Tell HN: I got screwed by my employer

That sort of stuff is illegal/unenforcible in many countries. It's not clear where you're located, but it's probably worth checking.

I'm actually in the Netherlands. I will ask for legal advice to be sure.

I'm in the Netherlands too. I also have a (Dutch) law degree. That does not make me an authority, yet if your product and theirs are not in the same industry or in another way in competition, I can't think of any legal grounds on which this clause can be enforced, but several of why it can't be. That said there is a real chance that pressing the issue is going to make the relationship turn sour. Remember that in your first month you can be fired without cause, without compensation. You likely also have an employment contract of limited duration (1 year?) which they don't have to prolong.

An alternative is to not give up your company and hope they fire you, and then sue for unfounded dismissal. This can be quite lucrative. I wouldn't want to wage a legal battle in a country I just arrived in, in a language I don't speak though.

If you speak Dutch there is a quite good forum that often has useful advise (in addition to consulting a lawyer, not instead of).

The union advise below is, as much as I dislike them, good - for little money they will help you out with this. A legal assistance insurance isn't going to cover this issue at this point, if you didn't have one before this whole thing started.

Also I'm really curious on what company this is, and what country you're from.

From previous postings I believe the OP is Italian.

You are right, my main concern now is not to turn things bad, since I just moved here a couple of weeks ago and I live in an apartment I rent from them. You also guessed correctly, I have a 6 month contract.

I don't speak Dutch yet, unfortunately, and even if I'm studying it, it will not become good enough in a short time. So I can't use the forum you wrote about.

Answering your last question: I'm Italian and I'm working for a big big social network here (you will surely know it). The workplace is quite good actually, except for this rule, that happens to be one of the most important things to me...

Yes then I know who you're talking about. I also found out from previous postings where you're from.

I was intrigued by the legal issues and after doing some research I am not so convinced any more as I was in my previous answer. You didn't provide the full text of your non-compete clause but most 'standard' ones are quite elaborate and do include broad exclusions on what is considered being in competition. Considering that your company can afford professional council I would expect your employment contract to be quite elaborate and tight. The case law also points to a fairly broad interpretation of non-compete clauses - i.e. the competition can be only slightly overlapping and that would still be covered by many non-compete clauses.

On top of that, now that I know who your employer is, I would argue that you are (with at least one of your products) in direct competition with them and/or several of their strategic partners. It still sucks for you that they promised you could continue work on it and now they won't let you but that does not have any legal standing any more.

Anyway good luck. One hint as to an option would be that your Ltd can have a trust for a director, and that the beneficiaries of UK trusts can be anonymous...

most probably Netlog, i deleted my account months ago

    I'm Italian

That's a big advantage, as as an EU citizen you will not be deported if you lose your job (and don't find another one shortly thereafter).

Hmm, I'm Dutch (that is: from the Netherlands :)), and I strongly doubt the law here can forbid you to do side projects in your own time, as long as they don't compete. There have been some cases (mostly extreme stuff: like can police agents do drugs in their free time), but in general I'd say it would be hard to forbid here. OTOH, IANAL. Keep us posted!

Hmm, all the work you would do in your 'own time' would be owned (copyright-wise) by your employer then anyway, unless you'd explicitly excluded that in your contract. This is tricky part of the (Dutch) law, where the all work you do owned by your employer if it's the same kind of work you're employed to do. More info (in Dutch): http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/nl/vvv/maker/#werkgeve...

Actually, that link says it only applies for work done on company time, not outside of it.

No, this is not true. The link you post itself indicates otherwise. It is also in contrast with the Auteurswet.

What is true is that an employer becomes copyright holder of any work done for that employer, as part of the employment contract. No further contractual agreement is necessary.

I stand corrected. There are some edge cases though. Here's a case (from the same site) what can happen (again, in Dutch): http://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/03/08/in-eigen-tijd-gemaakte-...

In the U.S., many jobs that do not have set hours have clauses like this. For instance, many university jobs, especially in research, stipulate that you are not allowed to have any other jobs. The reason for this is that because a research position is self-directed, you could conceivably have another full-time job and just run away with the money.

