That is the typical corporate America policy, and yes it does stifle contribution.
We decided to be different and do better.
We decided to be different and do better.
> That is the typical corporate America policy
I've worked for several massive companies, and none have insinuated that code written by an employee at home is owned by the company. If that's what you were referring to, then no, it's not typical corporate America policy. It does exist, but it's not typical.
I've known several people (and OSS developers) who have been on the blunt end of this pretty nasty clause. They've been sued, or startups they started on the side sued by their now-ex company.
I've done the startup thing to the big company thing and somehow these clauses have always been there.
Disclosure: I work with Van @Rackspace - this updated policy is one step on a grand master open source plan :)
Actually, I was slightly mistaken originally. One time an employer tried to pull that, but when I pointed it out, they were willing to cross out the clause, because I was willing to walk away.
Perhaps I was just lucky three times in a row?
It stinks that it's 2014 and invention clauses and non competes are basically default boilerplate, even in jurisdictions where they're unenforceable.
I second this. The companies I have worked in the past and current company (I think all come well within Fortune 50 list) all had exactly similar default policy. I too was surprised when I learnt that. But ALL of my past/current companies had a "discuss & establish exception" (via manager+legal coordinator if required) for my own work done (opensource or income-generating mobile app for eg:) during non work hours. The requirements were not very complex but they could be very broadly applicable since most of these big companies are in every field/domain of the software world. And the terms could be broadly summarized as "Thou shall not be given ownership of something that is going to be competetive or near-future business opportunity for the company" . Mostly your typical android/iphone app would get an easy approval. Opensource contributions (as long as non-competetive to existing company product) get easier-pass than income-generating (any thing involving money typically complicates things :) ) projects of the employee because the potential for conflict of interest is higher.
A lot of companies (like Rackspace or my current employer) are adopting opensource into the enterprise more and more and encouraging employees to contribute to opensource during work hours.
I'm sure I got a couple of words wrong in there, but I recall that at around the same time there was a large chunk of some open source project that had to be removed due to contributions by an employee of another company with similar wording. And when I asked about it with higher-ups, they basically said that even if you are working at home at midnight, on your own equipment, what you do may have been influenced by something like a hallway conversation with a co-worker.
Interestingly, as a development manager I have had candidates (hey Yousef!) balk at this condition and I just strike it out, initial, and submit to HR. No one ever checks this shit.