This is another place where Netflix really shines. Their policy is basically:
Go ahead and work on open source. Use our computers and our office and our internet if you want. If we use the software inside Netflix, please mention that on the project page if you can, but if we don't or you can't, then whatevs.
Also, if the software was created here at Netflix, feel free to open source it if it has to do with operations, but if it has to do with moviemaking, we'd rather keep that to ourselves for now.
They understand that open source software is great for the community and great for recruiting. What better way to attract great engineers than to point out that the maintainer of their favorite open source project works for Netflix?
Question: is that the official or unofficial policy? I know a lot of companies that are willing to look the other way–or even encourage contributions–most of the time, but if you end up doing something that they don't like they can and will come after you due the actual employment contract still being the standard verbiage that legal wrote.
> Apple doesn’t let employees contribute to unapproved OSS projects (even in their personal time).
Wow, that seems petty. And it enrages me enough that if I worked for Apple I'd immediately start looking elsewhere for a job. I can do whatever I darn well please in my personal time and any employer that says otherwise is being overbearing.
That’s a major part of why I left Apple for GitHub. Their OSS culture is horrible there.
The only OSS projects that get approved to contribute to are ones where they’ve already hired most of the people that work on it. Cassandra, Mesos, and some other infra stuff come to mine. And occasionally they just buy a whole OSS company for their own use (FoundationDB).
Submitting a patch to a small library you use? A multi-month process to be told no in the end 90% of the time or more. Have your own OSS projects? Not any more you don’t.
In my exit interview I made my reasoning clear, and pointed out that as they move more into services and away from pure hardware as revenue, it’s going to be a bigger issue. Whether they agree or will work to fix it, only time will tell.
Genuine question, what's the value of providing feedback in an exit interview. At best you get nothing from it, and at worst you get put on some secret hiring blacklist. Either way nothing changes, you're just a datapoint in some HR piechart.
Genuine answer - I have a metric shit ton of Apple stock after being there for several years. I want to see the company succeed, purely for financial reasons if none other. At least until I hold the stock for a year and only pay capital gains on it.
Secret hiring blacklists don’t exist. And if they did, I wouldn’t want to work at a company that uses them anyways.
Many companies DO have self-hiring blacklists. Basically a checkbox that says "would rehire". I don't know if there are legal criteria necessary to check that box.
I haven't heard of them sharing the lists with other companies.
Apple and other companies have also had do-not-hire agreements with business partners (basically no-poaching) but they were sued and I believe stopped doing that.
Yeah, but Apple seems to hold grudges against everyone who leaves, so I’m not too worried about that.
I heard rumors of recruiting guidelines to not accept people back who left Apple to go to Netflix back when it was the new kid on the block. I also only knew 2 people who left and came back in several years there.
Given the rest of my experience there I am not chomping at the bit to return. It’s not a great place to work in server side infrastructure. At least not until some significant cultural shifts occur.
> I have a metric shit ton of Apple stock after being there for several years. At least until I hold the stock for a year and only pay capital gains on it.
Genuine question for anyone who gets RSUs at a public company like this. Why do you keep your $FANG stock when it is granted?
You've already paid income tax on the basis, which is the closing price the day you got it. The year long timer for long term capital gains tax starts the day you get it. So vesting $X of grants on your vesting day and holding is equivalent to just buying $X of stock on any old day. As a bonus, you're already heavily heavily exposed to that stock because A) they're your employer, and B) presumably unvested RSUs coming in the future.
It's not an equivalent of buying. It's an equivalent of receiving it and paying taxes on it immediately right with the stock, or with your cash if you so choose.
If your particular letter of FAANG currently outperforms the market ("S&P 500" index, etc), I see no incentive to immediately sell it and reinvest into something else. Of course you can sell and reinvest if you see an even better investment opportunity, but most of the employees don't, they are engineers, not experienced stock traders.
What's the difference that it is not equivalent to buying? Nothing is special tax-wise about those shares that they came from RSUs. If you got N shares at $X you've paid taxes on $X*N, she same if you bought those shares with cash in your bank account. If you wish to own extra stock in your employer you'd be better suited to dollar cost average and buy every paycheck.
> If [your company] currently outperforms the market
What does that mean? Outperforms over some past time period? That has no bearing on the future. If you have insider knowledge that you think your company will outperform the market in the future I agree it makes sense to keep, but see above about dollar cost averaging and also consult your lawyer about insider trading laws.
> most [don't], they are engineers, not experienced stock traders.
Exactly, and the standard advice for non-experts is to buy index funds. Not try and guess which specific companies will outperform the market.
There’s a lot of confidence there for lack of hiring blacklists when Google, Apple, etc are known to have shared hiring data with each other to underpay new hires.
I've been involved with hiring in several companies accused of having "blacklists" or other shady hiring practices. The closest I have ever seen is recruiters or engineers recognizing problematic people from previous jobs and flagging that with the hiring manager. But there's no magic list they consult. Having such a thing even exist would be ripe for a heavy discrimination lawsuit if it ever saw the light of day.
Maybe I'm wrong and I'll be unemployed forever now that I had the apparent audacity to say this, but... yeah, I doubt it.
Maybe not quite what's being intended by this discussion, but definitely related to hiring blacklists in general (if for a different reason), were Google, Apple and Adobe agreeing not to hire some of each other's employees.[1]
Telling them about systemic issues doesn't really get you a black mark, and maybe if they hear it from enough people they might fix it. So it's altruistic.
Obviously it's not a good idea to bad mouth individual people in your exit interview. The time for that was when you still worked there and could give it as candid feedback.
You're invited to a meeting, asked for your input on a work related matter, you're being paid to be there, it's part of your job because you haven't left yet. On what grounds would you reasonably refuse to answer? They already know you're unhappy enough to leave, if they're going to retaliate for that they already can.
What's next? Banning unapproved use of maths? I mean, what if you invent the next million dollar equation without giving it to Apple... can't have that. Also, I guess if you're a hardware engineer... well, I guess you can't use your tools to fix your car anymore. Search engineer? No more regex's for you.
Right off the bat Joel makes what appears to be a very serious mistake regarding work for hire. His opening logic is as follows:
- When you hire a contract photographer to make some pictures, he owns the copyright on those pictures even though you hired him.
- The same goes for your programmer employees. They own the copyright on their work.
- Therefore you need to require your programmer employees to sign an agreement to sign their work over to you.