I don't think that's true at all, if anything they claim rights to all your ip -- and thus have a process to relinquish it. steve wozniak goes to hp and say i invented this computer do you want it, or can I start a company with it. In general it's better to have them sign away their rights to your ip before you start working on it.

The difference being that Woz actually wanted HP to take the computer and make it. He helped start Apple when that fell through.

I was under the impression Woz didn't realise until after the Apple I was developed that HP might have the rights to it.

From iWoz:

<quote>

Before the partnership agreement was even inked, I realized something and told Steve. Because I worked at HP, I told him, everything I'd designed during the term of my employment contract belonged to HP.

Whether that upset Steve or not, I couldn't tell. But it didn't matter to me if he was upset about it. I believed it was my duty to tell HP about what I had designed while working for them.

[Later, after getting an order for one hundred Apple Is]

I decided I should run the whole thing by HP one more time. I spoke to Pete again. He told me to run it by legal. The legal department ran it by every single division of HP. That process took about two weeks. But HP still wasn't interested, and I received a note from HP's legal department saying they claimed no right to my design.

</quote>

Oh Merciful Book Industry, please do not smite me for reproducing a few paragraphs from a book.

I seem to recall him saying that he had intended on giving it to HP in the first place in his interview in Founders at Work. I don't have access to it, and I'm going off of memory, so you're probably right. :-)

I stand corrected. Founders at Work, p. 41:

<quote> The very first thought in my mind was, "I think I signed a document that everything I design belongs to Hewlett-Packard." Even just on my own time, I thought that they deserved it first. And I wanted Hewlett-Packard to build this. </quote>

Good call.

Well, my co-founder is an academic, and his contract says that he is allowed to work 20% of his time as a "consultant" but 80% has to be for the university. IP was not an issue.

First you say

I received my contract...

Then you say

But when I got here I discovered that I'm not allowed...

Did you sign the contract? What did you agree to in writing? Do they have other constraints not specified in the contract? If so, are you legally required to be subject to those constraints? You may have rights you are not currently aware of.

Sounds like you're beyond the point of soliciting personal and business advice and now your should seek legal advice.

Find a competent attorney and have him review your contract. Have him help you understand your options. This probably should have been your first step. But it's still not too late to do this. Do it now.

Understanding what your alternatives really are is the first step in a proper plan of action.

>First you say

>I received my contract...

>Then you say

>But when I got here I discovered that I'm not allowed...

On my contract there is only the non competing clause. What I mean when I say "I discovered" is that they told me so by email after coming here. It is not something written on the contract.

Asking a lawyer is exactly what I want to do now. The non competing clause in my contract is very short and in my opinion it does not enforce what they are trying to compel me to do (I don't have it with me now, but I read it several time to be sure). But that's only my opinion and I really need legal advice on this.

If it's not in your contract, it doesn't exist for the purposes of law. That's good, because it means they can't take claim of any IP from your startup (which is the most important thing). The common wisdom in the US is that if you don't use your employer's time, resources, or equipment, and you don't compete materially with them, you're fine.

That being said, at least in the US, employment is at-will, and companies can fire you for pretty much any reason. Arguably, a side business is a large distraction. For example, what happens if someone needs support during business hours?

Actually I assured them that this will never be the case. I've done this before and never took time from other companies. I don't even check my startup email while I am at work.

Given the kind of apps I develop (as of now) it nearly impossible that someone will need urgent support.

That being said, at least in the US, employment is at-will, and companies can fire you for pretty much any reason.

This is not the case in the Netherlands (where the OP is). Employees are fairly well protected here, apart from the first month or months. That's the "probation period" (proeftijd) when an employer can fire you for any reason. It is also likely that initially you are employed for one year, which means that the company is free to fire you after that year (it's not technically firing of course, just a contract that ends). After that, people usually get a permanent contract and firing gets more difficult.

> On my contract there is only the non competing clause.

If that is all there is then they don't have much legal grounds to limit you like this.

It depends on how they define competing though as to whether this affects your startup or not - if your doing iPhone work for them it may count (that's probably why it's worth talking to a lawyer to find out).

Anything else (non-competing work, outside consultancy and open source code) is irrelevant - unless it comes under employment laws for the country (highly unlikely).

