In most of the country, your employer can claim 100% of your intellectual output, no matter if your work was 'on your time'. If you come up with something clever on the weekend on your own computer, your employer still owns it.
(Aside, I think this is one issue that could be a motivation for unionizing tech folks.... or at least collectively bargaining.)
[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
[1] https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/181.78
[2] https://www.hdp.com/blog/2016/11/22/employers-dont-own-your-...
At least in NC I was informed by lawyers I hired that my employer wouldn't let me moonlight in a 500 mile radius, as while they wouldn't own the output. any software was considered "in competition".
But I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure the lawyer you hired knows better than me.
(FWIW I think this is fair. You shouldn't be allowed to compete with your employer while still employed by them, as this creates a massive conflict of interest. Though if your employer is claiming that any and all software you write "competes" with them then that is obviously BS...)
I worked on enterprise data storage operating systems, and I wanted to work on a personal phone application in my off hours.
And what even is the significance of 500 miles when it comes to software?
Re significance of 500 miles, state courts generally ruled that was a reasonable distance for non compete at the time, and so your company's lawyers would put together the most conservative contract that was borderline.
I'm very glad to have left that employment market, it was clear why startups never seemed to start in RTP unless they came out of Universities, specifically because of these huge liabilities for any investor. It's a shame, because the area now just waits for the next globo corp to open a remote office, rather than anything starting locally.
I've dealt with this:
1. When accepting a new job, I make a list of all the side projects I had and got a signature from the company that they were my projects.
2. When starting a new side project while employed, the first thing I'd did was write up a description and get a signed buyoff from the company that it was my project.
Never had a problem. The trick is to do this stuff up front and in advance, not after-the-fact.
I have, for example, rejected claims on my work outside of the office done with my own time/equipment and not in my employer's industry. You don't need the government to say it for you. You can say it yourself as part of the contract.
So far, the lawyers have always approved my edits with no further discussion and without contacting me. They just tell HR they're fine with it, and that's that. It's fun when this surprises HR, but again, sometimes it is no surprise to them at all.
It hasn't happened to me yet, but I'm sure there will be cases where HR will get very upset, so you'll have to be gracious about it and reassure them that you fully intend to satisfy their lawyers. But you'd think that the lawyers would be the ones who got upset, but they don't. Lawyers do this with each other all the time: A writes up a contract, hands it to B, and tells him to sign it. "This is our agreement." B edits it, signs it, and says, "this is our actual agreement", followed by more back and forth. So if you propose a minor change to a contract that you had no part in writing, that's just ordinary business for a lawyer, and it's what they would be doing as a matter of course when hiring a senior executive.
> 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 ...
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
EDIT: Odd voting on this one. It's literally in my employment agreement. You might want to check yours!
EDIT: OK, let's look at CA labor code, specifically 2870 (a) (1): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
Without making any argument about what is legal in California, I will note that it is not particularly valid to argue for “it is California law” on the basis of “its what my employer claims in the employment agreement”. Employers are notorious for claiming things beyond what the law allows, knowing that the resulting effect on employee behavior is nearly as good as if the claim was actually enforceable.
Twice I've asked an employer for an amendment to the assignment contract to say that only works developed on my own time "with the primary purpose of benefiting the company" were assignable. Though, the second time I was told to f' off; to take it or leave it.
Now, California's legal hostility toward non-compete agreements is clear. It's not just because of the statutory law, but also because of precedent. Other jurisdictions could and have interpreted similar language differently (including other states interpreting California statutes, IIRC). That hostility is usually what people refer to, or would mean to refer to it they understood the nuances.
A lot of the time you'll hear "oh this is a standard contract, everyone signs it & we don't make exceptions". If they want you bad enough they will make an exception.
Most people don't have the luxury of walking away from an employer that won't make an exception with the confidence that they can find an employer who will.
This is definitely true on the east coast. :(
WARNING: This comment contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Direct democracy (initiatives) and neutered executive powers were the Progressives best efforts to counterbalance machine politics. It was worth trying.
We're clearly overdue for some more tweaking.
After binging on David Graeber's notions about participatory democracy, I've been wondering about replacing the meme of "elected representatives" with "delegated advocates", and what that might look like.
Maybe a bit like lawyers (barristers) representing clients.
Maybe a bit like merging the currently (nominally) separate roles of legislators and lobbyists.
Maybe a more clear division of responsibilities in bicameral governments, where the younger House advocates for changes and the older Senate tries to hold it all together. Like better rules for progressives battling conservatives.
I've sometimes pondered a system like this, but I never had a name for it. I will have to check David Graeber out.
https://democracynerd.us/episode/saving-democracy-in-oregon
https://democracynerd.us/episode/exporting-oregon-style-demo...
I haven't found any good resources for Anarchist flavored participatory democracy. Thus far, I've been collecting scattered bits and pieces. Am still looking for the people really thinking about the whole.
It’s a horrible way to make public policy because it is typically based on an oversimplified model of the world, can be worded vaguely/sloppily, often takes no design input from experts, is almost entirely unresponsive to real-world problems that arise afterwards, generally does not effectively empower lasting institutions to administer the policy and make sure it works as intended, and forces additional complexity, confusion, and legal ambiguity when the state legislature or local governments try to work around it with kludgy patches.
I do think there are good reasons to have more direct democracy than the founders had (the logistics of it are much better now), but I'd be pretty cautious of the argument that we should do everything that we can get a plurality of the population to support.
