Microsoft Rewarding Employees Who Phone It In

theodp writes "For developers who are all about the Benjamins, Microsoft has come up with an intriguing alternative to Google's vaunted 20% time. To boost the number of Windows Phone 7 apps, Microsoft has relaxed a strict rule and will let employees moonlight and keep the resulting intellectual property and 70% of the revenue, as long as that second job is writing apps for WP7-based devices. The rule change offers an option for employees who don't want to leave for the insecurity of a start-up, but still want a shot at recognition and rewards for their own ideas."

Comments

Wow!

[beaviz]

Microsoft has relaxed a strict rule and will let employees moonlight and keep the resulting intellectual property

A company letting their employees do what the want in their own free time. They deserve the Nobel peace price!

Seriously, is it common (in the states) to "own" your employees even when they are not at work?

Re:Wow!

[mfh]

Seriously, is it common (in the states) to "own" your employees even when they are not at work?

You would be surprised, but yes it is very common for companies to claim IP over things created even when an employee is doing them on their own free time. Companies argue that exposure to their policies arguably enabled the person to create the product, service or technology... which is wrong in my opinion but it still happens. I think that if you work for a company and there aren't explicit agreements in place you are protected in most states but you should definitely check first before starting up something awesome.

This is bad for all of us because it slows down the invention of new things to the angular flow rate of cold molasses.

Re:Wow!

[oliverthered]

does that work for errors on tax returns?

Re:Wow!

[Giometrix]

Microsoft has relaxed a strict rule and will let employees moonlight and keep the resulting intellectual property

A company letting their employees do what the want in their own free time. They deserve the Nobel peace price!

Seriously, is it common (in the states) to "own" your employees even when they are not at work?

This is absolutely the norm. Some places are worse than others, making you sign a "everything you do belongs to us" agreement (how enforceable that is I don't know, IANAL). Most places just don't want you to compete with them, so anything you do on your time related to their industry belongs to them. In this case we're talking software, so MS is relaxing that restriction for wp7 apps.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to look into this when my previous employer wanted to change the contracts.

Basically they added a catch all, anything you think or do belongs to us (first borns included). So if you are programmer but come up with a new clothes line peg they own the IP.

The actual law is actually more sensible, if you come up with something you'd be expected to do in your job the company owns the IP, otherwise you do. For instance as a programmer if I come up with a new piece of software the company could argue it is their IP, but if I make and sell some artwork I own it.

All been said it is a bit of a grey area and getting it tested in court would be expensive for any normal person.

Captcha:Stolen :)

Re:Wow!

[Dunbal]

A company letting their employees do what the want in their own free time.

You must have missed the "as long as that second job is writing apps for WP7-based devices" part. That is not "letting people do what they want". In fact, it places a fairly strict boundary.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

If the company name was anything other than microsoft it would recieve nothing but praise.

Re:Wow!

[uganson]

The view of Joel Spolsky regarding the issue.

...

Suppose you have a little game company. Instead of making software, you knock out three or four clever games every few months. You can't invent all the games yourself. So you go out and hire a game designer to invent games. You are going to pay the game designer $6,000 a month to invent new games. Those games will be clever and novel. They are patentable. It is important to you, as a company, to own the patents on the games.

Your game designer works for a year and invents 7 games. At the end of the year, he sues you, claiming that he owns 4 of them, because those particular games were invented between 5pm and 9am, when he wasn't on duty.

Ooops. That's not what you meant. You wanted to pay him for all the games that he invents, and you recognize that the actual process of invention for which you are paying for him may happen at any time... on weekdays, weekends, in the office, in the cubicle, at home, in the shower, climbing a mountain on vacation.

So before you hire this guy, you agree, "hey listen, I know that inventing happens all the time, and it's impossible to prove whether you invented something while you were sitting in the chair I supplied in the cubicle I supplied or not. I don't just want to buy your 9-5 inventions. I want them all, and I'm going to pay you a nice salary to get them all," and he agrees to that, so now you want to sign something that says that all his inventions belong to the company as long as he is employed by the company.