If it is not in your contract there is no way they can dictate what you do in your own time. Even non-compete clauses are often dismissed in court (in the Netherlands) because they are overly restrictive for the employee. See for example http://jure.nl/bm2162

Please do ask legal advice. There are lots of low-cost options for an initial opinion. Google "arbeidsrecht" and you'll find a few lawyers offering a first consult for free (check the google-ads as well).

Is legal action really going to help, especially when the initial contract was verbal?

Legal disputes only work well when they are between equal parties. This employer/employee relationship is far from equal.

This is why I'm reluctant to go on a legal way. I will ask advice to be sure, but I prefer not to go in any legal struggle, since I really can't afford it now.

I am not suggesting legal action.

I am suggesting legal advice.

None of us should ever sign any contract or make any legal assumption without proper advice from an expert in this area. OP is probably no more aware of his rights and options than your customers understand how refactoring your code will affect their business.

OP acted without legal support. But it may not be too late to fix it. He needs to find that out. That is all.

Also, if you are a member of a union, they will probably have someone look over your contract for you for free. And if you get into a legal dispute, they can provide help. If you're not a member, you can probably join one for about 10€/month.

Get out.

Seriously. This is merely a precursor to what you'll experience in coming months if you stick around. Their policy against outside development is a symptom of diseased thinking, and if you have diseased thought dictating policy, things never work out for the better.

Your current employer should be considered an enemy to your well-being and you need to find new employment post-haste.

Definitely agree, the way of thinking expressed there will surely lead to other similar nonsense when other problems arise.

A counter-point: instead of storming into work one day and quitting, ask your boss for a meeting and point out in the most direct-but-professional manner you have that this isn't what you signed up for: that this is hurting you as a developer, and that if they intend to enforce those rules, you can't stay at the company.

No company will have regulations which are all-and-always perfect for every employee, and some managers will be stupider in applying rules than others - this is a good exercise in learning to stand up for yourself and getting what you want without quitting. If you're a good developer, they'll be willing to "bend a few rules" to keep you.

From personal experience, I doubt it.

You make a good point, but in my experience a company deluded enough to prevent their devs from programming outside of work is just systematically broken in ways that a mere cog cannot hope to rectify.

I concur with the top comment: run, don't walk, to the nearest exit.

systematically broken in ways that a mere cog cannot hope to rectify

So true. Cogs cannot rectify. Therefore, either give up hope or switch to a context where you are not a cog.

It's surprising how far people can string themselves along refusing to admit this (cf the fantasy literature about "organizational change"). I did it myself for a few years before snapping out of it.

This assumes that it's actually "the company" laying down this directive, which isn't clear from the post -- it could just as easily be something his manager came up with on his own.

Having said that, I wouldn't expend too much energy on trying to get them to change their minds...

>A counter-point: instead of storming into work one day and quitting, ask your boss for a meeting and point out in the most direct-but-professional manner you have that this isn't what you signed up for: that this is hurting you as a developer, and that if they intend to enforce those rules, you can't stay at the company.

Excellent point. I believe that no matter the outcome, going on the record in a "direct-but-professional" manner is good karma. Worse case: it removes any ambiguity about the reasons for your departure. Best case: it gives you the opportunity to talk some sense into one manager, potentially improving the lives of a whole team of developers.

It's also good negotiation practice.

Pretty horrible. Generally employers don't want you writing code for the following reasons:

They are paranoid you will steal from them the ideas you code on and compete.

They want to own your ass.

In either case, I don't like paranoid management, and I don't like people "owning my ass".

Now on the flip side I don't see why someone you TRUST can't own the company. You might program for it unofficially while working at your current company.

+1 for the suggestion. Just set up your wife/dad/mum as the owner of this startup and run it in that person's name.

Many employers have this attitude. It's something you always bring up in the interview if you have a side project.

He did bring it up in the interview.

OP mentions it briefly, it's not clear how much detail was brought out about this. Most people are concentrating on making a "good impression" and won't say something like... I am working on X which I expend to spend 20 hours a week on, what do you think about that?

If it's as implied and they flat lied in the interview then change policy? Step 1 is ignore them, you're not doing anything illegal. Step 2 is find a new job immediately.

I concur. Keep working on your app while you find a new job. Then, go.

