Using hobby source code in your job ?

[Siemel Naran]

"Maarten Wiltink" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Sorry, but why should I work my ass off to make them rich? you call it
unethical, I call it realistic. If a manager is making $500k a year and I am
making $90k to $120k, thats not fair. Yes thats how business works, and
thats why I really don't give a shit. I don't go out of my way to help the
company.

A comment on the numbers. You can download SalaryExpert. In San Francisco,

SOFTWARE DESIGN MANAGER: Low Salary = $89,924, Average = $105,013, High =
$147,764, Bonus = 11.24%, Benefits=12.6%.

SOFTWARE DESIGN DIRECTOR: Low Salary = $106,177, Average = $159,545, High =
$363,634, Bonus = 16.75%, Benefits = 12.4%.

SOFTWARE ENGINEER: Low Salary = $67,669, Average = $85,440, High = $102,357,
Bonus = 0%, Benefits = 12.5%.

SOFTWARE DEVELOPER: Low Salary = $63,843, Average = $76,158, High = $99,303,
Bonus = 10.63% , Benefits = 12.0%.

The national averages are lower as San Francisco has such a high cost of
living.

 

[RCollins]

Unless you're being paid by the hour, there is no such thing as "your own
time".

Hmmm ... my company (Raytheon) has a well-defined and documented policy
on what constitutes "my time" and "their time". This is contained
within the "conflict of interest" company practices, and referenced by
the company's "ethics standards" that all employees are required to
learn (we are also required to get 'refresher' training in these
subjects each year).

Some weeks, my job requires me to work considerably more than the
standard 40 hours ... but no one there would even *think* about taking
my "hobby programming" from me without (a more than generous)
compensation.

 

[Andrew Koenig]

Hmmm ... my company (Raytheon) has a well-defined and documented policy
on what constitutes "my time" and "their time". This is contained
within the "conflict of interest" company practices, and referenced by
the company's "ethics standards" that all employees are required to
learn (we are also required to get 'refresher' training in these
subjects each year).

Some weeks, my job requires me to work considerably more than the
standard 40 hours ... but no one there would even *think* about taking
my "hobby programming" from me without (a more than generous)
compensation.

If your employer changed their mind about this policy, there wouldn't be
much you could do about it short of leaving.
So it's not really your time--it's time that they are letting you have at
their discretion.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. How can a company (whether I work
for them or not) lay claim to a product that I developed on my own time,
using my own equipment and resources? (Excluding, of course, the normal
"conflict of interest" clauses, which says I may not compete for
business with my employer.)

Very simple: part of your employment contract requires you to assign to the
company copyright and ownership of any original works produced, modified, or
published by you during the term of your employment. Unless you
specifically negotiate one, there is usually no exemption for things done on
"personal time". They do provide a place where you can declare any works
you produced or owned prior to entering their employ; anything on that list
is exempt from the assignment, but anything not on the list becomes a "work
for hire" on behalf of the company if you so much as think about it while
you're employed there.

One might consider that last unenforceable, but with enough money, lawyers
can make any pig fly... A former employer of mine sued a coworker to
"recover" the rights to a shareware program he authored, despite him not
having worked on it for years before he started that job, it not having
brought him a single cent in donations, and it being completely unrelated to
the company's business. He lost a long (and expensive) case in court, and
HR put him on a performance plan (i.e. no raises or promotions) due to his
"excessive" absences from work during the trial.

I have dealt with quite a few software contract workers, both
self-employed and those employed by an agency, but I've never seen
anything like this. OTOH, my professional arena is rather specialized,
with not a lot of players. In what engineering discipline would the
contract clause you mentioned above be considered "standard"? (I may
want to avoid that area in the future!)

It wasn't even an engineering or programming company in the first place!
All we did was Windows helpdesk and NT administration outsourcing and run a
little bit of cabling -- nothing even remotely resembling creating works
for hire nor having any conceivable use for the software he had written.
The contract was simply boilerplate that all employees were required to
sign, from VPs down to shipping clerks, and someone discovered that he
forgot to list this dinky piece of shareware as a prior work when was
hired...

I've worked for three different hw/sw vendors since then, and two of them
had contracts of the form I described above. I'm told that they're pretty
easy to negotiate changes to, particularly in the realm of open-source
contributions, but since I have no personal works to protect I haven't
considered it worth the hassle and expense.

S

 

[Steve Sobol]

Very simple: part of your employment contract requires you to assign to
the company copyright and ownership of any original works produced,
modified, or published by you during the term of your employment.
Unless you specifically negotiate one, there is usually no exemption for
things done on "personal time". They do provide a place where you can
declare any works you produced or owned prior to entering their employ;
anything on that list is exempt from the assignment, but anything not on
the list becomes a "work for hire" on behalf of the company if you so
much as think about it while you're employed there.