Several times I have seen something complex where making an informed decision take at minimum several hours of research. Which most voters are obviously not going to do. Most people are at best following their parties lead, which asks the initiative pointless, or more likely making a knee jerk reaction without understanding the details.
Repealing laws on the other hand is something voters can have direct experience with.
Arguing that the limit for arsenic in drinking water should be lowered is very different than arguing the limit should be removed. The first needs a detailed analysis to judge, where the second comes down to more fundamental ideas.
Further, if the power is limited to removing legislation then similar rules can be added if it becomes obvious their needed.
"should not be infringed" gets to "can be regulated" which goes to "practically banned".
I actually think a lot of the problems with total direct democracy come not purely from hot tempered reactions of the majority (though that certainly is a problem at times), but from the mere fact that a lot of governing decisions need to get made by someone who really studies the details of a problem closely and makes an informed decision.
Let's say as a society we're making a complicated financial decision (like, is it in our long-term financial interest to build a bridge linking Point A and Point B). That's a very complex decision, where it's extremely hard to pin down with specifics both the costs and the eventual benefits of the bridge.
So, as a society we put together a group that studies the issue in depth and puts together a 100-page report that's the distillation of their research. It nails down the costs and the benefits in about as concise a form as it can be, while still capturing the full complexity of the project.
Now here's the question: what's the process for deciding how to build the bridge? Do we:
- ask everyone in society to read and digest the 100 page report, make their own informed decision, and then vote on the outcome?
- Or do we as ask everyone to select the person they trust to read and digest the report, make an informed decision that would align with their interests, and then we vote for the person we want to make the decision?
I think there's some benefits to each approach that aren't captured by the other. In the former approach there's a lot of redundant work that we're asking from every member of society. It's much easier on each member of the democracy to make an informed decision about selecting a single person to make a decision on their behalf than it is to make an informed decision on the project directly.
Multiply this across every decision at the city, county, state, and federal government and suddenly the decision burden on the individual becomes a really good argument on its own for representative democracy!
You decide who represents you, directly (rather than pooling geographically, which is patently stupid) and representatives are operating with consistent incentive to act in the interest of their direct constituents.
The propositions are presented in isolation without context. Somethings need to be considered holistically. Budgets are a classic example of this. There are trade offs. Any spending in one area means that those resources don’t go to other things. Should we fund cancer research? Yes. Firefighters? Yes. Why not both? Because we also need to fund schools, hospitals, roads, and the entire public sector. As a reasonably well educated and informed citizen it is not feasible to responsibly weigh in on a specific funding item. You would need to understand all the other aspects. As my grandfather (a third generation Californian) explained to me: if you aren’t 100% sure of what a proposition says vote No.
It's chaotic because people change their minds, quickly.
For example, perhaps the people of towns/cities should be able to vote on things "closer to home" for themselves (like property taxes and zoning), leaving things involving multiple localities (like water rights) for the state.
I doubt California has a higher percentage of gullibles, but it certainly has more people in total.
There actually is a check, and it is the higher requirement required for a Constitutional revision rather than a mere amendment.
I think a key part of direct democracy is to make it as local as possible. It's my understanding that Switzerland has cantons averaging 350k people that have their own constitutions, taxes, schools, health care, even treaties with other countries. These are often further divided into municipalities. People might be able to vote on things several times a year. People can vote to cancel laws they don't like. Lots more info here [0]
California has almost 40 million people. That might be too big to qualify as "direct"
[0] https://wolf-linder.ch/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Swiss-poli...
So if you want to be pedantic, they are laws made by unelected lawmakers.
Representatives who vote on laws are called law makers. If the people are voting on laws as well then they’re law makers as well aren’t they?
And you say they’re unelected? Well they don’t need to be elected, they’re citizens in their own right.
I’d like a citation. Many other US states believe there was widespread voter fraud in 2020. Or that the vaccine implants a chip.
These believed lies seem like evidence of greater gullibility than belief that “consumer protection” laws protect consumers.
Extremes in both blue and red states are equally stupid. Average iq doesn't differ between states. Education level does, but as any techy knows, that's an overrated proxy for intelligence.
I think it gets lost in the AVALANCHE of ill-considered laws California makes that are pointed to as gov overreach, and rightfully so in my somewhat libertarian opinion - but it IS possible to have the one without the other, and one could argue the mountain of bad or hasty laws is doing nobody, including proponents of the rightful place of government in protecting citizens like this, any favors.
edit: I should clarify I don't consider the consumer protection law in question is one of those bad laws of course, I just worry the scattershot lawmaking that California sometimes indulges in makes it harder to point to the successes of that model. I would appreciate the silent downvoters to explain, but I guess HN has gotten too far away from its roots and too close to the Reddit model of 'downvote things I disagree with'
The California lege's default position is, when in doubt, pass a law - some are good, well crafted, and effective. Many are not. This is the scattershot I mentioned. There, however is a lot of legislative 'noise' to the signal of the effective laws. That's all my point was.
Citation needed, I think. It's not obviously true that California is particularly notable in this regard in terms of volume or fraction that are ill-considered. They of course have some notable unintended consequence problems, but that's not the same thing.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xh...
But that wasn’t the claim. How do we see it is mostly ill conceived? Or indeed notable compared to similar populations ?
I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m saying it doesn’t seem at all obvious.
It is challenging to look at that as one of the major issues of debate and then say "well, but it gets some details right". Government isn't about details, it is dealing with a big picture. A government's success or failure isn't about the small details it doesn't screw up.
It isn't like unsubscribing unilaterally is even that hard; just stop sending the NYT money. I'm sure they'll get the message sooner or later.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...