Would my employer own a game I made in my own time?

[Moley]

I've worked for four software companies in my career and it's only in the most recent employment that I've cottoned on to just how restrictive clauses like this are.

Simply put by agreeing to these clauses you hand over ALL your intellectual property rights to the company for the duration of your employment.

That website you created for a friends business? Belongs to your employer.
That database you wrote to store your CD collection in? Belongs to your employer.
That iPhone game your wrote? Belongs to your employer.

The question of them enforcing it is largely irrelevant - they own the IP either way.

This is the reason I now remove any clauses like this from any contracts before I sign them.

 

[placeholder]

Just because people have a different opinion doesn't mean they don't understand. I just think it's a ridiculous control over someone's personal lives that is not ethically acceptable in a modern society.

What you "think" doesnt matter, with the greatest of respect to your opinions.

When someone asks about the law and someone with knowledge of the law replies, your opinion of what the law should be in theory doesnt really matter.

 

[Energize]

What you "think" doesnt matter, with the greatest of respect to your opinions.

When someone asks about the law and someone with knowledge of the law replies, your opinion of what the law should be in theory doesnt really matter.

There's no call for rudeness, it was a debate about ethics not the op's question.

 

[Glaucus]

Just because people have a different opinion doesn't mean they don't understand. I just think it's a ridiculous control over someone's personal lives that is not ethically acceptable in a modern society. In the case of the university the students paid for the resources which makes it even worse! Would it be acceptable for the university to garnish the graduates wages too? Since that is comparable.

you are still saying there's a barrier between work and personal life, it is not so easy. The ideas, knowledge, training, contacts and everything else can and do come from your work, which is why these clauses exist.
If it is unrelated to work, then its usually pretty easy to get an agreement.

Ethics in this case sides with the employer IMO, how can you say it's not ethical, when everything you know is from the work place and you wouldn't be in a position to create x program, without your work.

 

[Evoss]

I would speak to a solicitor to confirm.

 

[placeholder]

There's no call for rudeness, it was a debate about ethics not the op's question.

Erm no. Look at your OP, you are passing things off as fact that arent. I gave you sufficient respect in my replies. In fact i was over polite given the nature of your posts which were Jackanory at best.

 

[Energize]

you are still saying there's a barrier between work and personal life, it is not so easy. The ideas, knowledge, training, contacts and everything else can and do come from your work, which is why these clauses exist.
If it is unrelated to work, then its usually pretty easy to get an agreement.

Ethics in this case sides with the employer IMO, how can you say it's not ethical, when everything you know is from the work place and you wouldn't be in a position to create x program, without your work.

Who says that is the case? One could be using skills learnt elsewhere using nothing from the company. And why is ip theft by the employer acceptable and garnishing wages not?

Erm no. Look at your OP, you are passing things off as fact that arent. I gave you sufficient respect in my replies. In fact i was over polite given the nature of your posts which were Jackanory at best.

I'm merely expressing an opinion.

 

[Glaucus]

I would speak to a solicitor to confirm.

This is good advice, contracts and law are hugely complicated.

 

[Glaucus]

Who says that is the case? One could be using skills learnt elsewhere using nothing from the company. And why is ip theft by the employer acceptable and garnishing wages not?

And can you stick that in a contract, if it is totally unrelated most companies will agree to you doing it.

 

[placeholder]

I'm merely expressing an opinion.

Sorry. No offence meant.I apologise.

Its just such a complex issue that there is no real right or wrong (in opinion terms) and in most cases i *think* compaines would have a good case against employers so whether anyone thinks thats right or wrong is has to be considered.

 

[Reezer]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

It sounds like the most sensible thing to do is to try and get the company to sign off on it before going ahead.

Next challenge I suppose is working out who at the company would actually have the "power" to sign away the companies rights like that... I suspect the central legal department would just deny the request to keep the minions on the same legal terms for an easy life - it's not like they gain anything other than a trivial boost of morale/good will by approving it!

I know there are lots of people working with me who are moonlighting or working on side-projects for themselves just to keep the programming "bug" alive. We're all programmers by choice but the process and support heavy company rules mean we don't actually get to cut much code. I wonder how many of them have even considered that the company could take their creations away if they fancied.

