CA law protects independent side projects, even if your employer says otherwise

This isn't a new provision, and is reflected in most CA employment contracts.

The problem is clause #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". If you work for a big company - Apple, or Google, or even IBM - they tend to claim that their business is "anything computer related". And so they claim ownership over anything computer-related that you do. It's debatable whether these claims would stand up in court, but do you really want to go up against one of these company's legal department as an individual? Particularly if you're no longer employed by them and trying to get your own thing off the ground?

I don't know who needs to hear this, but California Labor Code 2870 says your employer doesn't have rights over work you do that (1) doesn't relate to your employer's business and (2) didn't result from work you did for your employer.

So even if your employment contract uses language that makes it seem like your employer owns everything you make while you're employed, work you do that qualifies under this code will be protected.

Google claims that there are no side projects because they literally do everything. Talk amongst yourselves.

Remember this specifically calls out not using company hardware. I know a lot of people use their company laptop for their side projects and that would be a problem.

This is crazy that employers were allowed to claim your time and work outside of contracted hours without any reimbursement. This should end in every country.

This is significant for me, because I’ve turned down interview offers out of concerns that accepting the offer would require me to stop working on side-projects.

It is always worth noting how ever that CA is a "right to work" state and so you can be fired at will with no need to cause/justification.

Interesting, this definitely would increase innovation, I think. More space to try things and not worry about non-compete clauses maybe?

surprised to see this. isn’t this common knowledge? since most of not nearly all CA employers explicitly include the CA exclusion in their IP asssignment agreements