I have not yet had to agree to an employment clause like this (perhaps because
I don't tend to work for large companies), and I will turn down a job before
ever agreeing to something like this. Way, way, way too broad.

The employer has every right to protect its interests -- but this kind of thing
goes past protecting the company's interests.

Of course, my situation is a little different from yours. My primary line of
work is software and website development. I am pretty sure yours isn't.

 

[E. Robert Tisdale]

If your employer changed their mind about this policy,
there wouldn't be much you could do about it short of leaving.
So it's not really your time --
it's time that they are letting you have at their discretion.

So you've had a bad experience with a previous employer.
Get over it.
The world is full of employers
who are quite willing to hire people
even if they do have a backbone.

 

[Jim P]

Very simple: part of your employment contract requires you to assign to
the company copyright and ownership of any original works produced,
modified, or published by you during the term of your employment.
Unless you specifically negotiate one, there is usually no exemption for
things done on "personal time". They do provide a place where you can
declare any works you produced or owned prior to entering their employ;
anything on that list is exempt from the assignment, but anything not on
the list becomes a "work for hire" on behalf of the company if you so
much as think about it while you're employed there.

One might consider that last unenforceable, but with enough money,
lawyers can make any pig fly... A former employer of mine sued a
coworker to "recover" the rights to a shareware program he authored,
despite him not having worked on it for years before he started that
job, it not having brought him a single cent in donations, and it being
completely unrelated to the company's business. He lost a long (and
expensive) case in court, and HR put him on a performance plan (i.e. no
raises or promotions) due to his "excessive" absences from work during
the trial.



It wasn't even an engineering or programming company in the first place!
All we did was Windows helpdesk and NT administration outsourcing and
run a little bit of cabling -- nothing even remotely resembling
creating works for hire nor having any conceivable use for the software
he had written. The contract was simply boilerplate that all employees
were required to sign, from VPs down to shipping clerks, and someone
discovered that he forgot to list this dinky piece of shareware as a
prior work when was hired...

I've worked for three different hw/sw vendors since then, and two of
them had contracts of the form I described above. I'm told that they're
pretty easy to negotiate changes to, particularly in the realm of
open-source contributions, but since I have no personal works to protect
I haven't considered it worth the hassle and expense.

S

I have found that a person telling story my not be telling the whole story.

Somethings things are more related than people realise or are willing to
say.

Jim P.

 

[Siemel Naran]

Very simple: part of your employment contract requires you to assign to the
company copyright and ownership of any original works produced, modified, or
published by you during the term of your employment. Unless you
specifically negotiate one, there is usually no exemption for things done on
"personal time". They do provide a place where you can declare any works
you produced or owned prior to entering their employ; anything on that list
is exempt from the assignment, but anything not on the list becomes a "work
for hire" on behalf of the company if you so much as think about it while
you're employed there.

It may depend on the state. In California we have labor code 2870. Other
states may have similar laws protecting the individual. You can search for
it on google.

<Quote Description="California Labor Code Section 2870-2872">

2870.
(a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee
shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention
to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee
developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's
equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for
those inventions that either: Relate at the time of conception or reduction
to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or
demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or Result
from any work performed by the employee for the employer.

(b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require
an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to
be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public
policy of this state and is unenforceable.

2871
No employer shall require a provision made void and unenforceable by Section
2870 as a condition of employment or continued employment. Nothing in this
article shall be construed to forbid or restrict the right of an employer to
provide in contracts of employment for disclosure, provided that any such
disclosures be received in confidence, of all of the employee's inventions
made solely or jointly with others during the term of his or her employment,
a review process by the employer to determine such issues as may arise, and
for full title to certain patents and inventions to be in the United States,
as required by contracts between the employer and the United States or any
of its agencies.

2872
If an employment agreement entered into after January 1, 1980, contains a
provision requiring the employee to assign or offer to assign any of his or
her rights in any invention to his or her employer, the employer must also,
at the time the agreement is made provide a written notification to the
employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention which qualifies
fully under the provisions of Section 2870. In any suit or action arising
thereunder, the burden of proof shall be on the employee claiming the
benefits of its provisions.

</Quote>

(2870)(a) suggests that if you create code with your own resources, it is
yours to keep. But (2870)(b) seems vaguely worded and appears to contradict
the previous statement.

 

[Martin Harvey (Demon account)]

You are only one part of the company and a small part of it.