...

Re:Wow!

[TheRaven64]

Really? Most smallish companies I've worked with only claim stuff relevant to things you've been asked to do. Even IBM only requires you to check with their legal people and jump through some non-compete hoops (obviously they don't want their employees working on stuff that competes with them in their free time, but they don't mind you working on other stuff - it's your own time).

Google's 20% time is overrated. People interpret it as meaning that you can work on anything you want, but typically it means working on any Google project you want, so you can spend 20% of your time hacking on Android or Google Maps if you're in another division (for example).

Re:Wow!

[arkenian]

Seriously, is it common (in the states) to "own" your employees even when they are not at work?

You would be surprised, but yes it is very common for companies to claim IP over things created even when an employee is doing them on their own free time. Companies argue that exposure to their policies arguably enabled the person to create the product, service or technology... which is wrong in my opinion but it still happens. I think that if you work for a company and there aren't explicit agreements in place you are protected in most states but you should definitely check first before starting up something awesome.

This is bad for all of us because it slows down the invention of new things to the angular flow rate of cold molasses.

To be fair, most employment contracts I've read are a little more specific than that. Specifically they own any IP on anything related to the work you do for them, fairly broadly defined. This tends to mean that, if you work at microsoft, any software you wrote would be covered. But if you wrote a novel, that would not be covered. Actually, the way I read the ones I've signed, they're more on the order of noncompete agreements than the company making any claims as to why you were able to do it. They don't care why, as part of your employment you agree not to compete with their products. The best way to PREVENT you from competing with them is that, if you do, they own it anyway. Likewise I'm forbidden from providing consulting services to competitors etc.

Re:Wow!

[Nursie]

I disagree with his stance there. If the employee claims the copyright/patent for something then they shouldn't be just handing it over to the company they work for.

If I invent something after hours and I consider it mine I don't take it to work the next day and write it into a product. Because that would be retarded and (IMHO) should count, as in every other instance with stuff I do at work, as the company's IP.

It's not difficult...

Re:Wow!

[billcopc]

People sign this shit, because: 99% of people out there are uncreative and just do whatever is needed to get a paycheck.

Do you honestly think that design-by-committee Java guy next to you has even the slightest spark of inspiration ? He probably can't even get it up without writing 4 support interfaces that describe the various ways one can (choose not to) interact with his cock.

Re:Wow!

[mfh]

I think you're interpreting that too broadly. If they own the IP of the work you do for them, they own software you were ordered to create on company time. If they don't order it and you create it on your own time and it's different enough than what you're doing then it should be your property. But MSFT assumes if you do some software you got the idea from them, when in fact it could have been your own idea. They keep this water muddy intentionally, even if it appears to be spelled out properly. Watch what happens when someone codes something they want to launch... 70% of the profits? Yeah right. They would try to buy you out or create something that oversteps your prior art and merely bypass you. They have heavy feet.

Re:Wow!

[billcopc]

I don't think it's overrated. If I had that 20% at my previous job, I think their network would be in much better shape because I'd have written better provisioning scripts, backup tools and whatnot. My employer would have benefitted, and I would have been a happier cog. Instead, my job was to put out fires rather than prevent them, so after a few years I burned out and left.

That 20% doesn't mean money down the drain, it's more like a slight gamble - give a little, to potentially get a lot. Sure, if someone works on a project that doesn't take off, well that potentially sucks, but you can think of it as your employee acquiring related skills or honing existing ones. surely that must count for something.

Re:Wow!

[peragrin]

1)They find reading legal documents difficult
2)They really want a job,and so are will to sacrifice for it,
3) They aren't all that creative and don't have enough free time at home anyways.

Re:Wow!

[migla]

And people actually sign this shit, that is the problem. It works against you because if you don't sign it, they throw you out. If EVERYONE refuses to sign it, the company is the one who is fucked.

It's like the prisoners dilemma with millions of participants.