I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's a gross misunderstanding of work for hire. If someone is your employee, they are doing work for hire and you own the copyright on their product. Photographers own their work because they were independent contractors and thus their work was not work for hire. I believe work for hire doesn't apply to patents, thus possibly justifying a patent agreement. But seriously, this (AFAIK) broken explanation is his opening justification?
I don't know the exact legal situation in the US, but let me assure you, the described legal copyright situation is very much possible, because German copyright works exactly like that.
I am a software developer, so I write software. I am employed full-time by an employer for which I (usually) write code, documentation and such, and still I own the copyright to each and every line of code or documentation or whatever I write. Simply because copyright in German law is non-transferrable. Even if I want to, I cannot sign over the copyright to anybody else, hence my employer couldn't make me sign it over to him in my employment contract. Instead, there's a clause that I grant my employer an exclusive and irrevocable right to use the work I create during my paid work time in any way he wants. This effectively leaves me with the copyright, but I don't have any rights to profit off of that work anymore, so that copyright isn't of much use to me.
You have every right to profit according to German law. You have to be compensated appropriately for your employer to be allowed to use what you hold the copyright for. Usually this is ensured by your monthly salary. However, if what you did and hold the copyright for becomes a surprise success you have to be compensated appropriately in addition to your salary. In practical terms, if your code makes a billion bucks and you only get a regular average salary you could sue the employer and would probably win.
> In practical terms, if your code makes a billion bucks and you only get a regular average salary you could sue the employer and would probably win.
I very much doubt that. Software isn't something that exists in a vacuum and even if you are the sole author of a program, it might contain or be based on trade secrets of the company.
Even if that's not the case, software doesn't generate profit on its own - you still need to sell licences or services based around it. Both of which are equally contributing to any profit a program generates.
Since it's still the employer who bears the entrepreneurial risk, there's a solid argument to be made against winning such a case.
The way it works in slovenia and I imagine germany as well is that moral rights are nontransferrable. You always “own” your work. It’s the commercial copyright that you’re transferring.
Is there any observable difference between copyright being reassigned from employee to company vs copyright remaining with the individual but the company getting automatic exclusive and irrevocable use of the copyright?
> When you hire a contract photographer to make some pictures, he owns the copyright on those pictures even though you hired him.
Depends on how the two parties set up the deal.
If you want the copyright or to change the license in some way that gives you (the publisher) more rights, the agreement will spell out those details and you could up spending more (maybe a lot more). I sometimes work with professional photographers and for pre-existing work I pay for a non-exclusive license that costs less than a commissioned piece. I also use stock photography extensively which works in a similar manner.
For commissioned photography or design work I'll insist on owning the copyright and the agreement will spell out that it's not work-for-hire:
To the extent that the Provider’s Work includes any work of authorship entitled to protection under the laws of copyright, the parties acknowledge and agree that (i) the Provider’s Work has been specially ordered and commissioned by Publisher as a contribution to a collective work, a supplementary work, a translation, or such other category of work as may be eligible for treatment as a “commissioned work” and a “work made for hire” under the United States Copyright Act; (ii) the Provider is an independent contractor and not an employee, partner, joint author or joint venturer of Publisher; (iii) the Provider’s ’s Work shall be deemed a “commissioned work” and a “work made for hire” to the greatest extent permitted by law; and (iv) Publisher shall be the sole author of the Provider’s Work and the Work, and the sole owner of original materials embodying Work and the Work, and/or any works derived therefrom.
Of course, the photographer or designer can opt to reject these terms, or make additional demands upon the publisher (more money, the right to use images in their own promotional materials, etc.)
Not sure how it works with independent contractors doing programming.
... as mentioned above, in the US both programming employees and independent contractors doing programming usually sign a pre-employment agreement that makes all of this clear.
I see Joel's point, but I'm not convinced it needs to be that broad. My (consulting) contract limits my IP rights assignment to "all IP right created in the course of providing services to or for the benefits of Company", which allows me to work on other projects, even though they may be related to Company's line of work (but not to my provided services).
The supreme irony of Joel taking a hard line “we own everything you do 24/7/365 if you work for us, and forget about making open source software” stance is that he uses Nginx as his web server.
If Joel practiced what he preaches, and thinks no employees have a right to develop OSS software while on the company payroll, he needs to stop using nginx right now.
"Before I start: be careful before taking legal advice from the Internet."
He got that much right, at least. I'm not going to argue every point, but as one with a broad range of experience on the topic I'd say there's enough wrong with that article to go find my advice somewhere else.
It changed a bunch when I was there (2013-2016). You were allowed to when I joined, but you had to get permission and the process was a complete pain in the arse and took forever to navigate. By the time I left, you still had to get permission but the process was extremely quick and simple, as long as it wasn't on competing technology.
The one hard exception was game dev which remained a firm no-go, for reasons that never really made sense (Claim at the time was because Amazon had its own game studio?!)
I'm still here. The process now is "don't ask, just read the policy and follow it in however you interpret it, but we'll sue you later if we disagree with your interpretation".
That's how Amazon handles non-competes as well. Are they going to enforce your non-compete? Who knows, just sign on the dotted line, and don't ask any questions.
I heard this from a Tim Ferriss guest, forgot who, but he said contractual agreements are really for when there are disagreements. I thought that was a novel way to think about them.
Amazon seems to start taking legal action every year or so over non-competes, makes a splash in the tech press, and then comes to an agreement. I'm at least half convinced it's just to ensure the non-compete can't be argued to be null and void via failure to enforce.
IIRC the non-compete is pretty wide ranging from Amazon. Makes it almost impossible to get another tech job, depending on how you interpret certain phrases. Fun stuff.
Have you considered moving to California? The economic benefit of states experimenting with laws is that you can choose what makes sense for you, instead of just accepting what's on offer in Seattle.
The problem is that you have no idea whether or not Amazon will find something in your behaviour to disagree with. And if they do, you have no idea whether it will be a reasonable disagreement.
Yeah that's true, but it's also important to have a solid mutual understanding of your arrangement up front, when all parties can be objective and (hopefully) fair-minded, as opposed to when there is an actual problem and everything is subjective and everyone is self-interested.
An old boss used to say "good friends make for good paperwork".
Not defending Amazon, I'm an indie game dev who wants to own his off work hours side project. But Amazon Game Studios is releasing a game called "New World" this year. [1]
They bought Twitch, they control a massive physical and digital distribution platform, and it's just a matter of time before they launch games that are exclusive to Prime/Twitch members. They literally control the whole pipeline. Yet another reason to break them up.