This is true, but the previous poster does have a point. People's
remuneration is *not* linked to how much they contribute to the
company. It's just like any good old "dominance" social heirarchy -
because actual contribution and value is downright impossible to
quantify, you end up having a career ladder & pay scales, and all of a
sudden they right conditions exist for something like the Peter
principle to apply.

He has another point which is that you are always paid less than you
are really worth. Why? Because if everyone was paid what their
contribution is really worth, the company would never make a profit.
It's that simple.

Anyway, ditching all the rhetoric, it boils down to this:

There is a tradeoff. The tradeoff is *risk*. You may say that your
employer is screwing you, but, the assumption is that a decent sized
organisation is less likely to have to ditch you than you are to make
a hash of your own start up. Not only that, but if things go belly up,
in a big company, you're not likely to be personally liable for
losses.

Now, the reason the people at the top get paid loads is that
(ostensibly!) they're meant to have the market and financial judgement
to be able to chart a course for the company that keeps the numbers in
the black and the employees employed and paid - and here's the point:
if they *do* do that, then they're *worth* the (comparitively) large
salaries they're paid.

What really annoys me is when they screw it up or show obvious signs
of having *no clue*, and *still* get paid that much.

Anyways - practical advice: If you don't like being an "underpaid
minion", then start up your own company, and see what the other side
of the coin is like. Oh yeah, and be prepared to work 100 hour weeks
for the next 4-5 years.

MH.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

If your employer changed their mind about this policy, there wouldn't be
much you could do about it short of leaving.

Under UK and EU law, they can't do that without asking you to sign a new
contract, and you have no obligation to do so. Furthermore they can't
dismiss you for refusing.

So it's not really your time--it's time that they are letting you have at
their discretion.

When you have children, you realise that there is no such concept as "your"
time.....

 

[Jim P]

This is true, but the previous poster does have a point. People's
remuneration is *not* linked to how much they contribute to the
company. It's just like any good old "dominance" social heirarchy -
because actual contribution and value is downright impossible to
quantify, you end up having a career ladder & pay scales, and all of a
sudden they right conditions exist for something like the Peter
principle to apply.

He has another point which is that you are always paid less than you
are really worth. Why? Because if everyone was paid what their
contribution is really worth, the company would never make a profit.
It's that simple.

Anyway, ditching all the rhetoric, it boils down to this:

There is a tradeoff. The tradeoff is *risk*. You may say that your
employer is screwing you, but, the assumption is that a decent sized
organisation is less likely to have to ditch you than you are to make
a hash of your own start up. Not only that, but if things go belly up,
in a big company, you're not likely to be personally liable for
losses.

Now, the reason the people at the top get paid loads is that
(ostensibly!) they're meant to have the market and financial judgement
to be able to chart a course for the company that keeps the numbers in
the black and the employees employed and paid - and here's the point:
if they *do* do that, then they're *worth* the (comparitively) large
salaries they're paid.

What really annoys me is when they screw it up or show obvious signs
of having *no clue*, and *still* get paid that much.

Anyways - practical advice: If you don't like being an "underpaid
minion", then start up your own company, and see what the other side
of the coin is like. Oh yeah, and be prepared to work 100 hour weeks
for the next 4-5 years.

MH.

I like that concept of 100 hours a week for the next 4 to 5 years. That
is part of what the manager does. My dad owned his own business. and he
would spend a lot of time simply thinking. and not all of during the
work hours. - - - Believe me the good manager is thinking about cause
and effect, schedules and that - - and not just 8 to 5.

and the legal wording seems good and is what it should be. It has to be
clearly done not on company time and not with company tools. and not
something that relates to company business - - and that means that the
compiler you used, at home - - is it your copy or one from work? But
most will not go to that point. - - - but that is a tool.

I also would not hide this from the boss or make an issue of it with the
boss. To me an employee that has enough on the ball to be thinking and
pondering other things besides work. - - is a good employee. I talked
with an out of work engineer last spring. Asked him a couple of
questions and decided that I would not hire the person. Only what he
learned at school was he using. Asked about an other langauge such as VB
and said he took C in school. As if you have to go to school to learn a
langauge. And VB is easy to learn. This said a lot about the type of
person and what his interest level is - - does he think of the job as 8
- 5 only or will he be pondering problems and issues after work also. Or
does he totally turn off at 5. This is my job only. I person that is
doing extra on his own time - for his hobby and other interest. That is
a person that is of more interest to me as a programmer or engineer.

Jim P.

 

[Jim P]

Under UK and EU law, they can't do that without asking you to sign a new
contract, and you have no obligation to do so. Furthermore they can't
dismiss you for refusing.




When you have children, you realise that there is no such concept as "your"
time.....

