Ask HN: What is your company's policy regarding side-projects?
42 comments
Previous company was essentially "We own everything you create whether during work or not" I think my contract was worded in a way that meant technically speaking any ideas I had while under their employment belong to them too. I'm not sure how they'd have enforced it, but was unwilling to challenge it.
Major part of my reasoning to leave. I left with a fair bit of leverage due to an unrelated matter so managed to secure all the rights to my side project on the way out.
Current job - don't compete directly with us and don't let it get in the way of your work and we're cool with whatever.
Major part of my reasoning to leave. I left with a fair bit of leverage due to an unrelated matter so managed to secure all the rights to my side project on the way out.
Current job - don't compete directly with us and don't let it get in the way of your work and we're cool with whatever.
I had a job offer from a company with that kind of "Everything you create is ours" clause in the contract(along with a pretty broad non-compete). I think a bit part of it was a that it was a remote work position. When I pushed back about it, the guy trying to hire me basically told me "don't worry about it, I've seen it enforced", and I'm not even sure how legally sound the clauses were, but I ended up not taking the job over it.
Yeah it's not something I'd ever allow in my contract either anymore. "I've never seen it enforced" just means you might be the first person to have a side project, not worth the risk if you can find a job elsewhere
If you really want the job, mention that you do community volunteer work and that you want to make sure that other worthy causes aren't affected -- so you want to send the contract to your lawyer, and have it hashed out between lawyers. Then make sure your lawyer really knows what your goals are so that they can get the wording changed.
Specifically, I'd accept wording that included "excludes personal project work done 100% outside of a work context, unless such work is related to a direct work assignment". But a lawyer would have to point out any loopholes in that wording.
Specifically, I'd accept wording that included "excludes personal project work done 100% outside of a work context, unless such work is related to a direct work assignment". But a lawyer would have to point out any loopholes in that wording.
> I'm not sure how they'd have enforced it
In a lot of cases they probably couldn't. The purpose of this sort of clause isn't that they can actually use it to claim truly unrelated work you did on your own time. The main purpose of a clause like this is to ensure that if the work is defensibly related to your job you can't make the argument that the contract left you a loophole.
In a lot of cases they probably couldn't. The purpose of this sort of clause isn't that they can actually use it to claim truly unrelated work you did on your own time. The main purpose of a clause like this is to ensure that if the work is defensibly related to your job you can't make the argument that the contract left you a loophole.
Oh I mean the "we own your ideas" bit. They did enforce the side project part, asking me to take down the site. There were other things going on at the time which meant I had a bit of leverage and we parted ways amicably with the rights to everything side-project being given to me as part of my exit.
The last two companies I worked for were pretty clear about it:
Everything you work on outside of work is your own property, and we have no real interest in it. Even on work computers, as long as it's not part of a client project, then it's your property.
Honestly, I'm kind of surprised how many companies seemingly don't work like this. I mean, maybe I'm really lucky in that sense, but I never worked for or even interviewed at a company that cared what their employees were doing in their free time.
Everything you work on outside of work is your own property, and we have no real interest in it. Even on work computers, as long as it's not part of a client project, then it's your property.
Honestly, I'm kind of surprised how many companies seemingly don't work like this. I mean, maybe I'm really lucky in that sense, but I never worked for or even interviewed at a company that cared what their employees were doing in their free time.
At Crowdbotics you are required to be working on at least one side project, either for fun or for profit, at all times. You own it.
Some people might not like that, but I think that's awesome. I wish more companies operated like that.
Whats the minimum you can get away with. E.g. can you phone it in with a line of python a week.
I won't copy paste the terms, but they say any employee can do what they like, as long as it doesn't utilise the resources of the business (which are defined as equipment, offices, money, time etc.).
And if it does, then the business operates a 'first-refusal' policy. In cases where the business has decided to utilise the side-project, this is normally combined with financial compensation in some form (a salary raise, a bonus, something like that).
FYI, I'm in the UK (midlands). I think this is quite a liberal approach compared to most. But it seems to motivate staff to think outside the box in the interests of the business.
And if it does, then the business operates a 'first-refusal' policy. In cases where the business has decided to utilise the side-project, this is normally combined with financial compensation in some form (a salary raise, a bonus, something like that).
FYI, I'm in the UK (midlands). I think this is quite a liberal approach compared to most. But it seems to motivate staff to think outside the box in the interests of the business.
That is fantastic to hear! I am also in the UK and every single contract I have signed was accompanied with clauses basically stating that the company owns anything I create while I am employed by them. This includes anything outside of work as well. I believe this is the standard terms for UK contracts. I was lucky in getting my current employer to add an addendum to my contract giving me certain exclusions to this clause, it was however a process to get it past their legal department.