I feel like everyone is focusing on the wrong part of the Invention Assignment Agreement. The problem isn't that employers want to force you to not work on anything else (Apple might). The problem is, if you go home, and work on a work related problem, who owns that work.
The obtuse case is I work for your company as the lead engineer making TVs. All the TVs can't display blue. I then go home have an epiphany, and develop a method for making TVs blue. We fix the problem and call it day. Later still, I leave the company and sue you for infringement because I technically came up with the solution outside of work and therefore I own that code. This is the situation most companies are trying to avoid.
If you solve this problem without having the company own everything the programmer does in and out of work, then you can have stricter walls between work and home projects.
Most are actually. If you're employed as a writer, you can't just go and write what you want without permission from your employer. They usually get the right of first refusal, meaning that you have to show it to them first and if they want to publish it then they get to do so.
Most big animation studios have contracts that say “we own everything you draw while you work for us”. Or at least they did when I was in the industry around the turn of the century.
A friend of mine had to put his PhD on hold when his company was acquired by Oracle, who tried to force him into signing "their standard employment contract" which effectively granted them ownership to everything he thought while employed by them.
It took 3 or 4 months and 5 or 6 levels of management above his new boss before getting "an extraordinary one-off exemption" to allow him to finish thinking/writing his thesis and allow the university to publish it (as required by the terms of completing the PhD...)
Everyone was _pretty_ sure that would have been unenforceable here in Australia - but that there's a serious practical difference between what is and isn't enforceable in contracts, and going up against Oracle's legal team even when they're on the wrong side of the law. So he just "stopped thinking" for several months until he (temporarily) had written permission to think non-Oracle thoughts...
It's definitely not an unreasonable restriction for most, and those who don't like the policy don't have to work there.
Your examples aren't helpful because the don't address the issue, which is risk.
In the examples provided there's really nothing about the 'personal work' that puts the employers position at risk. Which is why, by the way, schools don't generally defy teachers from teaching on the side. Or proofreaders etc..
In fact such limitations are rare outside industries with IP issues.
Apple is a $1T company and all of that valuation is up for grabs by litigious people of various kinds who can use any kind of side-show tactic interpretation of the law to make money.
So imagine someone 'working from home' on the 'same computer' that they use for work. What counts as 'work time' vs. 'personal time' when flipping back and forth between activities?
How will a judge view this?
Then you have competitive problems: you work on 'iMovie' for 1 hour, then you work on 'MyMovie' (personal) the hour. This creates ugly conflicts of interest.
Then you have liability issues if Apple is seen to be contributing to an OSS without the right legal bits in place. It doesn't matter that it 'shouldn't' be a problem, what matters is that a bad actor + a lawyer can possibly make enough of a fuss to convince a judge that there's a problem 'Apple's contribution to this OSS code materially affected my business and it was no clear in the liscencing' etc..
As we've seen with Google/Uber, this stuff is very expensive, very strategic, can be very ambiguous, which is bad.
There's so much grey in the equation, and so much at risk, it's simply not worth it for Apple and Amazon.
So if you want to work there, that's it, you can't make games.
It'd be nice if there were some kind of regulatory issues around it, but it'd have to be clear.
I also think they should be nice enough to 'wave' people's rights to do certain things, like work on specific OSS projects.
It seems odd to consider "the commons" as a competitor... feels petty, like: "If we can't have it, then you can't even gift it to the human collective."
Non-compete clauses "are automatically void as a matter of law in California" [0], where Apple is based (though they have offices in other states and countries). I wonder if a ban on open source contributions would fall afoul of this law (I suspect yes, though Apple can afford pretty good lawyers).
How is that fair? Apple pays me for 8h a day, why can't I work another 4h a day for Google if I choose to do so?
Now, disclosing secrets, that's a different matter. If I go to Google to inform them of amazing killer project Apple wants to do within 5 years, that's called corporate espionage.
No reason why I couldn't work for multiple companies though. In fact, I don't even see a reason why I should even tell these companies I work for multiple companies.
> Apple pays me for 8h a day, why can't I work another 4h a day for Google if I choose to do so?
I've heard of someone that did this. Held two full-time jobs at different software companies. It wasn't Apple and Google, IIRC it was something like Oracle and Nvidia or Oracle and Salesforce.
He was fired from both when they found out and presumably blacklisted from being rehired, but other than that there weren't repercussions. It's not worth it to sue an individual engineer, and for many of the clauses in your employment agreement, their remedy is limited to firing you. He did it for a few years, too, and banked up a bunch of money doing so.
One thing that surprises a lot of people who were raised to follow the rules: you have a lot of freedom if you're willing to deal with the consequences. Some people are afraid to question their boss because they're worried about losing their job; others will steal all of their employers' self-driving car plans for $680M, risking $180M in fines and possible jail time in the process. You get to decide where on the risk/reward continuum you want to sit.
> Apple pays me for 8h a day, why can't I work another 4h a day for Google if I choose to do so?
You can, if you are being paid by the hour. But you probably aren't being paid by the hour, you are probably collecting an annual salary which means you might be expected to work 8-10 hours per day, not work for other companies, and other restrictions.
Even though my contract states yearly salary, that salary is calculated by $hourly_rate * 8 * $number_of_work_days_in_year. That's specifically stated.
My contract also specifically states that I agree to work 40 hours a week.
Maybe this is not the case in a typical US employment contract?
US contracts usually don't explicitly list policies like this. From my perspective, this means they can't hold you to anything, although the average person seems to think it means the company can do whatever they want. Either way, I'm pretty clear about my relationship with my employer - if you start asking me to do things, and I don't want to do them, I won't. They can decide if they want to live with that arrangement or not.
Some of us outside CA do sign non-compete agreements, though, which is another matter entirely.
> No reason why I couldn't work for multiple companies though.
Many the employment contracts have a "no moonlighting" clause, which basically says that one won't be working for another employer during the employment period.
By default it's not. However, if you join FAANG, chances are that you'll be required to sign a contract that basically says "I waive my rights of doing side-projects to to the greatest possible extents under the laws of California". When speaking of contributing to open source, Google generally has a more positive image, but there are still occasions that something could only be released after being reviewed by the legal department if it's work-related. On the other hand, Apple is known to have strict restrictions.
Almost every company tries to force non-competition clauses in agreements. Even if they let one do side gigs, one can't work for competitor. This does sound reasonable and yet is a limitation on what you can do in your spare time.
