I mean, I asked at the time, and I did it. If either company wants to start a legal fight over a pile of code that neither of them wanted that's old enough to be in elementary school, they know how to reach me.
If I take that code and make a billion dollar business out of it, Box or Uber could then claim a share of it. That's the kind of things that companies do with the lawyers on retainer.
I then sue you for falsely claiming that you own it. You are particularly fucked because, thanks to this thread, you can't claim that you didn't know.
Even in California the "I wrote it on my own time" doesn't apply to software that relates to an employer's core business. In other places, like Washington State, you could be employed to write TPS reports and write a video game at home, and your employer would own that too.
IANAL but I have paid for advice on this very topic. I suggest you pay one too.
I’m nearly 100% certain we can look back at this comment in 20 years and find that absolutely nothing happened.
I am also nearly 100% certain we can look back at this comment in 20 years and find nothing happened, but only because nobody will take this code and make a billion dollar business. If they did, I guarantee there would be a law suit.
That’s just factually false. You specifically wrote:
> Even in California the "I wrote it on my own time" doesn't apply to software that relates to an employer's ***core*** business.
You can’t complain about people being “wishful” or in “denial” when they are quoting you.
Maybe California law is silent in the topic, but Aeolus wasn’t the person who introduced that specific phrase.
Getting a judgement against an individual is vanishingly unlikely to result in any profits.
https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-better-holdco-inc-et-al-v-d...
In other words, you can write generally useful components and utilities on your own time, network, and equipment; license them to your employer if everyone agrees; and either way you still own them. You just can’t write something directly related to or competitive with the products or processes that make your employer money.
The spreadsheet formulae and enhancements the author wrote during work hours at Uber, though, no. But even just their direct boss as an agent of their employer saying it’s ok to throw it on GitHub would probably cut them loose, especially since it’d be a derivative work with joint ownership.
All IMO of course, but that’s how I would have seen it in their shoes.
That was the intent, but not what actually happened.
Is intent to donate code enough to put it within your employment contract, when it's done outside work hours and would otherwise be outside the scope of employment?
From a practical perspective, even if you think they don't own it, do you have the money to argue that in court if they decide that they do?
IANAL. If you are having issues like this, get legal advice from a lawyer. Not HN.
Relatedness is relative but I'd argue against it here. They didn't have functionality like that, and they didn't want it.
> The fact that he "intended to donate it" demonstrates that it was related to the company's business.
...yes, that's my point. We're using that intent to make the decision that it's covered. That doesn't seem like a good way to decide whether it's covered.
If he just made a web spreadsheet and did nothing else, people would shrug.
The intent is a fact of what actually happened: which appears to be that it was written by an employee within the scope of employment to solve a business problem. Possibly outside of usual working hours, but if it’s by a salaried employee where doing work at home outside of usual working hours is itself a normal if not consistent part of employment, is probably not particularly significant.
That the employer later chose not to make use of it doesn’t change the circumstances of its creation; businesses often choose to not pursue use of exploratory work done by employees in the course of employment, that doesn’t surrender ownership of the work product.
And the version that was further developed within and in response to Uber business needs and actively used at Uber before the function for which it was used was terminated is an even clearer case (insofar as it is a distinct work from the original) of work-product (that it quite likely is also an unlicensed derivative work by Uber of proprietary Box code doesn’t mitigate that, though it puts Uber in the position of potentially being both a beneficiary and victim of IP violations.)
An imagined business problem.
If the code wasn't relevant to their actual business practices, that's quite relevant. They not only didn't want that code, they didn't want anything like it.
As for the modifications for Uber, that's not what I'm here to contest.
There are a massive number of examples of patent and copyright litigation stemming from work done for one employer, who rejected it, then the employee goes off and founds their own company and gets successfully sued.
Fairchild was unique in that they had claim to the IP that their employees wanted to use in new startups, yet they decided not to follow through and allowed the employees to start their own companies. They could’ve prosecuted but didn’t, and as a result we got Silicon Valley and the culture that surrounds it.
But it’s no guarantee that that your employer won’t pursue a copyright claim they are perfectly within their rights to do. Don’t assume your employer is Fairchild.
This is a leap
How did we get to this point as an industry and how do we change this destopia?
enjoyed the article, the bit about Excel circular ref linear regression was wild
Thanks for sharing a cool story.