Re:Wow!

[magical liopleurodon]

1)They find reading legal documents difficult
2)They really want a job,and so are will to sacrifice for it,
3) They aren't all that creative and don't have enough free time at home anyways.

1) It's pretty obvious that you're signing your soul away. I signed one of these myself, but they're not valid in Minnesota. A number of states don't allow this. California is another one where even if you sign something like this, it cannot be enforced.

And people actually sign this shit, that is the problem. It works against you because if you don't sign it, they throw you out. If EVERYONE refuses to sign it, the company is the one who is fucked.

So many companies do this. If you're not in a state where it's unenforceable, the only leverage you have is starting your own company. Which I encourage, and when you all do do that, don't make your employees sign contracts like this.

Re:Wow!

[Lehk228]

This is yet another example of why programmers especially, but really all tech workers, would benefit from a union, but crony capitalist propaganda keeps people convinced that a union would lower their pay and benefits, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, workers get better pay and working conditions in a unionized environment.

everyone likes to consider themselves better at everything, so they think they can negotiate better for their own pay, but really who will do better, one guy who needs to pay his mortgage next month vs. a company who can keep a position open as long as they need to, and just keep leaning on the other programmers to make up the slack, since THEY need to pay their mortgage too, they shut up and put in their 70-80 hour/week deathmarch.

the reality of the situation is, even if you are in the top 10% of programmers, you are not going to also be in the top 10% of negotiators AND be in a position to hold out for as long as it takes to get compensation that is appropriate to the value you bring to the company.

Re:Wow!

[Carewolf]

I live and work in Germany and I had to sign one of these agreements. It's a germany-based company also.

Then your contract is invalid, or at least that clause of it. If the company makes any moves to enforce that policy, report it to the union.

Re:Wow!

[PopeRatzo]

If they don't order it and you create it on your own time and it's different enough than what you're doing then it should be your property.

That won't matter if the lawyers for the company you work for make it impossible for you to profit from "your property" or if the legal costs wipe out any possible profit.

I think the intellectual property laws are as likely to hinder innovation than encourage it. That's usually the signal when a law needs to be repealed or changed. When when a law actually encourages lawless behavior, and results in rewarding criminal behavior, as in the drug laws, it's probably ripe for change or repeal. Considering that IP laws make criminals out of tens of millions of Americans and probably hundreds of millions of people worldwide, you have to wonder what benefit these laws provide in the first place.

Re:Wow!

[cdrguru]

You need to understand where these laws and employment agreements come from. Let's say you are working for a company that makes socket wrenches. You get a great idea for a different way to attach the socket to the wrench. After some time you decide that you aren't liking your job so much and quit. You then file for a patent on your wrench idea and a different manufacturer picks up the idea and pays you for your patent.

The guy that actually did this was tied up in court for decades because of this and because of the money he got from the 2nd manufacturer.

Clearly there is a problem with this from the perspective of original employer. This case is a standard introduction to employment agreements and why they say what they say.

Re:Wow!

[Lashat]

This is not an attempt by Microsoft to co-op and then take over Windows Phone 7 apps that their employees develop. Microsoft wants WP7 apps to be developed and get to the consumer thus promoting the WP7 os and devices. Everyone know that the combination of devices ability and available apps are going to decide the smartphone os wars.

Usually, any MS employee would be hamstrung by the blanket IP policy, which is narrow enough that a novel would not be covered, but any Windows realated code would. The new policies rally the MS troops with deepest access to WP7 source with incentive to develop specifically for the platform. Also, worth a mention is the fact that app approval process will be greased by MS 30% interest. The resulting apps will have a much better chance of making it to the consumer.

Re:Wow!

[Znork]

The new policies rally the MS troops with deepest access to WP7 source with incentive to develop specifically for the platform.

Ah, yes, the incentive of taking 30% of the profit the employee makes on his own time. What's next, encouraging employee stock ownership by only requiring 30% repayment to the company of any profits (excepted upper management of course)?