AH, not quite but you are close on that. I have a great kid that I spend
a lot of time with. Girl friends kid. and we work as a team. really a
bright boy. 9 years old and already learning VB. I got him a book
called Beginning programming for Dummies and he is reading it on his own
and playing on the computer doing code. Asks questions and learns. - I
do not live with his mother. SO a lot is done on his own. He wants to
come over and spend a day watching me program in Delphi. - - I am going
- ah huh. He is a quick learner. Show him once and he has it. and
understands it. - -

Jim P.

 

[RCollins]

If your employer changed their mind about this policy, there wouldn't be
much you could do about it short of leaving.
So it's not really your time--it's time that they are letting you have at
their discretion.

Not likely... most U.S. busniness are *not* the evil overlords that most
science-fiction writers would have you believe.

A modern engineering company (such as Raytheon) tries very hard to keep
it's engineering staff happy and "well fed" with intersting projects.
If I create something "on my own time" that the company wants, they will
truly make me a very generous offer for that product. In 20 years, I
have never heard of the company "comandeering" a hobby project from an
employee. (Although I personally know of several people who earned an
outstanding bonus or 'perk' due to hobby research they were pursueing on
their own.)

 

[Andrew Koenig]

Under UK and EU law, they can't do that without asking you to sign a new
contract, and you have no obligation to do so. Furthermore they can't
dismiss you for refusing.

Things aren't like that in the USA.

 

[Jim P]

Not likely... most U.S. busniness are *not* the evil overlords that most
science-fiction writers would have you believe.

A modern engineering company (such as Raytheon) tries very hard to keep
it's engineering staff happy and "well fed" with intersting projects.
If I create something "on my own time" that the company wants, they will
truly make me a very generous offer for that product. In 20 years, I
have never heard of the company "comandeering" a hobby project from an
employee. (Although I personally know of several people who earned an
outstanding bonus or 'perk' due to hobby research they were pursueing on
their own.)

That matches with what I would expect from any large company. Formal
policies and concepts.

But smaller companies - - it might not be the same - -

I still feel it is up to how it is handled and what a persons attitude
about it is to the company. If the conversations are handled right. But
if handled wrong then emotions come into play and anything can happen.

Jim P.

 

[Ann]

AH, not quite but you are close on that. I have a great kid that I spend
a lot of time with. Girl friends kid. and we work as a team. really a
bright boy. 9 years old and already learning VB. I got him a book
called Beginning programming for Dummies and he is reading it on his own
and playing on the computer doing code. Asks questions and learns. - I
do not live with his mother. SO a lot is done on his own. He wants to
come over and spend a day watching me program in Delphi. - - I am going
- ah huh. He is a quick learner. Show him once and he has it. and
understands it. - -

Jim P.

Kids are great that way. I started my younger boy at about that age on
a Radio Shack Color Computer with built in MS basic. He learned it all
himself, was motivated by being able to easily make various graphics games.

 

[Maarten Wiltink]

I like that concept of 100 hours a week for the next 4 to 5 years. That
is part of what the manager does. My dad owned his own business. and he
would spend a lot of time simply thinking. and not all of during the
work hours. - - - Believe me the good manager is thinking about cause
and effect, schedules and that - - and not just 8 to 5.

Hey, I do that. Are you calling me a manager? Them's fighting words.

(No, I don't have my own business.)

Groetjes,
Maarten Wiltink

 

[Jim P]

Hey, I do that. Are you calling me a manager? Them's fighting words.

(No, I don't have my own business.)

Groetjes,
Maarten Wiltink

and that is why you are a good programmer. You live this stuff.
and 8 to 5 guy - turns it off as he leaves work.

Jim P.

 

[Richard Bos]

Not likely... most U.S. busniness are *not* the evil overlords that most
science-fiction writers would have you believe.

A modern engineering company (such as Raytheon) tries very hard to keep
it's engineering staff happy and "well fed" with intersting projects.
If I create something "on my own time" that the company wants, they will
truly make me a very generous offer for that product.

And what happens if you refuse? That, I think, is the real test.

Richard

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

Under UK and EU law, they can't do that without asking you to sign a new
contract, and you have no obligation to do so. Furthermore they can't
dismiss you for refusing.

Refusing to sign a new contract can get you canned here, and that's
perfectly legal in most cases. However, most companies are willing to
negotiate a bit since the cost of replacing you (recruiting, hiring,
training, etc.) is significant.

In the US, unless you're part of a union you're usually under what's called
"at will" employment, which means either party can terminate the agreement
at any time, with or without cause, except for a few cases (e.g.
discrimination, harrassment) specified by law. Some states do require a
minimum of two weeks' notice, and it's common practice even in states that
do not.

S