Is it legal for something to be unfair against normal humans and in the favour of big companies? Tech companies spend 500,000 times your annual salary[1] lobbying the government each year, and you and I don't.
In some states, it is not legal for employers to take ownership of employees work off hours using their own equipment. Most employers still sneak these into their employment agreements even though they can't be enforced.
I cant say for sure, but I'd imagine so. As long as what you are doing isn't protected by some law, I imagine a company can discipline / fire you for whatever they please.
Yes, due to certain provisions in California Labor Code which allow for curtailing what you can do in fields that compete with your employer (in a large company, this generally means anything could fall under this).
The relevant quote is: "It is legal to require an employee to assign intellectual property created in the employee’s own time if it required any of the employer’s tools, facilities, or intellectual property, or if that intellectual property relates to the employer’s business or research and development."
Since Apple operates in a wide swath of the IT world, it is very likely that most OSS developed by Apple employees could reasonably be considered "relate[d] to the employer's business". That is certainly the position that Apple takes in most case (source: I am a former Apple employee).
"(a) 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 except for those inventions that either:
(1) 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
(2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.
(b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable."
This is the catch-all and I've always been curious what the seminal cases are which apply this language. For example, the charter for most corporations these days usually establishes the business for "any lawful activity", so if the scope of an employer's business is defined by the charter, then pretty much any commercially viable FOSS project could potentially be ensnared by an employer. Any IP lawyers here have some pointers to how "employer's business" is supposed to be interpreted and applied?
Let me digress with a little story about one of my experiences with courts. In the 90s I was a technician at a small computer shop in CA. One day we had a sale for really cheap beige boxes so that we could offload some excesses inventory. A customer came in and want to buy all 10 of them. But I knew he owned a local warehouse and I suspected that he wanted these 10 computers to run proprietary inventory tracking software, and because some of our other clients ran that same software, I asked him if that’s what he wanted them for. He said yes. I told him these boxes won’t work with that software because their chipset is incompatible with it. He will have to buy these other, more expensive, ones. He insisted I was wrong. I showed him some documents we had, as I had ran into this before, he insisted anyway, very rudely. I told him if we sold them I wouldn’t allow a return. He said fine and bought all 10 and I wrote in hand “no refund” on the receipt. I was a teenager then so I thought this was “iron clad” and complimented myself for being so smart. A year later the guy came back and wanted to return all 10. We of course said no. He took us to small claims court and won. We were forced to give a full refund, at the one year old price, even though he admitted to the judge I warned him, showed him documents, and said no refund. His counter argument: he didn’t understand. The judge said this was the best way to make both parties whole again.
I lost but learned a valuable lesson, one just never knows with the law. These things are where one starts argument, it’s not where they stop.
Lawyers will have to decide how comfortable they are with the risk, and balance it against the reward. It’s totally natural that different entities will come to different conclusions in this environment.
This policy is so ludicrous and morally offensive, that I would just willfully break it, and if they find out, throw a party to celebrate them firing me (for contributing to OSS projects).
Imagine you use KDE, and find a bug, and make a small PR with a patch for it. I can't even begin to fathom how a company can while being fair/just say that you're not allowed to do so (without "our approval" which could take months).
It's ridiculous beyond measure, and we should make it a goal to purposely get fired for doing OSS, and then also make sure to post about it online as much as possible so it draws a lot of attention, and hopefully results in a change in this.
After all, it's probably a piece of cake to land a new job (once the COVID crisis is over), if you have a Big N company on your resume, even if you were fired from it (not that you'd want to preemptively disclose that - unless you went public with it - which some folks might even see as a positive).
Apple engineers are prohibited from eating lunch with friends at other companies in the valley (because of the things you have to sign to get a visitor badge for lunch)
Uh, I've eaten lunch with Apple engineers at One Infinite Loop, and I worked at another company in the valley at the time. I have also eaten lunch with Apple engineers when they came to visit other companies in the Valley, and have even eaten lunch with Apple engineers at restaurants that weren't at other companies.
As someone who works at a company that provides no free lunch / on site cafeteria, this does not seem so draconian. You can just see your friends at a restaurant?
While not employed at Apple, I too have a clause in my employment contract (UK) that states I "assign copyright and IP rights produced by me in the course of my employment, whether during normal hours of business or otherwise, or at the premises or using company facilities or otherwise". I was told by my manager that I need to notify them if I plan to contribute/create an open source project, and even had one open source project I created get claimed by the company since I used it for one of my work tasks even though I created it for personal use initially, in my personal time, because "I could not prove that I developed it independently of my company work needs" and was told "if you don't like this then why are you still working here".
What I want to know is how exactly do you go about getting that part of you contract removed so you own copyright and IP for work you do on your free time without the need to justify it to your employer?
I tried speaking with my company's legal department and they slightly re-worded the contract to say the same thing (basically lied to me as later my project's ownership was claimed), all my managers so far did not take me seriously and basically ignored my request to change/remove this clause, or told me they would approve anything and it would be open source anyway (another lie as my project was taken) to the point I gave up, reduced my OSS contributions greatly and only worked on things I confirmed previously were OK for me to do, which added a lot of useless bureaucracy and got me demotivated.
The only thing I can come up with was quitting my job after I negotiate with another employer to not have such a clause in my contract. But I have not done any interviewing yet, so I don't know if that is even possible.
Any ideas/hints/help would be greatly appreciated!
I have never signed a non-compete or a "we own everything you do" clause. However, rather than just saying no, I offer a compromise. I agree not to go after clients if I leave, and I agree anything I make ON COMPANY TIME is solely the property of the company.
It's been a non-started for a couple of companies, but if that's the case, I don't want to work for them anyway.
Once I worked for a company, and me and the owner had a disagreement that wasn't resolvable so I said that I'd have to quit. She leaned back, smirked, and said, "remember that you signed a non-compete." I simply replied, "No, I didn't." She suddenly had an "oh crap" look on her face and looked at the HR director, who said, "I thought I'd get him to sign it later so we let it slide when he came on." The owner then tried to stop me from leaving, but after seeing that shark smile on her face I knew it was only a matter of time before she found another way to screw me and left anyway.
There are more of us than there are them. We all need to stop agreeing to these clauses.
If I has signed a non-compete, that limits my income potential, meaning they have me in a bad position if I quit. That means I'm more likely to just go along with their orders rather than wait out a non-compete on savings or an alternative industry.
If you have side projects that you want to keep ownership of, your options are limited.
California Labor Code 2870 and similar laws in some other states protect you under certain circumstances. However, you basically cannot go work for one of the bigs, for two reasons.
