Hacker News Reader

Comment by thinkingemote | Hacker News Reader

If it helps, I have negotiated with companies in the US and the UK to have that clause modified to be more liberal so that I could continue to work on open source stuff.

It's easier when they offer you the job but all large companies will have lawyers who know what to do. It just takes willingness on their part.

Smaller companies might just be using a boilerplate contract so you might want to suggest alterations.

Basically the company wants you so they should bend.

View on HN

Could you please share how the clause is written on your contract now, as opposed to how it was initially? Just to get an idea of how something like that is worded. I could go to them and request my contract say "this" instead of "that" and see what they tell me.

I spent most of my career in Silicon Valley, where employers routinely take the position that they own every thought their employees have, and every work they create. That position, legally enforceable or otherwise, has always rankled me.

I've recently moved to the UK to start a tech business here (https://www.hackworthltd.uk), and now that I'm on the other side of the table, I very much wanted to create a personal projects policy that was as employee-friendly as possible, while still protecting the interests of the business. I hired a UK IP lawyer to help me draft an acceptable policy, and I'm happy to share that with you, if it helps.

The intellectual property section of our employment contract is mostly standard boilerplate, as I understand it, except that it refers to our personal projects policy, which is contained in our staff handbook. I've copied the relevant sections of both and put them here:

https://gist.github.com/dhess/21b7d2d72c4f9d4e0cdd8004385ef7...

Please feel free to use it as a reference in future negotiations with your employer(s).

Comments from others are also welcome! I'm open to any suggestions for how it could be improved.

Thank you for posting that gist, here are some things that I'm interested in:

- 2.2.a I would like to not be required to tell you about them at all, and not need an approval from you before I contribute/develop, unless 2.2.b and 2.2.c apply. So basically the contract should forbid me to develop a project that directly competes with anything your company is doing (as it is right now). In case it's not competing I could ask for your opinion, in case I am unsure I am advised to ask, otherwise I'm responsible, and in case it has elements that are in competition, or work relevant then I need ask for your permission.

- 2.2.k about projects that someone "might otherwise consider inappropriate", isn't this going to far? I think 2.2.m (We cannot be held responsible or liable for anything to do with your personal project) and 4.2 should be enough, you don't need to act as a moral authority to be able to defend the company against employee wrongdoing outside of work.

- not sure how this situation (that I detailed in my post) would be handled by your clauses: a project/library I develop on my free time but end up using at work. The company should not claim it as it's own, any thought on that?

> I spent most of my career in Silicon Valley, where employers routinely take the position that they own every thought their employees have, and every work they create. That position, legally enforceable or otherwise, has always rankled me.

I'm bit surprised that practice is so prevalent in SV, with California Labor Code 2870 and all. Because of that law, I'd rate SV/CA as the place that position is the least enforceable (in the U.S. at least).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com