Dealing With an Overly-Restrictive Intellectual Property Policy?
An anonymous reader writes "I am very happy with my current job, but there have always been a few ideas for things I've wanted to develop on the side. Ideally I'd keep my day job, reserving mornings, evenings and weekends to see if the side-projects could become viable. The problem is: my employer has an IP policy that states that anything I do while under their employ is theirs, even when I'm off the clock. Does anyone have suggestions about workarounds, magic loopholes, false identity for the side projects? Anything?"
Disclaimer: Where I work they are cool with "moonlighting", with the stipulation being that you must check with legal. Never been in this situation so this is largely guess work based on stories I've heard from others!
The obvious is of course to get a new job. I'm sure lots of people are going to recommend that, but of course it is rarely that simple.. especially in this economy and you like where you are working now.
The less obvious is to negotiate with your employer/your employers legal department. Just be cognisant of the fact that this may inadvertently force you into option 1. If the terms of your employment are there just to cover their ass.. you might be able to work something out if your ideas arn't within their business area. Just keep in mind that you are asking to work on something that you hope will lead to you resigning and pursing full time (I assume) and they may have a problem with that as well.
I guess the real question is, how sold on your own ideas are you? Willing to risk your job?... because I really don't see a way of persuing this that doesn't end there.
There is quite a bit of variation to be found in the practices of companies with regard to this issue.
A good write up is found here: http://www.ieeeusa.org/members/IPandtheengineer.pdf
The article suggest there are two or three broad models of what is acceptable practice in this ares.
First
The Massachusetts Model is so called because it is prevalent in the northeastern United States. It was developed toward the end of the industrial revolution as a response to shop rights. Agreements written on this model tend to imply that the intellectual life of the employee is company property.
Never backed by law, this model is the most restrictive,
The cycle of innovation and renewal is fundamental to a healthy market economy. To foster this cycle, individuals require the same protections for non-work-related intellectual property that employers enjoy for work-related creations. In 1977, Minnesota formalized this concept with a law limiting the enforceable terms of pre-invention assignment agreements. The Minnesota Model adopts the philosophy that while the employer should enjoy protection, it should not come at the expense of today's employee to become tomorrow's new employer.
In California there are similar laws to the Minnesota system:
The State of California followed in 1980, by implementing protection for its famous entrepreneurial culture. As of this writing Utah, Washington, North Carolina, Kansas, Delaware, and Illinois have also promoted new business formation by means of
similar laws
The text of the California law is on the web here. Washington state Here.
Appendix B of the above linked article has a summary of legislation in various states and list of states where such agreements are already limited by state law.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Next time, modify the agreement before you sign it.
Yes - explain why you don't like this, and what you intend to do in your spare time that you wish to retain ownership of.
These clauses usually come from a desire that employees don't misappropriate company IP and use it to write something competing. Or for a competitor (where the 'who owns what' question becomes murkier).
Any reasonable employer will write you an exclusion, but likely with a no-compete clause, which is fair enough.
IANAL, but I write the above as an employer, running a tech team of 21.
Time to talk to an attorney to see what is legal in your state.
often times the 'restrictions' you are required to sign aren't actually legal and are designed just to scare you, but unless they are challenged they stick.
If you find out its OK, with a company like that breathing down my neck id still document everything i do off hours so i can clearly show it was done on my time, with my materials if it ever came to that point. " Code section created x-date/time" "Receipts of hardware and software", etc.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Oh no, not another "ask a lawyer" question.
As a general rule, this is mostly unenforceable and/or is trivially worked around.
That may be, but life is a lot simpler for everyone if we can all work by mutual prior agreement.
*all* contracts start in the favour of the people who wrote them. It's a game to make it mutually fair as much as it is to do a decent tax return or haggle for goods at the market. You may not like that it's a game (I don't!), but it is one.
The first step should be to talk to them about it and see if they will revise it for you. I work for a company that took a boilerplate IP Policy and wanted to roll it out (like I'm sure many companies do). When they did this, I talked to them and asked them to change it because the way it was written, they basically controlled anything I did. I cited the fact that they could use it for anything from claiming rights to a novel I would write, to any invention I came up with, to even using it to force me to take down a personal website I designed for myself. They obviously replied with "but we wouldn't do that" so I asked them to change it since they had no plans to ever do any of that. I rewrote the agreement to include anything worked on during company time or anything directly related to company work, and they had no issues with that. If you are happy with your employer, and have a good relationship with them, going tot hem should be your first step. If they are reasonable (which is a big if depending on the company and area of business) they hopefully won't have any issue changing it.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
When the company has a blanket policy that takes the employee's inventions, it can come to bite them in the ass.
When I was illegally fired by Microsystems, Inc. ("MSI") they took possession of work I did on my own time using my own tools. However, on the workers comp. claim their denial was based on the claim the tendinitis was caused in part by my work at home. Either MSI fraudulently denied the workers comp. claim, or committed fraud by asserting and taking possession of the work I did on my own time.
By having a blanket policy of owning everything you do, the employer could be on the hook for everything you do.
Fight Spammers!
If you don't actually own the rights to what you are writing, please don't contaminate open source projects by including code owned by your employer.
Cleaning up a contaminated code base is a big pain. Please make sure you own the code, or have the rights to release it before setting it free.
Or... and I know this is going to sound insane... ask your boss if it'd be okay before going all agro on them.
That way you could keep your job even if they wouldn't mind you doing stuff on the side.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
*all* contracts start in the favour of the people who wrote them.
you failed contract law
Maybe your state has a similar law?
From http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.44.140
RCW 49.44.140
Requiring assignment of employee's rights to inventions — Conditions.
(1) A provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in an invention to the employer does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) directly to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this state and is to that extent void and unenforceable.
(2) An employer shall not require a provision made void and unenforceable by subsection (1) of this section as a condition of employment or continuing employment.
(3) If an employment agreement entered into after September 1, 1979, contains a provision requiring the employee to assign any of the employee's rights in any invention to the employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) directly to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work preformed [performed] by the employee for the employer.
Oh no, not another "ask a lawyer" question.
Let me rephrase every legal "Ask Slashdot" story ever: "What have your lawyers (in a sampling of states) told you, and what should I expect on the way into the initial consultation?"
Mod parent up. Contract Law is contrary to what many people think it is, and I mean that in a good way. It tries to be very fair.
The general public think if it's written down in a contract, and you signed it, you're bound by it. That's wrong. Aside from the very relevant link the parent posted, if you walk away from a contract the other party is only entitled to actual economic damages. So long as your new product isn't competing with your old employer and you haven't taken any of their IP (it's a felony to steal IP), then they haven't lost any money and aren't entitled to a cent in damages.
You're incorrect.
These agreements are enforceable. There are limits, and things well beyond the work you do for the company may very well be excluded from the agreement, but how often is that the case?
If you are a programmer, and work for a company as a programmer, and create a work on your own that involves programming, then it is related to the work you do for the company.
Beware the advice you receive on Slashdot about this.
If you think there is a chance you can make money off of a potential side project, protect yourself and your partners by hiring a tech startup lawyer.
Otherwise you may be paying a lot more in legal fees down the road.
And I am a lawyer, and this is an area in which I practice.
You have two choices:
1. Talk to your employer and try to get an exemption written into your contract. If choice 1 fails, then you are left with:
2. Quit.