Find another job, really. The company is being unreasonable demanding you work for them 24-hours a day but not paying for those hours. If they want you to stop working on your idea after work, tell them to compensate for your "work" after workhour. If they can't do it, give them the finger and find another company.

Am I correct in thinking that you were told this was OK before you were hired, but they changed the rules after you signed the contract?

That's dreadful. It's a shame you can't quit.

(Bootstrapping while contracting is best when you own the consultancy company.)

You are correct. It was just a little exchange. It went like this:

"Do you want to keep your startup after you join us?" "Yes, I'd really like to." "Ok."

Maybe I was too ingenuous and share part of the fault, I really don't know. There were no written rules anywhere, just this verbal agreement. The person was the same one that then told me I have to stop, the head of software development of the company.

Your fault? If that is what happened, you can only be blamed for believing your new boss was honourable.

Obviously it would have been better to get it in writing, but even then, it still could be ignored and it's not like it's worth fighting.

You are going in based on faith. You should always get it in writing, if nothing else you are making sure that you are avoiding misunderstandings. It is required to be thorough, which is a sign of a good developer.

In these cases it's good to scribble a little note in the margin of the contract at that section "Nothing in the above section shall prevent me from working on my side project XYZ in my free time" (or similar) and get them to initial it. You can always change contracts before you sign them.

The fact is that they don't want actually to do this. They stated clearly (I have written emails on this) that they are against it and if I want to do this I have to leave the company.

You should have done that before signing the contract. Then it's baked into the contract. My point is to get everything in writing before you sign things.

Your paper contract is what matters, not the opinion of your managers.

Most contracts refer to (in the UK) the patent act of 1974 and specifically claims by an employer against work are restricted to that which they ask you to do, that which they support you in doing (financially, or with time benefits). Anything outside of those fall within your own remit and providing it's happening without their asking you to do it, and without them paying you or giving you time to do it... then anything you do is outside of work in your own time and whatever your employer says has no bearing on this.

Basically, they can control what you do at work and on their behalf... beyond that, they have zero say.

If you want to stay where you are, engage a lawyer to have this conversation with them. I pretty much had to do the same with my last employer just to make it explicit that what I created in my own time was nothing to do with them and they have no say over.

In what country can an employer dictate what you do in your own time? Just because an employer puts somethings in a contract doesn't make it legal.

In Germany it's a common clause in contracts. And it's valid if the work you do in your spare-time might affect the work you do for your day-job. For example because it makes you too tired to concentrate in your daily work.

Wow, glad I don't live in Germany then. So do they also forbid late night snacks, because it might cause you to sleep poorly and be to tired to work?

There are a lot of rules and regulations, and you can't just fire somebody in Germany. So some kind of rules are needed so employers can defer to when they want to get rid of an employee.

In many cases when an employer wants to get rid of an employee for a reason that isn't covered by the employment contract he has to request permission from a local judge (small claims court equivalent)... and even then the judge can determine an outrageous "termination fee".

So although the rules like these look draconian, they're sort of needed to keep the power between employer and employee in balance.

It's also very common in the US, but it's largely unenforceable unless the company can demonstrate a legitimate conflict of interest. (IANAL)

It may be largely unenforceable, but there's nothing preventing them from hauling you into court over it to keep their legal counsel entertained and to drain you of your savings. I can say from experience that this is a less-than-desirable outcome.

You've wisely chosen to not ruffle any more feathers there. Just behave and get out when you can.

It completely depends on the US state. It is unenforceable in California, but usually enforceable in say, Massachusetts

From the OP, it sounds like it wasn't even in the contract.

I understand non-compete clauses, but this doesn't seem to apply here.

And not only that, but a verbal contract cannot modify a written contract. At least in US law. So he is only bound by what is written in the contract he signed, not what was said outside the bounds of that contract.

In, say, Germany a verbal contract is as good as a written contract, as far as I know. (And both situations aren't really applicable to the Netherlands, anyway.)

I wasn't saying a verbal contract is not as good as a written one, I was just saying a verbal contract cannot amend a written one. ie. If he signs a contract stating he can work independently on nights/weekends, they cannot amend that contract verbally and change their minds. Amendments to written contracts must be agreed upon by both parties in writing. Though I'm not sure if this applies in the Netherlands...