The humorous part is that management probably thinks employees should be grateful for such incentive, while it will only serve to educate the employees that their contracts shaft them, reducing morale and certainly not creating a desire to work for free in their spare time.

Microsoft seems more out of touch every year, and this certainly won't help windows mobile. Poor Nokia.

Re:Wow!

[VertigoAce]

The 30% is the cut that Microsoft takes from every app on the WP7 marketplace (same as Apple does with their app store). Employees get the same 70% that third party developers get.

The people I work with had the opposite reaction from what you suggest. The policy removed the uncertainty around moonlighting in this case and encouraged people to start developing apps. I don't think this would have been against policy in any case, but most employees aren't going to spend the time talking to their manager, legal, and HR just to get approval to release a $0.99 app.

Re:Wow!

[93 Escort Wagon]

Ah, yes, the incentive of taking 30% of the profit the employee makes on his own time. What's next, encouraging employee stock ownership by only requiring 30% repayment to the company of any profits (excepted upper management of course)?

While I agree with your sentiment, holding this up as an example of Microsoft being "more out of touch every year" (as you say further down) is a bit much. Rightly or wrongly, the practice of claiming ownership over an employee's downtime work is standard industry practice, at least in the US.

FWIW I have walked away from jobs where the employment contract required this - and I wish more folks would, because then these martinets would start to take notice. It is a ridiculous and onerous practice; one more appropriate to the 19th century than the 21st.

Re:Wow!

[mpsmps]

Seriously, is it common (in the states) to "own" your employees even when they are not at work?

You would be surprised, but yes it is very common for companies to claim IP over things created even when an employee is doing them on their own free time. Companies argue that exposure to their policies arguably enabled the person to create the product, service or technology... which is wrong in my opinion but it still happens. I think that if you work for a company and there aren't explicit agreements in place you are protected in most states but you should definitely check first before starting up something awesome.

This is bad for all of us because it slows down the invention of new things to the angular flow rate of cold molasses.

The important thing is to make things clear. If you approach your employer (ideally) before starting your own spare-time idea that is clearly distinct from their business, most reasonable companies will give you a letter saying that it is your own. This simple step can save a lot of problems.

Re:Wow!

[Dahamma]

Right, this is the key bit: and it's different enough than what you're doing

Since Microsoft is probably the only one actually *paying* employees to write Windows Phone 7 apps so far, it would have been reasonable to expect that it's included in a Microsoft engineer's company IP ;)

And another thing that REALLY muddies this is telecommuting. Many engineers work at home part of the time (and not always from 9-5) making it nearly impossible to distinguish paid work from "moonlighting"...

Re:Wow!

[grcumb]

If you could organize a union without seniority rules, and with the ability to pay more to high performers and less to weak performers, and with the ability to layoff whomever you thought would provide the most cost savings, I might join. But then I'm not sure what that union would be negotiating.

Well, maybe they'd be negotiating for the protection of workers' rights against silly 'I own all the fruits of your labour' clauses in employment contracts, which is what started this thread in the first place.

Serious question: Why is it that the appearance of certain words and phrases (like 'union', 'socialism', 'global warming' and 'president') suddenly remove the ability to think rationally?

(I am now guaranteed at least one response complaining about the madness, the unreasoning incoherence of the other side, complete with demonising language and coupled with utter blindness to the merits of any potential counter-argument. It will also be devoid of any insight into the irony of the response.)

Re:Wow!

[Jane Q. Public]

I don't buy this concept in most cases, including the one involving the ratchet, with which I am somewhat familiar.

The guy could have gotten the same idea from simply disassembling a socket wrench in his garage, or just from general knowledge about how they are built. I doubt that it takes years of work in a wrench factory to really have such ideas.

My father worked for a carpet manufacturer once, teaching them how to install their own carpet (which was physically different from other brands). He was a leader and innovator in the field... he taught himself how to do it better than anyone else when they first started manufacturing the stuff.