Mine (also UK) is similar to what you describe, minus your addendum. It makes reference to agreeing that inventions (new software, I imagine) developed during the course of my employment must be made available to the company for its use. I've never known the company to call anyone out on this.
Yes that is true, I have never known anyone that was called out on this. However I am sure if an invention becomes popular and really valuable that some organisations, espcially big ones, would not hesitate to give it a try.
My UK contact has no IP terms but the employer added something into the employee handbook claiming to own everything which was a problem for me as I do a number of non-work projects outside work.
I had a discussion and got a clarification on the scope and we agreed that it covered specified things with work applicability, so I'm satisfied now (will start work on the best selling novel and string of number one hits right away!).
It was important it wasn't just based on a vague ill-defined idea of "outside work" because typically a portion of what is clearly work related IP I generate doesn't happen in a formal work situation, yet I understand it as work (and am fine with that) whilst equally there is plenty of non-work IP that is just as clearly in no way work (as it doesn't relate to our line of business).
I had a discussion and got a clarification on the scope and we agreed that it covered specified things with work applicability, so I'm satisfied now (will start work on the best selling novel and string of number one hits right away!).
It was important it wasn't just based on a vague ill-defined idea of "outside work" because typically a portion of what is clearly work related IP I generate doesn't happen in a formal work situation, yet I understand it as work (and am fine with that) whilst equally there is plenty of non-work IP that is just as clearly in no way work (as it doesn't relate to our line of business).
General rule for Germany is, that your employer must allow you to have a job besides your main job.
This does probably not really fit to what we understand as "side projects" but if you are making serious money and invest time in it, you´ll have to talk to your employer.
Employers will most likely do not allow it, if it´s very time consuming (you need to be fit your main job) or very related to your main job (say: freelancing graphic design while working for a design agency).
I found that it really depends on the employer and there is no general rule.
This does probably not really fit to what we understand as "side projects" but if you are making serious money and invest time in it, you´ll have to talk to your employer.
Employers will most likely do not allow it, if it´s very time consuming (you need to be fit your main job) or very related to your main job (say: freelancing graphic design while working for a design agency).
I found that it really depends on the employer and there is no general rule.
That's actually wrong.
An employer can require you to inform him about side jobs but is legally not allowed to prohibit you from taking a side job unless you work against his interest (eg. negative impact on your performance or competing with your employer).
An employer can require you to inform him about side jobs but is legally not allowed to prohibit you from taking a side job unless you work against his interest (eg. negative impact on your performance or competing with your employer).
When we have downtime at work, I'm working on side projects. I would hope the company would prefer me working on something than sitting there twittling my thumbs.
Any thing I work on is only improving my knowledge for the company itself. I don't think they have any policy that it is theirs. Though most of my work is kept on the Internet and very rarely do I ever have the files I am working on on the computer, and if they are, they are just mock files that have no purpose other than UI.
I have heard of plenty of companies claiming to own your ideas, but unless you directly stole something from your company, like their core code -- in which case, a lot of Google's stuff is open source anyway, so really, how can they claim to own your projects? And if thats the case, than what share of your own idea do you get?
Anyways, unless the company wants to help you market and advertise and sell your product, than they really have no say. But companies will do as they please. They are certainly better off allowing people to be creative. There are plenty of projects I work on that I'm sure my company has no interest in. Would they want to claim something I wrote that encourages swearing and cursing? Yeah.. probably not.
Any thing I work on is only improving my knowledge for the company itself. I don't think they have any policy that it is theirs. Though most of my work is kept on the Internet and very rarely do I ever have the files I am working on on the computer, and if they are, they are just mock files that have no purpose other than UI.
I have heard of plenty of companies claiming to own your ideas, but unless you directly stole something from your company, like their core code -- in which case, a lot of Google's stuff is open source anyway, so really, how can they claim to own your projects? And if thats the case, than what share of your own idea do you get?
Anyways, unless the company wants to help you market and advertise and sell your product, than they really have no say. But companies will do as they please. They are certainly better off allowing people to be creative. There are plenty of projects I work on that I'm sure my company has no interest in. Would they want to claim something I wrote that encourages swearing and cursing? Yeah.. probably not.
A must read in this topic. Give perspective on why companies want to own your side projects.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-pr...
TL;DR - companies don't want you to sue them in the future where you claim copyright on their product.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-pr...
TL;DR - companies don't want you to sue them in the future where you claim copyright on their product.
The whole of that has been totally debunked and it's also illegal in many states.