Interesting.

In the German system the oral addition stands above the written contract. The written contract is considered boiler-plate by the courts and the oral addition is more specific, and bears more weight.

Of course all parties have to agree to amend a contract. So just the employer changing their mind wouldn't cut it.

The Netherlands is a civil law country, so the German standard might be closer to what they have than the common law American standard.

Labour relations and law are of course a strange thing in themselves.

In the US this is legal (in certain states), at least with regards to IP and other assets that the company may see as being in their interests.

In Canada this practice is not legally supported, but still relatively common.

It may be legal, but it still has to be explicitly agreed to, correct? And employer doesn't have a default claim on all IP generated by their employees outside of work hours, I would hope.

Maybe I'm paranoid, but just to cover my ass, these days any time I agree to anything with just about anyone, I insist on adding an explicit clause that makes it clear that I am free to work on any other project with no restrictions (I specifically retain the right to compete), and that except for the works specifically covered by the contract, the other party has no claim or license to any intellectual property that I own or create.

Then again, that's par for the course when it comes to work-for-hire, it's been a long time since I've signed an employment contract as an employee, and I doubt those additions would fly as easily in that circumstance...still always worth a shot, though, companies will often agree to change details of contracts for you as long as they don't feel they're getting screwed by the changes.

I believe so, yes. It needs to be part of the contract.

> But when I got here I discovered that I'm not allowed to do any development out of the company, for myself or for anyone else, in any form (paid or free, open source or not)

That's bullshit if they've told you that. Threaten to challenge them legally over that (a simile might be if you worked in a garage and your contract "stopped" you from fixing your neighbors car as a favor at the weekend).

If it is not explicitly in the contract it is not legal for them to say this to you.

It annoys me how software companies think they can get away with things like this.

I would go do whatever software you like (as long as it is not competing, obviously) and let them try to a) find out and b) stop you.

I have such a clause in my contract too. I think this is only becoming a problem at all when they want to get rid of you. As long as they want you, it would be very stupid to enforce this since your productivity could go way down when they tell you what to do in your free time.

I've always refused everything but the non-compete and "do not use company resources" clauses on the principal anything else is just rude and controlling (and missed out on a few jobs because of it).

Maybe we should, as a collective, start a campaign to drive out the most over bearing clauses!

In one company here in France, an employee who was volunteer fireman during his free time was asked to stop it on the basis that an employee must be fully dedicated to the company. An accident in that activity could cause a prejudice to the company.

Here in the UK I believe that is specifically legislated against - it certainly is with regards to being a member of the Territorial Army and I am pretty sure volunteer fire service as well.

>> or just get drunk every night (they actually encourage parties and drinking!)

Do you work for Accenture?

Sure sounds like their strategy: (1) hire young, incredibly bright & talented people (2) isolate them by (a) sending them on the road for engagements (b) work like dogs (c) party (very hard) only with other Accenture people in limited free time (3) repeat

Make no mistake, it's a cult. Fun for a while, but ultimately very empty.

Do they manage to hire introverts who aren't into partying?

Do you have a sister who might be into running an iPhone startup?

Agreed. Hand over everything to a family/relative you trust who is also a developer and have them say they are doing/taking over the dev work on it. Just make sure they can't ever prove you are the one doing the work.

Play nice and find another job as soon as possible. In your spare time, work on whatever you want without publicly mentioning or launching anything. When you leave the company, launch whatever you've been working on in your spare time.

If the ridiculous contract says they own everything you do during your employment, wait a reasonable amount of time until after you've quit to launch anything.

It's better to never sign the contract or take the job in the first place. We'd all be better off outing companies who force people to sign these kinds of contracts.

Mothball your startup (i.e. don't just kill it completely), and find another job.

I'd be very wary of a company that is that shortsighted.

This sounds very counterproductive on their part, if they promised you one thing and then reneged on that promise once you'd made a commitment to move abroad to work for them, they've cost themselves whatever loyalty they might have expected from you and stifled one of the outlets that would make you more productive at your job. I take it this is a big company?

Like someone else said in another thread big company managers do never look for productivity but for how to rule the world

Your startup is mentioned in your HN profile. Would your employer be upset if they googled its name and found this?

