Hacker News Reader

Comment by burnout1540 | Hacker News Reader

If you live in California then your employer's agreement is not enforceable for inventions that fall under Sections 2780-2782 of the California Labor Code.

See http://law.justia.com/california/codes/lab/2870-2872.html

View on HN

This and unenforceable noncompetes are probably the two biggest things in California's favor.

It's amusing how much lip service politicians give to the importance of small business, when protecting these two rights would promote them more effectively than any tax break.

+1.

And likely if you live in another state this would not be upheld, especially if you were building something wholly unrelated to your employer's product / service.

I'm no lawyer though, so do some research regarding your state's labor laws.

That would be entirely incorrect. Without specific state protections these clauses are quite enforceable (and have been routinely enforced for decades). The relationship between what you do at work and at home is irrelevant.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I've been directly involved in issues pertaining to these clauses in the past.

So if I had a house painting business on the side, they could take it over if they wanted to? Seems a little far fetched. I don't think "The relationship between what you do at work and at home is irrelevant" is correct, from what I've been able to gather in my research. It definitely plays a role. It may be minor, but its not irrelevant.

Of course they cannot take over the house painting business! You did not invented any of paint, brushes, ladders or walls.

If, on the other hand, your painting business is about creating works of art rather than home improvement... they will leave you alone until some magazine labels you as "the next Picasso" or something. Then they come and sue you into oblivion, since they will out-spend you 50x in court, regardless of who is "right".

They can't take over your house painting business, because that's outside-of-work labor, which they don't own under that clause (some businesses do forbid side gigs for money).

But if you patented something related to house painting, they would own that, even if their business is completely unrelated to painting.

I'm not claiming you're making this up, and I did say I'm not a lawyer and the asker should check their own state laws, but since you object, I'd appreciate for everyone's sake if you provided some proof of precedence backing up your claim.

Edits below:

Here's at least one interesting quote from the Copyright act of 1976 (assuming we're talking about copyrights not patents):

"A “work made for hire” is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment, or a work specially ordered or commissioned for certain uses (including use as a contribution to a collective work), if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. The employer is the author of a work made for hire."

http://www.copyright.gov/register/se-hire.html

The contract language is pretty clear. The company owns all IP invented by the employees in any time during employment. In the absence of state or Federal labor laws making exception, the agreement is cut and dry. It is an enforceable contract, signed by the employees.

You might say it's not fair. Yes, it's entirely written for the employers. That's why there's needs for state or Federal labor laws to help the little guys.

I don't know why you want to get around it and trying to give false hope to people. If you want to claim the contract is not enforceable, then you should provide citations for the claim.

I don't think anyone is trying to get around anything or cheat the system. Obviously, everyone's situation is slightly different. I have never been in this specific situation before, so I was curious how others might interpret the language or how they might approach it. Its not iron-clad. Businesses owners are not heartless beasts. I think if approached correctly, many would be willing to sign a waiver. Also, I don't think it is cut and dry. There is room for interpretation (I didn't post every word of the agreement, so how would you know for sure?). That's what the court system is for, if it comes down to it.

There are other alternatives as well, such as working somewhere else (if you think that is the right move), or just couching the idea for awhile.

I think hope is good anyway. Nobody here really wants to be a mindless drone for some company for the rest of their lives. We're all learning here.

I ran into this trouble just recently, in taking a job while still in grad school in California. The school has pretty broad language about owning all my ideas, but does reference Section 2870. On reading Section 2870, there are exceptions about ideas which relate to the employer's business (or anticipated business)... but what does this mean for the University of California?

My take is that the code doesn't specifically limit the exception to my job function; it's broadly worded to cover the whole of the business. And the UC works on so many areas of research that this essentially means that you can't work anywhere else at the same time if that other work requires any kind of confidentiality.

I tried to engage the IP department at my school about this, but got shuffled around and basically told that there are no exceptions or clarifications. They essentially supported this interpretation I have, and referred me to memos that explain the policy in more detail.

What I can't figure out is this: the policy requires that all students submit potential IP to them for evaluation. That includes IP from summer internships. Why are companies okay with this? In practice, I don't believe many (any?) students do this, but the Director stopped answering my emails when I tried to probe this question more deeply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com