I'm a contractor and I've been asked to sign some work I did over to the company I work for; it's very very clear what "The Software" is in the contract that my client was paying for, why make it so complicated?
"Your game designer works for a year and invents 7 games. At the end of the year, she sues you, claiming that she owns 4 of them, because those particular games were invented between 5pm and 9am, when she wasn’t on duty."
You have the option to specify clearly and record what you paid the games developer for; it's on you as an employer to show this and it's a ridiculous, straw man example. If you cannot prove that the developer did this work solely for you in exchange for salary then maybe you don't deserve to own these games.
I'm a contractor and I've been asked to sign some work I did over to the company I work for; it's very very clear what "The Software" is in the contract that my client was paying for, why make it so complicated?
"Your game designer works for a year and invents 7 games. At the end of the year, she sues you, claiming that she owns 4 of them, because those particular games were invented between 5pm and 9am, when she wasn’t on duty."
You have the option to specify clearly and record what you paid the games developer for; it's on you as an employer to show this and it's a ridiculous, straw man example. If you cannot prove that the developer did this work solely for you in exchange for salary then maybe you don't deserve to own these games.
> Otherwise, Google owns any IP created while you're at the company.
Not necessary in California: Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information. http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/lab/division-3/2...
There are exceptions of course, major one: you have not compete with your employer.
Not necessary in California: Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information. http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/lab/division-3/2...
There are exceptions of course, major one: you have not compete with your employer.
From the link you gave:
>> Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or
First of, this is not same as not competing with your employer.
"Relate" here is not well-specified. I was told by a lawyer that if something is in the same trademark category (e.g., software), it can be considered "related". So if your work is in the line of the main business of the employer, you are unlikely to be coming up with anything that is not related. Unless your employer makes software, and your side business is making, ahem, burgers or something.
Also from the link:
>> Inventions Made by an Employee
Note the word "inventions" there. It is unclear if this is taken to mean just the things that are inventions (e.g., patentable ideas), or also works of copyright. In other words, if you work for a software company, you create a software side project for image processing, all the source code you write may still be the property of your employer as that source code is a subject of copyright (even in California), though they may not get any inventions encompassed in that source code.
PS: I am not a lawyer, though have read a book or two on this subject.
>> Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or
First of, this is not same as not competing with your employer.
"Relate" here is not well-specified. I was told by a lawyer that if something is in the same trademark category (e.g., software), it can be considered "related". So if your work is in the line of the main business of the employer, you are unlikely to be coming up with anything that is not related. Unless your employer makes software, and your side business is making, ahem, burgers or something.
Also from the link:
>> Inventions Made by an Employee
Note the word "inventions" there. It is unclear if this is taken to mean just the things that are inventions (e.g., patentable ideas), or also works of copyright. In other words, if you work for a software company, you create a software side project for image processing, all the source code you write may still be the property of your employer as that source code is a subject of copyright (even in California), though they may not get any inventions encompassed in that source code.
PS: I am not a lawyer, though have read a book or two on this subject.
There's very little space in the "NOT competing with Google" set.
Games, luckily for me
Huh. Everywhere i worked, the rules were along the lines of "you can do whatever you want as long as the goals/deadlines are met".
A company taking copyright of personal projects of it's employees is unheard of around here (Russia).
I've actually encountered this kind of clause in a contract for working as a subcontractor for an american company (they own rights to everything i made during the contract), but when i pointed it out as unacceptable it was removed without any questions (before signing).
So this feels like USA-specific and predatory type of a clause, at least from my perspective.
A company taking copyright of personal projects of it's employees is unheard of around here (Russia).
I've actually encountered this kind of clause in a contract for working as a subcontractor for an american company (they own rights to everything i made during the contract), but when i pointed it out as unacceptable it was removed without any questions (before signing).
So this feels like USA-specific and predatory type of a clause, at least from my perspective.
It's not really predatory, or at least not in intent (you always have exceptions).
The basic rule of thumb when seeing stupid clauses like this is 'Someone did something shift, a lawsuit happened and the words "I didn't know I couldn't" came out of the defendant's mouth and that cost/almost cost the plaintiff the case. So now they make it overbroad so you can't claim you didn't know'.
There have been several cases over the years--one of which got several cow-orkers of mine fired--where the "side project" turned into a real company and it turned out to either be based on the companies source code, or created by looking at the companies source code (in one case a competing product, in another case a complementary product).
In some ways it's an "anti-predatory" clause.
I've mostly been subject to it at much larger companies and defense contractors.
It's also something that you can usually get a 'waiver' (or whatever your company calls it) for. Go to your boss, or whomever and get them to put in writing that "Yeah, we know about this, and it's ok with us".