(Being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you, etc.)

Uh, actually I did not think about this. I think I will temporarily remove the link from my profile, just in case.

Have you already removed the link? The email in your profile still gives it away..

I interviewed with a company that had the same standard of conduct: no dev work outside the company, no matter what. I did not take the job and I am so very glad.

In my opinion, the work that most companies offer are challenges, but not very interesting ones and the no-outside-work clause would prevent me from taking on a spur-of-the-moment challenge outside my particular development area that might actually lead to some self-improvement.

would prevent me from taking on a spur-of-the-moment challenge outside my particular development area that might actually lead to some self-improvement

This sort of thing is why I got a chuckle out of the claim that there would be "enough interesting challenges in [OP's] job." No employer can offer me enough interesting work that I won't find something unrelated I'd like to play with in my spare time, and I'm probably not alone in that.

You say you don't have a choice, but really, you do. It's not an easy choice, but nevertheless it IS a choice. Sure, making that choice might mean going back to your country, but it's your decision to make. There's a good chance that if you (politely) threaten to walk because of that clause, they'll take it out of the contract. Have a letter of resignation written, and ready to hand them - the threat has to be credible.

Most people face these sorts of big, tough choices in life. Many let the situation make the choice for them. Those people are generally not entrepreneurs. Make a conscious decision. Make it and mean it.

While this seems like quite a bucket of cold water was dropped on your head, I will tell the assembled hackers here in hn that these sorts of clauses are not just present in your contracts but in the laws that govern your employment as well (except for a small number of countries and jurisdictions)

At my work, we've taken explicit steps to allow people to open source, and most legal departments in larger companies can often respond (and sometimes even positively) to requests to retain copyright, but most of the laws say that programming work done on your own time, even on your own resources, very simply belongs to your primary employer.

I had a friend lose his house after the company he worked for decided they didn't like his new consulting business that was only a modicum similar to the job he left. It was punitive and petty, but they managed to nearly ruin him. This was in northern virginia, whose laws are only slightly less midievil than most.

So while much of the advice here is to 'get out' and 'run', the question that is not answered is 'to where'. A more reasonable response is to ask yourself if you are okay with this kind of arrangement , and if not, resign and make sure your next job doesn't have this kind of language in the contract and that you have an affirmative recognition of the kind of ip deal you want with the company.

This, btw, includes people in california, who's laws allow a loophole for employers the size of a truck in its anti-competition language.

It is always worth your time to understand what is going on around intellectual property in your jurisdiction, your contract and your personal ethics because as the OP saw, it can be difficult to resolve after the fact.

NoVa and Texas are particularly egregious for non-competes being in favor of the employer. NY is pretty bad, too. I'm curious about your claim about California. Do you have any references to this loophole?

See below, under 2870.a.1. That definition can be all encompassing.

2870.

(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 just goes to show you should always get specific exemptions from their non-compete policy in writing. For example, I refused to accept full time employment at my present company before the legal department struck several clauses from their non-compete, and added a specific clause saying that all iPhone software I develop on my own is my personal property, so long as I don't compete directly against them.

Most employers have overly broad clauses like "everything you write is our property," and I let them know right up front I would never hire on with a clause like that. It definitely took some negotiation, and I had an advantage in that I had been a contractor for 1 year previously, and they really wanted me full time.

Eventually, they got what they wanted, a full time employee, and I got what I wanted, full time employment with the ability to develop my own iPhone software on the side and retain ownership of my software, as long as it doesn't directly compete with them.

This was back in 2007. You definitely need to be careful what you agree to, but most companies try to get you to sign non-compete agreements that are over broad and unenforceable.

From what you say, a "little chat" before you signed the contract suggested that it was fine to keep your start-up.

A "little chat" afterwards has suggested that it is not.

Both of these little chats are beside the point - it is the contract that matters. So the question is, does your start-up compete with your employer. That's not compete as in "compete for time in the same way that eating a sandwich would compete for time" that's compete as in "compete commercially".

If not then your are not breaking the terms of the contract. If they would like to renegotiate the contract that is something they need to talk to you about.