He invented a new kind of tool for trimming the carpet around the edges during installation (where it meets the wall). It saved a lot of time and effort. But his contract said that any inventions he made while in their employ would belong to them.

That would be understandable if the company had really taught him the knowledge to do the job... but in fact HE was teaching THEM, and they had no part whatever in the invention of this tool. So they got ownership of it, manufactured and sold it, and he got nothing.

I think scenarios like that are more common than many people think. Or at least where the company contributed little or nothing to the actual idea or its implementation, and doesn't deserve to own it.

Re:Wow!

[SwedishPenguin]

Well if you (Americans in general) weren't so gung-ho about how unions are "evil" and want to do everything all on your own, you would actually have a way to collectively stop these practices.

Re:Wow!

[rtb61]

There is a reason it has to be muddy. Porting an app is a lot simpler than creating the original. If your app is doing well on windows mobile the employee would have to be an idiot not to port it to android and iphone.

Contractually it would be difficult to deny the port as they have stated the employee owns the IP and gets 70% of the income implying greater control with the employee. Making it unclear leaves room for M$ lawyers to bluff employees when necessary.

Re:Wow!

[beaviz]

Exactly. What company wants to pay an employee to be a rockstar at developing a competing product in their free time?

A sensible one? How about this policy:
We own you 9-5, we own what you create in that time. What you do the other 16 hours of the day is not our business, but make sure you're well rested when you're at work here.

Re:Wow!

[gl4ss]

I could name a few mobile companies that should have done this exact rule(all the people who knew how to do for their os's were practically gagged from publishing anything).

also ms should extend this to contractor companies, otherwise it's just an empty gesture towards very few.

sounds generous, until

[Anonymous Coward]

You rephrase it the other way: "Go ahead and start a business in your free time, as long as you're getting all your work done here including meeting time and face time. Oh, but that business has to be for Windows Phone 7 apps, and we'll take 30 percent."

Re:sounds generous, until

[billcopc]

If you're actually making use of that meeting time (and space), corporate equipment, insider info, and proximity of like-minded developers and engineers, seems to me I'd rather get 70% of something big with no up-front investment besides my time, than 100% of something I had to subsidize myself and do on my own.

You know, the hardest part of turning an idea into a business isn't the creation/production aspect, it's usually the motivation. If you have significant start-up costs, a hard time finding skilled partners, or even the controversial drag of a whiny wife & kids at home, any or all of these will stress you out and endanger the business in its most vulnerable nascent state. Being able to piggyback on Microsoft's establishment for some of those steps, and yet even telling the wife "I gotta work late" just to get some peace and quiet, can make the difference between failure and success.

I'm not saying I'm 100% behind this scheme, but it's better than nothing, and if you don't like it, you can always get a completely unrelated gig elsewhere.

Re:70% if the revenue?

[LWATCDR]

sounds like app store. If you put an app in the Google app store they take 30%. The iTunes app store? 30%.

Bribe

[fermion]

It is sad when you have to bribe employees to develop for in house devices. It is even sadder when your vaulted cadre of third party developers refuse to develop for a new device. We are told that due to restrictions on the iPhone, developers are leaving in troves to develop on other devices. Maybe that is true for Android, but the android boosters also admit that developers are largely not being paid by the end user for their work,, so I wonder how many of those apps are ads or simple portals to paid services.

Compare MS desperation to RIM, which is only interested in serious developers delivering serious apps. They are not focused on numbers, but, even more so than Apple, want useful Apps.

If MS wants apps, do what apple does. Offer one button on the web site that will download a complete, unencumbered, and free as in beer development kit. Do not play games such as 'students get it for free' or 'you have to develop for us because we are the best' Just give us the tools.