Thinking about it now, I wonder if the local management realize that clause is there - there was a chap who figured out the "specialized interface hardware" one of our clients was buying for £1800 a pop was just a standard PCI COM card with a strange backing plate + port on it and set up his own company selling them for £200. The company also make hardware so it wouldn't have been much of a stretch for them to enforce their rights and take the idea off him.

 

[dodgem]

In respect to the clause about not working for a competitor within x months/years, or similarly, not working in the same industry for x months/years... A company i used to work for had this clause and it was questioned by a few of us, since given we worked in a fairly specialised industry it meant that we would not be able to look for employment anywhere where our experience was particularly relevant!

After a consultation with an employment lawyer, we discovered that this clause is generally unenforcable since it amounts to preventing someone from earning a living and supporting themselves. I think it was a human rights issue, but not sure on that one...

 

[Energize]

And can you stick that in a contract, if it is totally unrelated most companies will agree to you doing it.

Even if it is related though the company may have taught the individual nothing and expected them to teach themselves, which does not seem to be too uncommon sometimes.

Out of interest, if you think that it is acceptable for employers and universities to have these contracts, then do you think it is acceptable for those same organisations to garnish future wages from the employee as they are benefiting from skills they learnt under said employment/education? Because that is identical in all ways that matter, taking money for someone else's work.

 

[Glaucus]

Out of interest, if you think that it is acceptable for employers and universities to have these contracts, then do you think it is acceptable for those same organisations to garnish future wages from the employee as they are benefiting from skills they learnt under said employment/education? Because that is identical in all ways that matter, taking money for someone else's work.

no, as It comes down to reasonable. Which has a time limit on it.
However most companies make you pay back expensive/extra training, if you leave within x-years. Is that unreasonable and unethical as well?

 

[Energize]

No, I stated previously that is fine. It's not comparable to taking someone else's work.

 

[DWorrall]

Im looking for a job atm, so i'll be sure to ask them about this before i sign anything. I do a lot of freelance work and im not having any employer stealing it.

 

[Dabbles]

Some contracts state things like you can't work for a competitor for x months and the like. These things are totally above board and enforceable.

I some circumstances they are, in others they aren't. It depends on the scope of the clause. A clause that prevents you from working in your chosen market within reasonable distance from your home would NOT be enforceable.

 

[Valentino]

In respect to the clause about not working for a competitor within x months/years, or similarly, not working in the same industry for x months/years... A company i used to work for had this clause and it was questioned by a few of us, since given we worked in a fairly specialised industry it meant that we would not be able to look for employment anywhere where our experience was particularly relevant!

After a consultation with an employment lawyer, we discovered that this clause is generally unenforcable since it amounts to preventing someone from earning a living and supporting themselves. I think it was a human rights issue, but not sure on that one...

Most of the time it is enforced by you not being allowed to work for a competitor but being paid while you don't work. Gardening leave. It's normally the highly specialised places that use it, If you tell your work you are going to work for x company which is a direct competitor they will give you 6 months pay and tell you not to work for them in the mean time. This is so in 6 months time all tech and anything you knew that could have been trade secrets will mostly be old hat and not valuable. For example a head honcho at AMD would not be allowed to take up a job at Intel for x amount of time .

It's not un-ethical and it's perfectly logical. A lot of the time though it is pretty useless and unenforced, but it is put there to stop the rare occasions when it could result in a direct loss of profit for the company and a direct gain for the competitor.

Also, believe it or not, if you train to be a hairdresser in a salon (of all things), you will be prohibited from opening your own salon within a certain radius. It's not un-ethical it is in fact to stop un-ethical ********* from screwing over the people that have invested in them.

It's not really much different from a notice period. If you quite you have to carry on working a set amount of time. It's so the company will have time to find a replacement.

I mean, imagine if a whole work force decided they weren't paid enough and formed an alliance, all left immediately with no notice period, and then set up their own partnership doing exactly what the old company did right next door.

It's an extreme example but it happens. My mates dad was recently screwed over by an employee who set up his own business doing the same thing but undercutting by ten quid or whatever in teh same area.

 

[WrathOfAchilles]

If your job is to design apps, think of ideas for apps or anything along those lines then this "idea" from a group of employee's would surley belong to the company and you are holding it back for your own project.

If none of you are involved in the above, ie SQL dev bods who come up with an iphone app then all is good.

If it is dodgy ground, propose the idea to your company, if they refuse go for it off your own back and its all yours?

Achilles

 

[Dabbles]

To the OP: how would your employer find out about your outside venture?