I see that Pawn is a Ltd. company, so I guess that you are based in the UK in which case I suspect an industrial tribuneral would find in your favour and award you compensation if your employer tried to fire you for this. You might wan to have a chat to a nice lawyer.

Matteo, sorry to hear that and thanks for sharing your experience.

Can you not get another day job, which has nothing to do with software but is enough to pay the bills? That way you wouldn't have to worry about weird contracts and could work hard on your startup in your spare time?

I wish I could, but actually I don't know. In the next months I will surely investigate all the viable options.

I imagine you moved to where you are now because the pay was quite good. If that is the case, rather than threatening legal action (win or lose, don't see how you'd stay at the company) I would continue to do what you do. Just keep it on the down low.

However, given that your startup revolves around iPhone development, as does your current position, it's likely they're concerned that you will get burnt out on it... I'm not defending their position, just stating a possibility.

It is totally ridiculous - they cannot bar you from coding in your spare time. Instead of having a "startup" have a "hobby". Don't say a thing to anyone you work with about this, find someone else to be the public face of your "hobby" if you get to the point you need someone to do that, and by no means use your employer's time or equipment to work on your "hobby". Also IANAL, and you should talk to one, stat.

Everyone should have a side-project like yours, it's normal. Every employer should attempt to stop their employees from having such side projects (unless they own them, like Google's 20% thing). That's also normal.

Just keep doing stuff on the side and don't tell them. They're not paying you enough to own you. Maybe they're paying you enough to slow you down, but never enough to own you.

I'd check that with a laywer, if you are going to make any money with your side project (or even if you are only going to publish it non-anonymously).

Really sorry to hear that Matteo, i've read you comments on HN and was quite happy for you when i discovered you were going abroad.

Doesn't contracts matter any more? That is an usual non-competing clause and i guess that you don't develop apps that compete with what you build in your day job...

Quite sad, wish you the best...

Electronic Arts is like that.

I was interviewing with them few years ago, and when I asked if they are OK with me writing side projects, and they said "Why would you want to do that? Besides you are going to be busy coding for your work projects... even when you are at home."

Definitely have to agree with those saying "get out" - obviously we don't know all the circumstantial details and it may not be practical to leave immediately, but if you're somebody who enjoys working on side projects and keeping yourself occupied and excited outside your 9-5, you'll probably never be happy working for this company. Better to get out before you commit any further.

I've recently started a company out of a hobby project while working for my day-to-day employer and they've never raised an eyebrow about any of it - it's one of the things I value most about my current job. DeusExMachina, your story is a real reminder of how important this has become to me - thanks for sharing.

In the Netherlands, your employer really has nothing to say about what you do in your free time (with the exemption of directly competing with them, which you don't). If you don't use company resources, they have nothing to say.

I hope you realize that you likely have coworkers reading this, and able to determine who you are based on timing and location (since others have already figured out who you work for).

I don't think there is anything in here that you need to worried about, but I figured I should point it out. Their HR department might complain anyway, if they ever see it.

I'd be hard pressed to stay with that company.

We were just asked to sign these forms also. Fortunately, they allowed me to attach my own letter where I stated that anything existing (which I listed) and any other future developments under my companies can not be subject to the policy. Too bad not all companies are like that.

When I started my most recent consulting gig (part time) I had my attorney look at my contract and remove anything I didn't like before I signed. The company I worked for accepted these red line changes and on we went.

This is normally how contracts work. I'm not sure where you got screwed.

IANAL but have you considered operating under a pseudonym? How hard could it be to do open-source iPhone development that way? After all, _why was one of the most prolific open-source coders of a generation, and his identity is, AFAIK, unknown.

What they're doing is, likely, illegal, but that doesn't really help you.

You can either quit your job and continue doing your startup,

or

You can tell them that what they're doing is illegal, get fired, and continue working on your startup.

That sucks, I know people who had the same problem. In their case things changed after a while because the new investors didn't want the employees to get distracted.

Btw, you can always find a "prestanome" and keep pushing out apps. ;)

Am I the only that see's this as a trap?

They hire good programmers, who are slightly entrepreneurial & try to turn them into employees by ensuring they have no fallback of any sort?

They are a bunch of morons.

Give us their names, so we never deal with them ;)

couldn't you just continue to work on the project during your own time and simply not disclose the fact that you are?