Re:Bribe

[jeffgeno]

The tools are free. You just have to pay to get your apps listed in the marketplace. $100 a year for up tp 100 apps.

http://phone.microsoftplatformready.com/?CR_CC=200001192&WT.srch=1&CR_SCC=200001192&WT.srch=1

Re:Bribe

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not play games

Visual Studio Express is a game MS plays to lure people into the barbed wired fenced and armed patrolled prison yard. Google does not play this game. It uses Eclipse which is a professional IDE that caters to professional development and integration, a consistent environment that a professional can use on many different platforms. Apple uses XCode, another full featured IDE without the $1000 subscription fee to access basic documentation. Blackberry seems to also provide Eclipse plug ins and free simulators.

So it seems that MS is the only major smart phone that requires upfront payment for full development tools. This was good business in Windows with 90% market share and when IDE were a cool thing. Now, when the IDE is basic functionality, and MS mobile devices sell in the thousands, not millions, it seems like a bad idea.

Re:Bribe

[FreelanceWizard]

If MS wants apps, do what apple does. Offer one button on the web site that will download a complete, unencumbered, and free as in beer development kit. Do not play games such as 'students get it for free' or 'you have to develop for us because we are the best' Just give us the tools.

You mean like this link to the free as in beer development kit, which is linked from a large "Download the free tools" button on the first hit off Google or Bing for "windows phone 7 development kit?"

Re:70% if the revenue?

[Dunbal]

watching 'the biggest looser' on TV

Is that the show about people who go around with a wrench and screwdriver and work on loosening nuts and screws, or what? Reality TV at it's finest. Loser.

Re:70% if the revenue?

[rainmouse]

>Microsoft then take a further 30% of this, $21, because I work for them... Leaving me with just $49

BASTARDS

When you work for a software company, the norm is to take complete ownership of any related software you create in your spare time, the idea is that so you cant just steal company secrets and sell them in the form of your own products. In practice its a way of completely owning their staff as though they were property (assets is the word they like to use), I have even seen contracts that stipulate ownership of the content of your dreams; however enforcing such dubious practices is another matter....

Re:70% if the revenue?

[ZankerH]

Google take ZERO unless you want to publish your app on the android market. Unlike Apple and MS, you don't have to do that in order for your users to be able to install said app without having to hack their own phones.

Don't make assumptions...

[Foredecker]

Gah! This kind of thing drives me nuts!

Here is the truth. Microsoft has one of the most liberal employee moonlighting policies of any high tech company. This includes yours. Microsoft has long allowed moonlighting. There are many employees that moonlight. Of course, a lot of moonlighting is writing software. This is often to extend Microsoft products. But there are others as well, some people write books, some write and perform music, some build furniture and some teach.

I have first hand knowledge of several examples, one of which I can talk bout. I hired the guy that develops Paint.Net/a>.. He worked for me a while and we are currently on the same team. Getting permission for him to continue Paint.NET development was easy and a no-brainer.

The only things Microsoft has ever ask of any moonlighter is/p>

• Ask for permission first. People get it in most cases directly from their manger, or a director. No VPs or HR needed.
• DDont compete with Microsoft. People will not get permission for this. For example, I wouldnt get permission to write a new word processor thus competing with word.
• Dont let it impact your Microsoft job. Note, moonlighting often benefits a persons day job, and often their team.
• Microsoft gets an implicitly license to your stuff. Note this doesnt encumber the employee in any way - they can sell and license their stuff too. But Microsoft can use it with no royalties. After all, were funding it indirectly. Its only fair.

Again, moonlighging is very common at Microsoft. Our policies are quite liberal and have been for a very long time. I understand Bill put them inplace himself.

Here, Microsoft is simply making a very liberal policy even more liberal.

-a href="http://foredecker.wordpress.com/about/">Foredecker

Re:Don't make assumptions...

[Therilith]

Since I don't live in the US I've never heard of absurd restrictions like this, and I was pretty shocked to see so many people defending it in the comment section.
Are these kinds of "we own you" employment policies really that common over there?

Microsoft gets an implicitly license to your stuff. Note this doesnt encumber the employee in any way - they can sell and license their stuff too. But Microsoft can use it with no royalties.