First, these laws only protect you if the project doesn't relate to the business, and the bigs operate in so many different spheres that basically any software project can be argued as relating to their business.
Second, it doesn't matter what the law is if a huge company decides to sue you — they will throw lawyers at you until you are bankrupt.
What you can do to minimize your risk is work for a small company which does not overlap with the space that your side projects are in. They still might go after you anyway at some point (companies can get bought and new owners may have more resources and more inclination to sue), but for open source the odds that it happens are very small.
I don't believe that you will get any traction in your current company. Not when you have proof that the company is willing and able to lie to you. While not easy in the current environment, line up a new job. Sort IP assignment out during negotiations, and make it clear that if they want to own your brain 24/7 they need to pay extra for that privilege.
Hiring negotiations are the point where you have greatest leverage - the company won't want to burn another bucket of money screening bozos. They've decided they want you. Go read patio11's post on salary negotiation to get the correct mindset.
An anecdote: my current employer's _standard_ contract basically says "we own what you do for us, you own what you do for yourself, and if you're getting close to a grey area you should speak with legal". So there are businesses out there that do this.
(1)The author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it, subject to the following provisions.
(2)Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work [F1, or a film,] is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary."
Computer programs are deemed to be a "literary work".
The important part is that the work has to be "in the course of employment".
If the s/w does not relate to what the company does, then it would not be such. IANAL.
There are some employment contracts which widen the scope to cover stuff which is not in the course of employment.
You have already stated how one gets such resolved. Discuss with the employer and agree a change, or leave.
I am not a native English speaker so excuse my ignorance, but how is "in the course of employment" different from "during employment", or "while employed". Don't all of them pretty much mean "for as long as I have an employment contract with the company"? Or does the word "course" mean something different in this case?
I've generally interpreted it as meaning acts performed in fulfilling your role/position as an employee. So if you're essentially doing free work for your employer on your own time, at home, using your equipment, it belongs to them.
Stuff done which has nothing to do with your employment, created on your own time, with your own resources, belongs to you.
Otherwise every poem, sketch, photo, or even a letter you wrote, etc that you create would be their copyright, which is patently a nonsense unless your contract explicitly states that. It would state such if "course" it referred to the time you were their employee.
The difficulty occurs where there could be a conflict of interest between what you create privately, using your own resources, and what the company employees you to do. So don't do that. However that may be difficult for companies which have their fingers in a lot of pies.
This is the sort of policy imposed company-wide where trying to get an individual exception is very difficult or impossible depending on how bureaucratic your organization is, possibly even damaging your career and relationships with your managers. This is exactly the kind of policy change that a union could help tech workers with.
Of course next time tech unions come up, there will be 10 stories of how their uncle wasn't allowed to plug in a ventilator because he wasn't a union electrician or something.
Why are those stories less relevant though? To have a healthy discussion, one needs as many angles of the story as possible.Also, Unions might not help with this. Unions care about the majority, and vast majority of tech workers have bigger problems than not being able to contribute to their favorite open source.
Right. It's even conceivable that a programmer's union would actively oppose side projects and/or open source. Possible reasons: first, developers who participate in them will have stronger resumes, which creates an unfair expectation that you should be doing uncompensated work outside of your job. Second, the existence of free software devalues the work of paid developers. Companies shouldn't be using your open source project for free; they should be paying for union-built software.
I entirely disagree with those arguments, but I could see them being appealing to "501 developers" (https://501manifesto.dev/), and they're the majority.
This is Apple you are talking about. The same time they made you sign contracts impeding on your speech in your free time, they were part of a fricking criminal conspiracy to bring down tech wages, to eliminate what limited free market there is for software developers.
You’re on the right track. Find a different job where they respect your projects and move on. You don’t really have much leverage right now as your current place doesn’t have much inventive to change their policy and doesn’t seem to respect your requests.
These policies, when they exist, tend to be very entrenched in the organization. The legal department will push management to keep them so they can avoid the associated risks.
I would look for another job. While these clauses are relatively common, it's also relatively easy to find employers with less restricting policies. You'll probably have better luck at tech-led companies, in general. I think I've also heard that California's employment law doesn't allow this sort of thing, FWIW.
I am not a lawyer but my guess is their fear (no idea how plausible) would be a situation where an employee creates an open source project and uses it at work in a way where it becomes critical to the business, then later leaves the company and demands some sort of royalties/licensing
If it's opensource under the usual OSS licenses, the former emplpyee can only demand something for further work/improvements, not for already existing code.
And companies typically have no trouble critically relying on OSS projects they have no chance of forking/maintaining if something changes that they can't accept.
> how exactly do you go about getting that part of you contract removed
They told you that already "if you don't like this then why are you still working here".
The way to get this limitation removed is to hand in your resignation. Preferably after finding another job.
Make sure that before you sign a contract at the new place, that you strike out anything in the contract that requires you to hand over IP of things developed outside of company time and outside of company resources.
> Make sure that before you sign a contract at the new place, that you strike out anything in the contract that requires you to hand over IP of things developed outside of company time and outside of company resources.
Practically impossible with companies moving to electronic forms. I've found every electronic form presented to me has had less than zero ability to actually negotiate with the other party.
Just because you can't physically strike a clause from an electronic contract doesn't mean it's not negotiable. Email the company back and say "let's chat about paragraph such-and-such, because I have the following concerns," or something to that effect.
Right, but surely there is a person at the company that you can bring it up with?
I've been working remotely for nearly a decade now, and the majority of contracts I've signed have been in electronic form, and for each of them there has been back and forth about certain items - IP and copyright in particular always coming up - and we go back and forth until the wording and meaning is something both parties are happy with.
Only once that's happened do I need to sign the electronic form - and that's where the negotiating leverage exists, because I don't need to work for someone if they impose conditions on me that I am not willing to accept.
If it helps, I have negotiated with companies in the US and the UK to have that clause modified to be more liberal so that I could continue to work on open source stuff.
It's easier when they offer you the job but all large companies will have lawyers who know what to do. It just takes willingness on their part.
Smaller companies might just be using a boilerplate contract so you might want to suggest alterations.
Basically the company wants you so they should bend.
Could you please share how the clause is written on your contract now, as opposed to how it was initially? Just to get an idea of how something like that is worded. I could go to them and request my contract say "this" instead of "that" and see what they tell me.
I spent most of my career in Silicon Valley, where employers routinely take the position that they own every thought their employees have, and every work they create. That position, legally enforceable or otherwise, has always rankled me.