Kind of risky. Especially for a startup. Better be in a clear position for everybody.

I'm sure they are not following him 24/7, so in theory he could keep doing it in his spare time, but that would be silly. His employer can now use this against him if they have any dispute with him.

Perhaps they have buyer's remorse and are trying to pressure you to quit? or are setting up a "for cause" firing? Here is a similar-sounding example I saw happen in the U.S., although it may be U.S.-specific:

An employer (themselves a start-up with big funding) hired a new employee, offering relocation costs to bring the employee and his family across the country. The employee was hired to lead a new project whose scope was only partially clear during the interviews - the guess was that it would probably be a 6-to-12 month project before moving on to other tasks.

During the few weeks of relocation process, another employee at the company realized that a simpler solution would be good enough and completed the project. So, on day 0, the new employee was told "Oops, we don't need you for that. We'll try to think of something else."

The company then balked at reimbursing a large percentage of the relocation costs. They simply deleted line items from the expense report, paid out rather less than the agreed upon cap, and said (in effect) "What, you wanna fight about it?"

The new employee was both the only employee actively working on a visible free software project, and the only male with long hair. (To be clear, the employee "presented" at the office in Dilbert attire: dress slacks, crisply ironed white button down nerd shirt, hair neatly tied back, etc.)

HR announced new policies: (1) regulation of hair length was introduced. (2) outside-the-office work on even utterly non-competing free software projects was forbidden. The new employee was cautioned about (1) and told, regarding (2), to take down his project's web site.

Now, what is the motivation of the employer here? Money. It's simple:

If the employee were fired or quit before 90 days, the employee (per contract) would owe back the relocation expenses. On the other hand, if the employee were fired before 90 days, the employer would almost certainly be forced to defend itself against - and likely lose - a suit for having made a fraudulent job offer that cost the employee greatly. Thus, the company had a strong financial incentive to inspire the new employee to quit in less than 90 days.

Beyond 90 days: if the company fired the employee for cause or if the employee quit then that would be that. On the other hand, if the company fired the employee without cause, then the company would be on the hook for the employee's unemployment benefits. Thus, the company had a strong financial incentive to inspire the employee to quit, or to justify a for cause firing.

The pattern that started on day 0 of employment continued. HR started dictating stricter policies on hours (while selectively applying the rules mainly to this one employee while winking at the others). The highest level managers assigned the employee useless work and then changed their assignments frequently (to other useless work). The employee was allocated a malfunctioning workstation.

The employee got the message and planned to stick it out for the 90 days and/or until finding a replacement job and then get out of dodge. Then some mysterious things started happening: Of all the cars in the parking lot, the new employee's somehow wound up being the one whose tire stems got cut. A VP got in the habit of "stalking" the employee around the office. A manager cornered the employee in a cubicle and menaced him with a threat of physical violence while barring the employees exit from the cubicle. (The list goes on but those are some highlights.)

The last day was the one that the employee left his desk for a few minutes to make some photocopies, returned, and found that -- and I'm not kidding -- urine had been added to his drinking water.

Fearing for his safety, the employee left and did not return. He later received a demand letter for the return of relocation expenses. This being a "your word against theirs" situation, he had little choice but to comply.

The employee, in subsequent years, displays symptoms of post traumatic stress when entering cubicle-type office environments. He was forced to declare bankruptcy after these events.

Short summary: if on day-0 an employer has already decided that they made a mistake and shouldn't have hired you, it may very well be the case that (for money reasons, at least) they want you to quit rather than to fire you.

One way to push someone towards quitting is by piling up unreasonable demands: like no outside work on free software.

In such situations, unless you can prove the fraud or any underhanded or illegal actions by the company, they hold all the cards. "No outside activity," may be nothing more than a warning shot.

This is a weird submission... If you don't like em tell em to go finger their butts, if you take their money, do what they tell you... Every living person makes this decision, you're being a tad precious.

Is hacker news becoming a place for people to bitch about problems in their personal lives?

Two words... due diligence. If it's that big a deal, you should always ask. As written, the startup sounds more like a hobby and this post more of a whine ... where's the plan of action for remedy? I urge to you re-evaluate the passion for your startup if you really believe.