This has been the default policy (inventions / work on your free time == the companies) at just about every job I've ever had in my career. They slip it into employment agreements as a method to ensure they can claim ownership over any "Intellectual Property and Inventions" you might make.
I've known several people (and OSS developers) who have been on the blunt end of this pretty nasty clause. They've been sued, or startups they started on the side sued by their now-ex company.
I've done the startup thing to the big company thing and somehow these clauses have always been there.
Disclosure: I work with Van @Rackspace - this updated policy is one step on a grand master open source plan :)
> This has been the default policy (inventions / work on your free time == the companies) at just about every job I've ever had in my career.
I second this. The companies I have worked in the past and current company (I think all come well within Fortune 50 list) all had exactly similar default policy. I too was surprised when I learnt that. But ALL of my past/current companies had a "discuss & establish exception" (via manager+legal coordinator if required) for my own work done (opensource or income-generating mobile app for eg:) during non work hours. The requirements were not very complex but they could be very broadly applicable since most of these big companies are in every field/domain of the software world. And the terms could be broadly summarized as "Thou shall not be given ownership of something that is going to be competetive or near-future business opportunity for the company" . Mostly your typical android/iphone app would get an easy approval. Opensource contributions (as long as non-competetive to existing company product) get easier-pass than income-generating (any thing involving money typically complicates things :) ) projects of the employee because the potential for conflict of interest is higher.
A lot of companies (like Rackspace or my current employer) are adopting opensource into the enterprise more and more and encouraging employees to contribute to opensource during work hours.
This is a great step by Rackspace, to be clear. All I'm saying is that it's mistaken to believe that most big companies will force you to sign an agreement stating that your code written on your own free time is theirs.
Actually, I was slightly mistaken originally. One time an employer tried to pull that, but when I pointed it out, they were willing to cross out the clause, because I was willing to walk away.
The catch here is you read the fine print. Many employees don't, and even if they do they miss assignment of invention clauses, non competes, etc. I too have asked to strike our the invention clauses - in one case they said ok, then backtracked and "lost" the struck through portion when I quit, the other refused "what are you hiding/planning".
It stinks that it's 2014 and invention clauses and non competes are basically default boilerplate, even in jurisdictions where they're unenforceable.
Comments
This has been the default policy (inventions / work on your free time == the companies) at just about every job I've ever had in my career. They slip it into employment agreements as a method to ensure they can claim ownership over any "Intellectual Property and Inventions" you might make.
I've known several people (and OSS developers) who have been on the blunt end of this pretty nasty clause. They've been sued, or startups they started on the side sued by their now-ex company.
I've done the startup thing to the big company thing and somehow these clauses have always been there.
Disclosure: I work with Van @Rackspace - this updated policy is one step on a grand master open source plan :)
I second this. The companies I have worked in the past and current company (I think all come well within Fortune 50 list) all had exactly similar default policy. I too was surprised when I learnt that. But ALL of my past/current companies had a "discuss & establish exception" (via manager+legal coordinator if required) for my own work done (opensource or income-generating mobile app for eg:) during non work hours. The requirements were not very complex but they could be very broadly applicable since most of these big companies are in every field/domain of the software world. And the terms could be broadly summarized as "Thou shall not be given ownership of something that is going to be competetive or near-future business opportunity for the company" . Mostly your typical android/iphone app would get an easy approval. Opensource contributions (as long as non-competetive to existing company product) get easier-pass than income-generating (any thing involving money typically complicates things :) ) projects of the employee because the potential for conflict of interest is higher.
A lot of companies (like Rackspace or my current employer) are adopting opensource into the enterprise more and more and encouraging employees to contribute to opensource during work hours.
This is a great step by Rackspace, to be clear. All I'm saying is that it's mistaken to believe that most big companies will force you to sign an agreement stating that your code written on your own free time is theirs.
Actually, I was slightly mistaken originally. One time an employer tried to pull that, but when I pointed it out, they were willing to cross out the clause, because I was willing to walk away.
Perhaps I was just lucky three times in a row?
The catch here is you read the fine print. Many employees don't, and even if they do they miss assignment of invention clauses, non competes, etc. I too have asked to strike our the invention clauses - in one case they said ok, then backtracked and "lost" the struck through portion when I quit, the other refused "what are you hiding/planning".
It stinks that it's 2014 and invention clauses and non competes are basically default boilerplate, even in jurisdictions where they're unenforceable.
I thought that wasn't enforceable in California?