I've recently moved to the UK to start a tech business here (https://www.hackworthltd.uk), and now that I'm on the other side of the table, I very much wanted to create a personal projects policy that was as employee-friendly as possible, while still protecting the interests of the business. I hired a UK IP lawyer to help me draft an acceptable policy, and I'm happy to share that with you, if it helps.
The intellectual property section of our employment contract is mostly standard boilerplate, as I understand it, except that it refers to our personal projects policy, which is contained in our staff handbook. I've copied the relevant sections of both and put them here:
Thank you for posting that gist, here are some things that I'm interested in:
- 2.2.a I would like to not be required to tell you about them at all, and not need an approval from you before I contribute/develop, unless 2.2.b and 2.2.c apply. So basically the contract should forbid me to develop a project that directly competes with anything your company is doing (as it is right now). In case it's not competing I could ask for your opinion, in case I am unsure I am advised to ask, otherwise I'm responsible, and in case it has elements that are in competition, or work relevant then I need ask for your permission.
- 2.2.k about projects that someone "might otherwise consider inappropriate", isn't this going to far? I think 2.2.m (We cannot be held responsible or liable for anything to do with your personal project) and 4.2 should be enough, you don't need to act as a moral authority to be able to defend the company against employee wrongdoing outside of work.
- not sure how this situation (that I detailed in my post) would be handled by your clauses: a project/library I develop on my free time but end up using at work. The company should not claim it as it's own, any thought on that?
> I spent most of my career in Silicon Valley, where employers routinely take the position that they own every thought their employees have, and every work they create. That position, legally enforceable or otherwise, has always rankled me.
I'm bit surprised that practice is so prevalent in SV, with California Labor Code 2870 and all. Because of that law, I'd rate SV/CA as the place that position is the least enforceable (in the U.S. at least).
Find another company to work for and then have a Chinese wall between work and home. Non-competes are basically illegal in the UK and most employers should be able to say “don’t work on X areas”. Remind them that work you do in your own time will benefit them as well.
I have none of my personal project code on my work laptop, I’ve never searched or thought about personal project work on it and I never take professional development time in work hours (unlike many other members of staff).
I’m at work to work for the company, I’m at home to work on myself. I never blur the lines, the downside to this is that my employer massively benefits from my time investment at home but oh well, it makes me better at my job and so I’m happier.
There are circumstances in which non-competes are enforceable in the UK. Even if it doesn’t technically apply to your situation, it can end up with a court deciding. At the least, a bloody minded employer can make it too expensive and painful to hire you by taking out an injunction against the new employer.
Sadly, thinking non-competes don’t apply in the UK has led people to sign them glibly and then face problems later.
Interesting - I’ve been given the advice twice UK UK solicitors when signing VC deals that non-competes are unenforceable in the UK and not to bother fighting to remove them (we will did on the first raise and the VC took it off). I think the main argument used by the solicitor is that it’s illegal to stop someone from making a living. I’m not a lawyer, just going on experience here. You may well be correct
"how exactly do you go about getting that part of you contract removed so you own copyright and IP "
You don't.
One of the reasons companies want this clause is to limit their liability and exposure. They're not going to make a dime off of your side-show projects, so it's really not about the money, it's about the risk.
Their IP clauses will have been gone over and over by lawyers, and the costs involved in making exceptions/changes is very expensive, partly in billable hours, but mostly in risk.
Put another way: having 'your own special contract' is like 'roll your own security'. It just opens up 'legal attack surfaces' and it's just not worth it for a company that has a lot of money or IP, which makes them a troll target.
There'd generally have to be a pretty good reason for you to want to work on it, that also makes sense to the company, but obviously risk tolerances vary as well.
I line out portions like that when they're overly restrictive and not limited to work time on work systems. I've never gotten much push back. Worst case, I wouldn't take such a job... it's something I look at very carefully and ask about during interviewing.
A friend of mine recently joined Google as a L5 SWE, and is making around 400k a year (he's on the upper band for L5 - couldn't make the cut for L6).
That's about 3x what very good engineers in high cost-of-living cities in the US normally make. I'd say 135k is probably the median for very good engineers at the average company.
(Of course, you could argue whether they're "very good", but I'd say they are, while noting that Google et al is obviously a different caliber, but one partially achievable with many hours of grinding on leetcode/hckerrank/etc.)
Some ways may be reasonable, e.g. running a commercial side project which is a direct competitor of your employer's product. In this case, the moral hazard of using company's internal knowledge which is under an NDA is very high indeed.
But the list of such disallowed activities should be short and reasonable.
Direct competition would be one area I would allow them to limit, clearly they're paying me to work on their stuff first. However, a product in the same industry that my company wasn't persuing at that time would be fair game. At least that's what I believe is fair.
HN may find this unpalatable, but it’s still legal and permissible.
Apple indicates this restriction against personal project work prior to hiring, and employees agree as part of being hired to adhere to it. If they do not, they are not hired.
Non-compete bans are generally structured to prohibit restricting an ex-employee’s choice of work after their departure, but only once you are an ex-employee and not before. I am aware of no laws guaranteeing the inalienable right to create and publish software IP while contractually bound not to do so.
Apple’s restriction does not prohibit contribution of work to open-source projects, but permits only those contributions approved by Apple as necessary and appropriate by Apple’s decision. The personal projects linked here were either denied that permission or never submitted for it.
Personally, I’d have to think quite hard about whether to accept this restriction if I considered working for Apple someday. Silver lining, my tiny projects are all unused abandonware, so it wouldn’t require finding new maintainers. I don’t envy the author of the linked tweet their duty to find others.
the law says that employers cannot claim ownership of inventions made without work resources, even if the employee signed such a clause, unless the invention is in competition with the employer.
> unless the invention is in competition with the employer.
Companies like Google, Apple, and Amazon work on all sorts of projects. I don't think it's possible to know what is actually in competition with companies like this, at any given time. This is probably why most require permission. With somewhere like Apple, where everything is kept secret, asking and being told no would confirm the existence of a project.
Whenever this topic comes up HN reacts first with disbelief, like you're lying. Nice to see this awful practice getting some exposure from the Twittersphere. As someone who's worked in large companies for most of his career, this has been a major trade-off of accepting the offers: You need to shelf your open source work and any hobby programming you think you might one day release. Period. These companies have armies of lawyers vs. just you. People here will spout off a bunch of simple solutions like "just negotiate, bro." You may be a whiz at negotiating your salary, but you are likely to not get anywhere negotiating legal terms like this with a FAANG company. If you try the cute "strike through the clause in your employment agreement and initial it" trick that HN will advise, I guarantee you will get a stern letter from Legal in 2-7 days telling you to sign it unmodified or GTFO. Ask me how I know.