Really? That's bullshit. What I create on my free time belongs to me and MS can go fuck themselves.

After all, were funding it indirectly. Its only fair.

"Funding it"? Bwah?

After RTFA

[ryzvonusef]

Since reading the article is a unforgivable sin on slashdot, I committed this blasphemy on your behalf :P

Mr. Watson of Microsoft said the policy change emerged in part because of a push from his group. âoeWe tend to have strict moonlighting rules,â he said of the company. âoeBut weâ(TM)ve changed those rules so developers can do this in their spare time, and have the financial benefit and outcome of the work.â

The company is offering what Mr. Watson said was a standard split on app sales: 70 percent to the developers, 30 percent to Microsoft.

In other words, before this policy change, MS employees couldn't even write a WP7 app in the first place, they wouldn't be allowed to sell it on the marketplace AFAIK, but now, they can, just like any non-MS employed developer, following the same rules.

Not really.

[Penguinisto]

If Apple announced this, world+dog would deride them for the app restriction, claiming long and loud how 'Lord Jobs' is keeping tight rein over the 'peasants' in his 'domain'.

If RIM Announced this, world+dog would collectively yawn, save for some folks who would stand back in astonishment that the Blackberry actually had apps*

If Google announced this, world+dog would think it was normal, and point to that 20% thing they have.

--

Personally, I see it as Microsoft casting about to bolster its struggling product in any way that it can. They're having a pretty rough go of it, judging by the numbers so far. To give you an idea, I'm willing to wager that WP7 still has more phones in the channel than in customer hands... and there's very little prospect so far that WP 7 will do much more than eke out a presence this year, if they're lucky.

* (they do have apps BTW - I have/use a BB Bold).

Yeah a great alternative

[nedlohs]

For 20% of your company work time you can work on something still company related but of your choosing rather than dictated by your manager.

versus.

You can work on stuff related to the company's product on your own personal time at your own cost and you bear all the risk, but the company will have 30% of the revenue. Oh, and we'll give you a slice of pizza once a week.

20% time? Not really

[adenied]

Someone from Google can correct me if I'm really wrong here, but I've asked a number of Google developers if they really get to use their 20% time. The general answers have been either "Yeah right. Hardly anyone does." to "Sure! I can use 20% of the 60-70 hours a week I regularly am at the campus on whatever I want."

Not sure if that's really what people think about when they hear about the 20% time philosophy. Seems like it's more of a marketing / recruiting thing.

Re:20% time? Not really

[martin-boundary]

That can't be right because Google's motto is, "Do no evil."

Yeah, but Google is its own employee. So 20% of the time it can do whatever it wants instead of not being evil :)

Companies often relinquish claims on ideas ...

[perpenso]

This is bad for all of us because it slows down the invention of new things to the angular flow rate of cold molasses.

Not necessarily. Sometimes an individual does not have the resources to bring the idea to market. Other times the company simply signs a waiver saying they relinquish any claim on this idea, IIRC as HP did for some of Steve Wozniak's idea. You could say Apple Computer was born from HP waivers to some degree.

Different from your work or company's business?

[perpenso]

... If they don't order it and you create it on your own time and it's different enough than what you're doing then it should be your property ...

Different from your work or the company's business? Your work could be on operating systems. Your company could be in the business of providing software for personal computer users. You could have an idea for a word processor. Its not related to your work but it is related to your company's business. Your salary may be compensation for both your directed labor and any ideas on how the company may further its business.

Personally the companies I've worked for have been quite reasonable about this. Employment contracts with a section for work/projects immune from company claims. Waivers that were easy to get if the company had no interest in a new idea.

Crappy summary

[pavon]

The actual quote from the (paywalled) article is

The company is offering what Mr. Watson said was a standard split on app sales: 70 percent to the developers, 30 percent to Microsoft.

The 30% is indeed the normal amount that Microsoft takes on all WP7 apps, so it looks like that is what the summary is referring to, although the wording was very misleading.

Straightforward with some gray areas.

