Google's stance on this was fairly draconian when I was working there, basically Google's position was that they could be in ANY business at ANY time so that ANY thing you worked on was theirs. On the day I joined, one of the other new hires had a marked up copy of the agreement with some VERY simple wording changes that said basically "wasn't in this business at the time the employee started working on the project" (aka a no retro-active clause) because this individual pointed out quite reasonably that if they were working on something in good faith on their own that wasn't part of Google's business and it turned out to be a really good idea, then Google, based on how the agreement was written, could go back and say "but we're in that business now too and you were working for us so we own your idea."<p>To which the HR person at the orientation had said, "Don't worry Google wouldn't do that." And this individual said, "I'm sure they wouldn't, that's why it seems like a no-brainer to put it into the agreement, it just says they won't do something that you and I both agree they would never do. I can't sign the document as written without this." The HR person took the updated version off to someone (presumably legal). And then after lunch this person was not in the group (I had seen them eating lunch) So when we had finished up, before my mentor had arrived I went out and found them waiting on the circle for a ride and asked them what happened. They said, "Google said no and also said they were rescinding the offer of employment."<p>And that told me everything I needed to know about how Google really thought about things vs what they <i>said</i> they thought about things.
"And that told me everything I needed to know about how Google really thought about things vs what they said they thought about things."<p>What you describe doesn't really provide much signal about this, because a big corp will always have a huge interest in having uniform working contracts. Exceptions are possible but only worth the headache with them for fairly high level employees. So even for a clause that they really wouldn't care much about, you'd expect a similar reaction.
If only there was a way for a uniform working contract that employees could collectively choose. Oh wait, no, companies don’t like that either.
> a big corp will always have a huge interest in having uniform working contracts<p>Then what they choose for that uniform tells us a lot.
Normalization of deviancy via law.
This is part of the reason why I never worked for big tech. I always have a side project going. I cannot function without a side project.<p>I don't believe that any corporation would ever reward me for any reason; so without a side project, I wouldn't have hope... How would I get out of bed in the morning to go to work, without hope?<p>For me; day job is survival, that's it. I do it well because I'm well practiced and I need good output to provide me narrative cover but I don't trust any of it. I'm not invested in my day job at all. I assume it's all a PsyOp and I could lose the job any day for any weird reason. I act and pretend constantly and I care about nothing and no one and I trust no one...<p>I literally believe that if I worked for some big tech company which was actually rewarding employees for real, that they would stop rewarding employees as soon as I became one. I've encountered a situation like this in the past. Horrible situation. The secret to happiness is just don't expect anything and do unto others what they do to you.
You think making such reasonable demands of your employer would go better if every employee did it together, organized in some way?
Works in Austria. The legally binding collective agreement contract for IT workers here has a specific clause regulating the terms of when an employer may or may not claim rights on IP created by the employee. (§18 Diensterfindungen)
Hmm, collective action, you might be on to something there :-). Personally I think if we could eliminate the who 'no warranty of any kind' disclaimer ability for software and organize around collectively fixing this sort of abuse in the market that things would be different in a very positive sort of way.
How about if all employees of all companies did it together, organized in a way called law, so that you don't need to engage in this rigmarole and the company just never owns anything you do unless they specifically paid you to do it as part of your job?
That's a nice thing in Switzerland, even if developed with company resources, only what you're being asked to do belongs to the company.<p>Things that are done in the course of employment (but aren't part of the contractual obligations) would often need to be disclosed and the company could license it. IP would typically still be owned by the employee.<p>Obviously things done outside of work would be even more clearly owned by the employee.<p>I wonder if any other country has a similar system.
> I wonder if any other country has a similar system.<p>Many states in the United States have limitations on IP assignment that protect against overly broad contracts.<p>Employers write their contracts as broadly as possible with the understanding that state limitations will limit any overly broad claims.<p>California (where Google is headquartered) is one such state with IP assignment limitations, though I'm not sure how much of that was in place when this article was written nearly 3 decades ago.
Has California Law changed, since 2015?<p>My company was acquired by another company that had in-house lawyers. California Law states that you have rights to your own IP, when produced on your hardware and on your own time. So, I was careful to air gap all my work on a separate computer. Meanwhile, the acquiring company ask me to sign an employment agreement. Its terms restated the California law in very ambiguous terms. I couldn't tell if I was declaring rights to my own IP or signing away my rights. So, I asked them: "which is it?" Their replay was "Yes." ... I was an employee for a day.
This is dated 1997, so a lot could have changed since then.<p>You're right that California has IP assignment limitation clauses that override anything in the boilerplate employment contracts. I know one person who blew up their job offer by trying to get it modified to limit the IP assignment clause, but the company had a hardline stance that they didn't do one-off contracts with employees. Later they realized their state had already limited IP assignment, so the entire battle was moot.
It should be flat out illegal to claim copyright on employees' work like this (which includes making people sign contracts giving up copyright on their work). If someone does something on their own time, with their own equipment, then they should own it regardless of their employer's business interests. These are employees, not slaves.
I think a good strategy is to change companies often and ensure that your side project isn't related to any of them. This creates a lot of complications and adds a layer of protection because if your current employer tried to claim the software as theirs, your previous 3 employers would all have claims (weak claims, that is).<p>If the software is different from what all 4 companies would produce and it is all built outside of business hours, it gives you full leverage.<p>If any specific company tries to imply that their claim is valid, they cannot do this without validating the claims of 3 other companies... Thus preventing themselves from obtaining the full ownership rights over the product.<p>The company which actually wants your software would be better off just paying you and accepting your simple version of reality than trying to create complications for themselves by inventing some elaborate legal fiction.