> (a) 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 except for those inventions that either:
> (1) 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
> (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.
> (b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.
Large companies like Apple and Google get away with broad rules that effectively ban unapproved open source contributions because nearly every type of software can be said to "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".
If you work at a small company in California, I suggest pushing back on any rules like that. At my current company the employment contract they initially sent me required me to notify them in writing every time I created any work I felt was protected by section 2870 (any personal open source, any music, any writing, anything that could have a copyright). I had that paragraph removed from the contract. The burden should be on the company to enforce their copyright ownership, and provide evidence of ownership, the burden shouldn't be on me.
Worth noting that this law is probably one of the driving factors behind the growth of the tech sector in California compared to other states. We're free to dream our dreams and seek funding later, not the other way around.
This subject makes me sad. I've recently heard from a bunch of Apple employees who had asked for permission to contribute to my open source project and got denied.
Having worked there in the past myself, it's really weird to think back on how normal it seemed (to me) to allow an employer to put such extreme restrictions on my personal time.
I hope they change their attitude about this some day.
Given that Apple would be the primary beneficiary of a strong Swift ecosystem and seeing how they treat developers on their platform - maybe they should rethink their stance or at least bring all employee projects in-house.
Are there many developers out there that only program for Apple platforms?
I suppose if you want to be one of those developers or if you want to work for Apple, it might be not be a bad idea to contribute.
Makes you wonder how many GitHub accounts are pseudonyms for people who want to hide their open source contributions from their employer. (cue Damn It Feels Good To Be A Gangsta)
I have a pseudonym account that I write all my software in. Currently my employer does not restrict me working on side-projects; however, I still don't want my professional persona to be associated with my side-projects.
I dont feel like helping a developer who's employer doesnt respect its customers or its employees.... It sounds like this is the trade off he gets for working there?
I wish it werent like this, people should be able to work on whatever they feel like in their own personal time.
Of course, people can work on whatever they like on their free time. The developer in case chooses to abandon his open-source projects to work for a company of his choice. Nobody forced him to take this job, it was his choice.
> The developer in case chooses to abandon his open-source projects to work for a company of his choice. Nobody forced him to take this job, it was his choice.
This is so reductionist that it's blind to reality.
Here's a possible solution. Do it anyway, knowing that if your company really wants to piss you off by making an issue out of it, you can (and will) tell them to piss off and quit. No job is worth sacrificing your personal life and freedom for.
When they make a problem, and you quit, if you've got someone in the company that values your contribution enough to fight for you and find a compromise to get your OSS contributions back-approved or whatever, great. The employer will benefit from the loyalty you will feel towards the person who solved the problem ("the greatest boss evar"). If your boss can't make the problem disappear, then you quit. If you've organised your life correctly, you can afford a few months of job search, and your OSS contributions are a testament to the quality of your work.
(Not saying that I ever did this. And you should probably not cross-reference "git log" with my CV either.)
This might be the correct advice in many scenarios but is essentially playing with fire. A company that wants revenge could easily bankrupt you with even the smallest contractual leg to stand on. Your 200k base comp isn't going to look so sweet when you're paying a lawyer $1,500 an hour to defend you from some tech giant.
It's one thing if you're at risk of being fired, but you've also put the project you contributed to at risk. If those contributions are potentially your (former) employer's and they were not authorized to be shared, the project is going to have to figure out how to remove them; if the employer is particularly litigous, that could get really nasty.
>> I’d love to help out with Tentacle! I’ll take a look at open issues and PRs today
> Awesome, thanks! I just gave you access. Tentacle is very low maintenance, but there’s a Swift 5.2 PR open now that looks like it may need a little help.
>> Has this ever been enforced that you know of? What are the consequences?
Well, if your company is _not_ like this and you're interested in being featured on a job board for companies with employee-friendly IP policies, drop me a line (email in bio).
Whenever this comes up, the question I have to ask is this: Has there even been a case in California where a jury decided that an employer owned the open source (or other software) an employee developed in their own free time? Has a company in California successfully litigated to take ownership and taken down an open source project because it was an employee’s side project?
To protect myself, I have done the following:
• I make sure, before signing an “inventions” clause, to put all of my open source on GitHub a date stamp before the date when I signed the inventions clause. This way, any and all of my own open source I use on the job (usually, a password generator, but I was once at a company with DNS so broken I had to run MaraDNS locally to have a usable Internet) is stuff I did not develop while working for the company.
• I list all of my GitHub projects, state that none of them are related to what the company develops, and that any and all development is done on my own time, using my own computer.
Yes, and it is a legitimate fear. Someone with access to Apple's IP may unintentionally or even inadvertently leak that IP in an open-source project. Say you developed a clever new optimization on the job at Apple. You use the same trick in your open source code, thinking it's no big deal, it's just one small piece of code. But that code is now the property of Apple, and they may consider it more valuable than you do. It may enable, for instance, faster encryption with one of their custom chips. That's an edge they have in the marlet that they might lose were it not for exclusive use of that bit of code. They could lose millions -- meaning they could sue you for millions. In a court of law, it is sufficient to prove that the defendant had access to the infringed work and that their work is substantially similar to the infringed work in order to have a case for copyright infringement.
Rather than risk that sort of loss, Apple and many other companies include clauses forbidding employees from working on outside software projects even in their spare time as standard boilerplate in their employment contracts. If you don't want to play by those rules, don't work for the company. They can find plenty of top-tier engineers who will gladly play by those rules.
Ok ok, you're taking this way over the top. No engineer ever invents a new optimization that will give Apple competitive advantage and they don't know this is important and "accidentally" put it on OSS code. I don't believe this for a minute. Inventions that give companies technical competitive advantage are created via multiple iteration by a team of engineers, by them doing research. It's never the case that someone wakes up one day and writes code that can be considered an "invention". It usually starts with an engineer finding a problem, another engineer doing research on this problem for some time, and then to improve found solutions, a group of engineers discuss viable solutions.
I think large corporations are big targets for frivolous lawsuits, so they grow big paranoid legal teams. Those teams succeed based on crossing every t and dotting every i, so they eventually look for any threats, no matter how small. Eventually it turns inward and they start stifling innovation by trying to handcuff their own developers, because there's some small chance they could accidentally leak something.
