Hacker News Reader

Comment by javagram | Hacker News Reader

I highly doubt it’s in the bounds of the contract with any typical employer.

I usually have to sign a clause assigning copyrights for anything work related to the employer, for instance. Working for two tech companies and signing both clauses validly would not be possible since each would require going through an internal process to give permission to contribute code outside the company.

That said, if someone is working as an independent contractor being “over employed” would be fine as long as you aren’t double billing your time.

View on HN

In fairness, these kinds of "anything you work on belongs to us, whether or not it's related to your work" contracts are not ethical; they aren't things that an ethical, honest corporation would participate in.

Every company I've worked for in the past 12 years has had a clause like that in the employment agreement. The companies were otherwise ethical, but it seems like more and more of them are adopting this boilerplate. This is in CA where clauses like this are getting more difficult to enforce, but if the company can make an argument that your side project is somehow related to their current or expected future business, they can ruin your day in court even in CA.

Yeah, I agree that they're common and that the companies that use them are probably "otherwise ethical" (although I think our ethical standards for businesses are tragically low).

Also non-enforceable in California

So if hold a job and are painter in your spare time does the corp owns your paintings as well? This is hilariously abusive

That is what these corporations would allege, although I don't know how well these contracts hold up in court and in reality most corporations aren't going to sue or fire you if you sell your paintings or whatever. But yeah, it's still pretty shitty.

These are very common, and a lot of it has to do with avoiding the complex situation of taking work related research or knowledge and saying "oh I did it in my own time."

I'm not advocating this is right, or ethical, but saying that it would be an understandable precaution. The statement, and requirements are made up front, and there are no surprises for either party.

I don't think anyone disputes that companies are doing this as a precaution nor that it's common practice. It's "understandable" in that we've become conditioned to expect corporations to ignore ethics or morals in service of their bottom line ("What do you expect them to do? They have a 'fiduciary responsibility' to their shareholders!"). In general, I think it's absurd to claim all employees' work just to protect against niche cases, and I would like to see this practice (and similar practices) outlawed.

Some US states have outlawed that practice and put restrictions on what is automatically transferred based on other factors like where, when and what device it was done on.

Work on two unrelated things?

I always wondered how far some companies will go to enforce this.

For example if my second job is as a professional actor in the local musical production, would all my creative IP and earnings belong to my main job? Maybe this example is too far remove from reality.

It totally depends on the state you are a resident of. Or the state they sue you in. Some states hold IP arrangements to be toilet paper. Some will enforce even the most egregious ones.

I am not a lawyer. It appears to me that being a contractor - rather than a salaried full-time-employee would be the route to go if you are interested in working more than one job. As a salaried FTE, the legal expectation is that you devote yourself 100% to your employer.

In business law classes, this is referred to as the "principal agent problem".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...

Business-type people are going to use this viewpoint in order to perceive the situation. In India, there are some laws that basically say that you are required to put your main employer first and that it is effectively illegal for you to work more than one job - no matter how poorly that job pays you.

This is one post from very long ago about "work for hire" and IP assignment agreements: https://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=153046

Another case that I can't fully remember the names of (so no links or references) was of a software developer in Texas or Oklahoma who developed something on his own time. His employer wanted the IP and pursued him in court for almost 2 decades bankrupting him and getting him thrown into jail (for contempt of court) when he refused a court order to turn over the source code and documentation.

How far will they go? Well, how much to they hate you? How much spite are they powered by? Narcissists and sociopaths will go to extreme lengths to destroy their "enemies". For a recent example, see ex-President Trump.

> I highly doubt it’s in the bounds of the contract with any typical employer.

Certainly not any recent contracts since this has popped up on corporate legal departments' radars.

What do you mean? I don't think ip assignments have gone away

My point was that, even if this was OK under most pre-pandemic contracts, you can be sure that savvy legal departments have since put in language that makes it definitely out-of-bounds now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com