[Aquitaine]

There are obviously shops out there that try to say that they own everything the employee does. In most places this is not legal and even if it is, you're an idiot to sign them.

I run a shop that does youth sports management web applications. The only time I care about what my employees doing in their spare time is when it's directly relevant to their job. If you work for me and then you turn around and write your own youth sports application in your spare time, I'm going to sue your pants off because you have access to our code, our libraries, our ideas, and our clients' business needs and you can't pretend that you aren't using any of those things in your new and competing product.

But if you write a game or a web app that clearly has got nothing to do with your job, such that the only tenuous connection I can establish between your work for us and your free time project is that you became a more competent programmer while working for us, that's awesome for you and good for us because it means you're improving yourself and making an extra buck. If you make so many extra bucks on the side that you quit your job, well that sucks for me, but you earned it.

There are definitely some gray areas here. Like what if you start working in your spare time on an app that competes with us and then quit your job a month later? Then you get the 'hair salon migration rule' - if you took our stuff (even our abstract stuff) or solicit any of our clients to leave with you, then we go to court. But let's say you quit your job because you think the company sucks or that I'm a jerk and then a year later you start working on a competing product. Forget the law for a moment -- what does your gut tell you is the right answer here? For me, if you've been gone for a year, the only connection between what you're doing now with what you did for us a year ago is that you clearly learned a lot about the business from us, but unless you actually swiped any of our code, 'knowing how the business works' is not a crime. I don't want to police what you do after you stop working for us unless there's a very real concern that you've stolen our mojo.

The analogy to what MS is doing also seems to be a little bit of a gray area. Our company makes niche software so there's not a huge sphere of relevant work out there. but if your job for MS is WM7 development, that's a bit different. It's tough for you to say that your free time WM7 development has got nothing to do with your professional WM7 development, and MS is basically saying that we'll compromise with you -- rather than having to figure out (probably in court) whether or not your work is yours, theirs, or a conflict of interest, they're just saying 'go do what you want, and if what you want happens to be similar to your day job, we'll sign off on it and let you keep most of the revenue.'

From a business perspective, that seems pretty reasonable to me.

Re:70% if the revenue?

[Dahamma]

Yeah, you are misunderstanding.

Occam's razor, take the obvious answer, which is they instituted the same policy as pretty much *everyone* else, and just want 30% of the gross revenue from app store sales.

Plus, if you RTFA, they even state this explicitly:

"The company is offering what Mr. Watson said was a standard split on app sales: 70 percent to the developers, 30 percent to Microsoft."

Re:Fuck off, 70%

[martin-boundary]

Because of your tiredness you slow down so much that you end up doing less in 60 hours than you would do in 40.

That misses the point because it only measures throughput. The problem is that if people work 60 hours, then company latency is actually improved. Here's a car analogy:

In the classic Ford factory, it takes a long time to build a single car, but several cars can be assembled simultaneously. The latency is the time it takes to build the first car from nothing, and it's pretty large. But after that, there's a new car coming out every few minutes, and the throughput is high.

So take your basic company with employees working 40 hours per week. Basically, the company only does work from 9 to 5, and that puts a constraint on how quickly things can be started/finished (ie latency).

For example, if the boss decides at 3pm that something urgent needs to be done that needs 3 hours to complete, then it can't be done on the day. It needs to be scheduled for the next day, and that bumps other things etc. So people can do good work at 40 hours per week, but starting a new job can take some time to schedule.

Compare that with a company where employees work 60 hours per week. The same job at 3pm now takes 4 hours instead of 3, but since the employee stays until 7pm, it can be done today. So the throughput has dropped, but the latency has improved.

I'm not in favour of people working 60 hours per week, but if you think quality of work work done alone is the determining factor that makes companies pressure their employees to work long hours, then you've oversimplified.

This makes me glad...

[MrEricSir]

...that I work in the open source world.

Sure, my company can take whatever I create! But it's going to be L/GPL'd, which is fine by me.