is used in the sense of "creations".

~~~
alok-g
That would be excellent. How can I confirm this?

~~~
sabat
IANAL, but I know there are existing cases. I confirmed it through a friend
who's been doing HR here for years. So: either lawyers or HR people or both, I
suppose.

------
AndyJPartridge
UK Opinion:

I started writing an application 10 years before the formation of a UK Ltd
company, and when I joined them I let them use it.

I ended up having to negotiate and buy said software from the liquidator when
it failed because it was cheaper than fighting the claim in court to prove
ownership.

As many have said, get everything in writing.

------
Deestan
In Norway, no.

Some companies try to put it in the contract, but it has no base in law and
holds no legal obligations. I.e. you can ignore the clause safely.

------
kmfrk
After the whole Bratz debacle[1], I make sure never to kid around with the
danger of this.

[1]:
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bratz#Legal_a...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bratz#Legal_actions)

------
davidchua
This topic has made me relook at my employment contract and I'm a little
concerned.

Does this sound like I'm exempt having to hand over my IP for non-work related
coding?

"All Intellectual Property developed, created or used by you or with your
assistance during your employment with the Company in the context of the
business of <Company Group> or any related activities shall be and at all
times remain the property of the Company."

It feels like anything that is done outside of work that is not related to the
company is exempt, but I'm not sure.

~~~
motters
It sounds sufficiently vague that the company could claim that your extra-
curricular IP belongs to them if they want to take it.

------
nihar
It depends on what your contract says... I work for a firm that clearly states
that whatever you do, if it involves their equipment, resources, or time, or
knowledge gained while working with them, they have IP rights at that point.
That being said, some companies allow you to do stuff on your own, e.g. work
for a different client / project outside your billable hours, and they don't
have rights to those products (as long as you're clearly showing that you're
not using shared resources).

------
xsmasher
When handed one of these, put it in your desk. Same with second and third
copy. If they ask for it before hire, say you need time to read it.

If that fails, write an addendum that neuters the document. "Nothing in this
agreement precludes posting online, writing, blogging, coding, or
contributions to open source software provided that no code or technology
specific to company XYZ is disclosed." Most employers won't pay their lawyer
to review your addendum and bang, you have your rights back.

------
alok-g
I had asked pretty much the same question here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1839301>

------
dctoedt
Links to specific statutory provisions of various states:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1970276>

Flow chart for analyzing employer rights:
<http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/2010/12/diagramming-a-legal-i...>.

------
Kilimanjaro
Sometimes the law and common sense have nothing in common.

I have different hobbies besides coding, so if I create a painting masterpiece
my employer owns it? How about my latest culinary invention? The new can
opener I just invented? Or my one month old daughter conceived in my spare
time?

I call retardedness, but that's the law and we must obey it or fight to change
it.

~~~
Kilimanjaro
It all boils down to this, the law is supposed to protect the individual, but
the corporations have the money, and the law-makers follow the money,
therefore the individual gets screwed. Corporatocracy is ruling the world
right now but we are getting fed of it and even if it takes a hundred years we
will make them serve the individuals that work for them and not only their
C?Os.

------
run4yourlives
Not in Canada they don't. The courts will look at every case individually but
unless there is obvious malfeasance on behalf of the employee, any "we own
you" contracts are unenforceable.

(Point being that it depends on where you live.)

~~~
ckcheng
Do you have any links, references on this??

Specific to Canada - and Alberta - would be nice. :)

I'm trying to find more info on this, and can't find any relevant info on
Google...

~~~
run4yourlives
You should check out the Alberta employment standards office. It's goes the
same for non-compete agreements, which are also hard to enforce north of the
49th.

------
alok-g
I found this to be an excellent resource for this topic.

[http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Property-Open-Source-
Prot...](http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Property-Open-Source-
Protecting/dp/0596517963/)

While this has "open source" in the title, it's still an excellent book
related to this topic.

Another good thing about this book is that it draws analogies between software
source code and law statutes, making it very easy for software folks to
understand these legal issues.

------
gte910h
Depends on where you live. Heavily state dependent.

~~~
boucher
Absolutely. Along with the standard, "talk to a lawyer" advice, it's worth
noting a few things:

1) Virtually every major technology company includes intellectual property
assignment agreements in the paperwork they require new hires to sign. Most
startups probably have the same policy, many perhaps without even knowing it,
since its part of plenty of standard paperwork. Y Combinator's standard
paperwork includes such a clause.

2) For all of the ones I've seen (and I imagine most respectable companies,
and probably every company in California, for reasons to be mentioned), the
paperwork claims ownership over anything developed a) during work hours, or b)
using company owned equipment, resources, or IP, or c) anything that doesn't
fall into the first two categories but that involves an area of business the
company is active in, or has plans to be active in.

3) The reason California companies all have roughly the same language, is
because those restrictions are what are specified in California state law.
Given the nature of California in the tech industry, I would guess that
influences what a lot of tech companies use as a general policy. The language
is somewhat complicated by the third part of the equation, but generally I
believe the company has to be able to show damages in such an instance.

4) There are no such general protections on the federal level, and I believe a
majority of states do not offer those protections, meaning that in many states
all work, and even in some cases all ideas, that you generate during your
employment belong to your employer (if you signed a contract to that effect
with the employer).

------
ylem
The following article may be of some interest:
[http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/nov2010/ca20101...](http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/nov2010/ca2010112_650227.htm)

------
absconditus
A recent relevant discussion on reddit:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/fftaa/my_25_hour_foray_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/fftaa/my_25_hour_foray_in_corporate_america/)

------
aspiringsensei
My employer is hyper-strict about stuff that is directly competitive with
their offerings, but has tightly "ringfenced" those offerings and allows us to
do what we like outside them.

------
mtarnovan
Pertaining the case cited by the answer, this might be an interesting read:
<http://bit.ly/gt5BGE> (Google Books)

------
snorkel
Generally if your employer wants to take whatever you created, they probably
can. So best not to draw their attention to your side project.

------
PHPAdam
Interesting read, its doubtful they can.

If it ever came to a dispute, id follow the guidance of mark zuckerberg and
fight it out for the rights to my work.

~~~
boucher
This seems like a fairly uninformed view of the Zuckerberg story. In the end,
Facebook settled those claims for huge amounts of money (and only were able to
because they in fact had huge amounts of money).

------
gaustin
Link broken? All I get is "Portal Not Found"

------
drivebyacct2
"Does this seem off-topic to anyone else? – Russell Steen Jan 26 at 14:49"

Is the reason I just get sick of S.O. sometimse.

~~~
m_myers
Where "S.O" is shorthand for "answers.onstartups.com"?