The basic rule of thumb when seeing stupid clauses like this is 'Someone did something shift, a lawsuit happened and the words "I didn't know I couldn't" came out of the defendant's mouth and that cost/almost cost the plaintiff the case. So now they make it overbroad so you can't claim you didn't know'.
There have been several cases over the years--one of which got several cow-orkers of mine fired--where the "side project" turned into a real company and it turned out to either be based on the companies source code, or created by looking at the companies source code (in one case a competing product, in another case a complementary product).
In some ways it's an "anti-predatory" clause.
I've mostly been subject to it at much larger companies and defense contractors.
It's also something that you can usually get a 'waiver' (or whatever your company calls it) for. Go to your boss, or whomever and get them to put in writing that "Yeah, we know about this, and it's ok with us".
Varies from organization to organization.
The current place I work has a policy that they own stuff which I create on my business machine and I am free to pursue interests which do not cause a potential conflict of interest or competition.
In my previous organization, it was a simple "we own your ass, home or otherwise and don't you dare engage in a side project without informing us" .
The current place I work has a policy that they own stuff which I create on my business machine and I am free to pursue interests which do not cause a potential conflict of interest or competition.
In my previous organization, it was a simple "we own your ass, home or otherwise and don't you dare engage in a side project without informing us" .
At mine you can work on your own project on your company provided computer. You own the IP. I think it has gone well for everyone.
The last few jobs I've worked have had the policy that they own everything by default but you can declare in writing past and new side projects and ideas to exclude. I think this is a reasonable balance between freedom for me and securing the company interests
1. They would own everything by default from the point you join the company. Even if you do not declare past projects in the form, they cannot own it if you can prove that those were past projects from before you joined. Declaring just makes things easier. One company asked me for proof of prior existence of these projects; their proposal was to keep my pre-existing source code in an immutable vault that both parties could access in case of a lawsuit, just before I join the company.
2. "New" side projects may not be covered by such declarations, which are about the past. So if you want to continue some side projects, you should read the language of the agreement carefully, and/or, reach an agreement in writing with them that you are working on the said side projects and this is OK with them.
2. "New" side projects may not be covered by such declarations, which are about the past. So if you want to continue some side projects, you should read the language of the agreement carefully, and/or, reach an agreement in writing with them that you are working on the said side projects and this is OK with them.
It's pretty bad if you're the kind of person who picks up a new side project each month.
A related question -- for companies that assert copyright over all your work done on personal time -- do you typically receive this prior to your start date (along with the job offer letter), or is it something that you have to sign after starting?
You are usually made to sign those agreements within a few days of joining. Sometimes you can get a copy ahead of the time, especially if you ask. Offer letters generally state that the offer is subject to your acceptance of these agreements (that you would later sign).
I work at as an IT consultant (developer) and the general policy seems to be that everything that you develop using their hardware belongs to the company. There are no explicit rules regarding side-projects on your own time and hardware though.
Most of my contracts have been: everything to do is ours, if it's on company computers. Some have snuck in clauses like "Everything you do is ours", but 0% of them would work in a court of law.
Outside of work hours, as long as it doesn't compete it's yours.
When I left a previous employer, their legal department sent me a certified letter sternly stating that any "thought" or "idea" I had during my employment was their property.
Why are we seeing all these questions involving "Google" on "Ask HN" lately?
In most of the big companies is as you've described.
In most of the big companies is as you've described.
I had to get permission from the founder for any outside business, even side projects.
That's crazy town to me. Have you had a frank discussion about that with him? i.e. your own personal time, is your own.
Think about it from the Founder point of view. Very few startups are 8x5. Most expect you to put in a few extra hours, be on call, etc. By letting them know if you've got a side project you plan on dedicating yourself to you are taking those hours out of that pool.
If it's just for an Open Source project, that that's one thing, but if you're also working 10 or 20 hours a week with another company then they (a) need to know that they have to account for that in scheduling and expectations and (b) want to know that you're not working for a competitor and passing inside information.
I had one guy on my team who was working 16 to 24 hours a week at another job, which meant that needed to be careful how I scheduled him (because at the time we didn't have enough work to schedule everyone full time. If we had, well then he'd have to sort that out).
If it's just for an Open Source project, that that's one thing, but if you're also working 10 or 20 hours a week with another company then they (a) need to know that they have to account for that in scheduling and expectations and (b) want to know that you're not working for a competitor and passing inside information.
I had one guy on my team who was working 16 to 24 hours a week at another job, which meant that needed to be careful how I scheduled him (because at the time we didn't have enough work to schedule everyone full time. If we had, well then he'd have to sort that out).
[deleted]
How liberal is your company regarding personal projects?
[1]: https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/