I am not from US, but isn't that kind of standard practice in US? While working at any company they can hold right to everything you do in the field.
While outrageous at the first glance it does make a lot of sense for me. If you wan't to work on your side project you should quit your job. Otherwise there is a big risk you might quickly burn out, be less effective at your main work.
People seem to critique overtime and time pressure on software engineers. At they same time they want to be able to code their startups after hours effectively working 15 hour per day.
Working on open source projects instead of side gigs doesn't differ much in that regard. You might hook up on your project and spend tons of mental energy on it, making your main job suffer.
That's a theory that develops from "work is the most important thing in your life".
It's not the only correct starting assumption.
Other things that develop from it are "employees shouldn't be allowed to have kids as it might sap mental energy from your job" - which is clearly a ludicrous position, but not dis-similar.
I'd argue your point isn't 'quite the contrary' but only emphasizes OP's point: you describe the time outside of work as 'after hours', and argue that 'forcing' people to spend this time in a particular way is a good thing.
Steve Jobs worked at Atari and Wozniak at Hewlett Packard during Apple's inception. Do you think Apple would even exist today if these two hadn't been able to work on their passion project while off the clock??
Yeah, this is standard practice at Big Cos in the US. I had to jump through hoops to send back contributions for an OSS I was modifying as part of work. This would have been a huge win for the company too, as I wouldn't have to spend time maintaining the software as updates were pushed.
Alas, it took so much time to get approval that we abandon our work and the OSS software. The most I was able to give back to a project that I made serious improvements for was a few bug fixes. And those were done without approval.
I work for a smaller company now and they ask for notification, but don't take ownership of OSS work.
Yeah, this rule is clearly enforced by companies to protect their employees' well-being. Just billion-dollar corporations being sensitive and protective, as per usual. /s
I am not sure where the sarcasm comes from. This actually supports the company, because exhausted, overworked and sleepy coders aren't much of a use for anyone.
On the other hand employees have harder times to push their own ventures. I once worked with a guy doing some personal pet project on the side. Nothing came from it in the end, but it was consuming him to the point, when he was doing some work on this during work hours.
I am not sure how one can avoid being sarcastic here. You honestly believe top execs at these companies have sat down and decided to ban OSS contributions because that makes for exhausted, overworked employees? Not saner, more flexible working hours, not more vacation time, not on-site nap rooms and such, they've decided? All of the things that, you know, might actually help. Nah, coders are just tired because they work on OSS in their free time. Come on now.
They're simply protecting their IP as much as they possibly can. If they could ban you from using a computer at all in your free time, without getting sued into oblivion for violating human rights and such, they would.
Apple doesn't provide any of those in your opinion? I can imagine having everything you pointed and then ban on side projects (paid or not). And yes, working on OSS might actually be even more exhausting than a day job.
I understand that but when I apply to a job I want an employer, not a mother. I'm still able to decide for myself what I can do and what would burn me out. And even if that becomes a problem, I wouldn't want my employer to (more or less) own me. If I'm not productive enough for my company it should just end the employment relationship (or try to help me first because that could be mutually beneficial).
Also there's a large gap between "starting an open source project" and "working on your side project full-time".
This is regulated differently in the different countries. It is common that the intellectual property you create in the course of your employment automatically belongs to your employer. But of course, it is not your employer's business what you do in your spare time (as long as you do not use infrastructure or intellectual property of your employer for this purpose).
See e.g. http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/...
Apple is a software company which produces operating systems, programming languages and applications. How are you supposed to prove that you aren’t using knowledge gleaned from Apple in your OSS side hustle? Given the breadth of Apples offerings, how could you possibly have a software project which doesn’t overlap with one of their businesses?
Knowledge by itself is no issue and not subject to copyright. But you have an issue if you use code or libraries (i.e. everything which qualifies as a "work") or patents of which you're not the IP owner. I don't know US law, but here in Europe workers' rights are well protected. Of course, if you do work in competition with your employer in your free time, this can be a problem. But the courts will only agree with the employer if there is significant damage or risk of damage.
I’m guessing things aren’t quite so clear cut as you think they are. Trivially, Apple has an engineering presence in various European countries, it wouldn’t make sense to have this clause in their employment contract if it wasn’t applicable everywhere.
> Trivially, Apple has an engineering presence in various European countries, it wouldn’t make sense to have this clause in their employment contract if it wasn’t applicable everywhere
Usually, multinational employers have a seperate standard employment contract for each country they operate in, written with input from local lawyers. So I wouldn’t assume the IP provisions in Apple’s employment contracts are exactly the same in every country, although they would all be attempting to implement Apple’s global policies to the extent that each country’s legal system allows it.
(I have never seen an Apple employment contract, so this is informed speculation.)
As I said, I don't know US law. But I studied Swiss law which is quite similar to the law of other European countries. Even though Apple is a large company and sometimes behaves as if they are above the law, their subsidiaries are still subject to the laws of their respective countries. The clauses in their contracts that violate applicable national law are invalid.
You can write in a contract whatever you want; it's permitted to sign invalid contracts; but it's the court which decides on the nature of the contract and interprets the will of the parties; the court will disable illegal clauses and replace them by default law.
Practically, you can’t. Not only is the breadth of the things they work on staggering, there’s a number of secret projects that you might be falling afoul of as well.
if im less effective u fire me and that's that. if am able to do what you pay me to do in the time you pay me to do it then what i do after work is whatever i want.
Non of his projects have any activity during last year. Yet this announcement is formed in quite an aggressive and quite frankly unnecessary way. In few days we might get another post here which will blame Apple for firing him.
Apple's IP, and their zealous guarding thereof, is why most of y'all carry MacBooks to work instead of Dells. So before you open your mouth to criticize, think about how policies like Apple's actually allow them more freedom to innovate.
Slavery, is why most of y'all carry cheap clothing. So before you open your mouth to criticize, think about how policies like slavery actually allow clothing manufacturers to lower their prices.
Go ahead and work on open source. Use our computers and our office and our internet if you want. If we use the software inside Netflix, please mention that on the project page if you can, but if we don't or you can't, then whatevs.
Also, if the software was created here at Netflix, feel free to open source it if it has to do with operations, but if it has to do with moviemaking, we'd rather keep that to ourselves for now.
They understand that open source software is great for the community and great for recruiting. What better way to attract great engineers than to point out that the maintainer of their favorite open source project works for Netflix?