Job offers - worth it? your thoughts please..

[L00b]

By referring to accepted business practice, I simply meant that most industries could not function if they did not own the output of any creative person that they employed to create something.

If you dreampt it up whilst being paid to dream it up, at work, in the course of your work (for example an engineer paid to invent things) then the company owns that output. You can't be a cold fusion engineer, make the breakthrough at cold fusion inc and then walk out and privately sell your breakthrough to cold fusions incs competitors.

 

If you make the breakthrough at home, sat on the loo, even then I suspect you'd loose any subsequent court case since the breakthrough comes about as a direct result of your employment as is what you are employed to do.

 

If you make an unrelated breakthrough at home in your spare time and solve room temperature superconducting, then I can see that the business would have no claim to that IP no matter what they'd written into a contract.

And the issue transcending these examples and vindicating my point is that the employer does not know, at the time of employing you, whether you will indeed "make an unrelated breakthrough at home in your spare time and solve room temperature superconducting", and can have no claim to it by default as an operation of an employment contract clause. In the UK, that is.

 

In the US, the employer can. And does. As pro-inventor as US (federal) IP legislation is, it does not protect inventors (and authors, designers, etc.) statutorily in the above examples at all.

[andygardener]

I'd just carry on running your business if it's working. Unless you're really struggling then why even think about being an employee of someone else? (look at all the legal blah above as an example of why it's not a good idea)

[Cyclone]

And the issue transcending these examples and vindicating my point is that the employer does not know, at the time of employing you, whether you will indeed "make an unrelated breakthrough at home in your spare time and solve room temperature superconducting", and can have no claim to it by default as an operation of an employment contract clause. In the UK, that is.

And they shouldn't should they, morally. But that isn't what was said is it? I was making the point that IP produced at work, in work time, with work materials, as part of the job, does belong to the employer.

 

In the US, the employer can. And does. As pro-inventor as US (federal) IP legislation is, it does not protect inventors (and authors, designers, etc.) statutorily in the above examples at all.

Fair enough, I guess the simple answer would be not to publish it until several weeks after you had quit your job and terminated the contract, and if asked, the breakthrough occurred after that contract no longer existed.

 

---------- Post added 07-01-2013 at 21:30 ----------

 

Ah, looking back either you misunderstood what Indizine said (or I did) or you were strawmanning.

 

---------- Post added 07-01-2013 at 21:32 ----------

 

Be mindful that many such clauses in UK employment contracts are so badly worded (as in, and typically, copy-pasted from a US source) as to be completely unenforceable. Especially those about 'prospective' IP ownership (US and EP/UK case law about this are at complete opposites; have been for a very long time indeed )

 

That's why Google can legitimately lay claim to your brain babies and their bath water in the US (under a US contract of employment)...but could not -ever- in the UK (under a UK contract of employment, however the contract 'dresses it' and even if signed).

 

As regards non-competes, a basic (and settled) legal principle (which will again overrule any relevant contract clauses) is that you cannot prevent someone from making a living with using their skills, and the customer catchment (geographical) area typical for your industry will play a role.

 

Google in the UK could of course lay claim to anything you create in work time as part of your work duties, that being the nature of employment to create things.

 

And you may find in Google's employment contract tiny small print some wording to the effect that any work done is owned by them.

She didn't say, in the employee's own time.

[L00b]

And they shouldn't should they, morally. But that isn't what was said is it? I was making the point that IP produced at work, in work time, with work materials, as part of the job, does belong to the employer.

If you don't mind, I made my point first (re. bold bit, which is what I said), before yours.

Ah, looking back either you misunderstood what Indizine said (or I did) or you were strawmanning.

Seems you might have misunderstood my first post in this thread (explaining that UK employment contracts 'inspired' from the US are frequently defective, where clauses assigning IP to the employer by default are concerned, because of the fundamental difference in legal provisions between the jurisdictions - as this went to the heart of the 'Google free development time' thing discussed by TJC1 and indizine).

She didn't say, in the employee's own time.

Who's "strawmanning" now, C? Joke aside, in context, I understood indizine to refer to Google in the US in the portion you quoted, whereby this distinction ("in the employee's own time") is entirely redundant (Google can validly claim any work done by their employees in/out of work by contract in the US, remember?)

 

FWIW, I see this issue (in a professional capacity) very frequently. (Inexperienced-) employers don't want to fork out for legals and just Google up free employment contract templates, find and use plenty of US ones, then trundle along merrily...until the issue crops up with a disgruntled ex- (or even current) employee, and I have to give them the bad news. For the sake of saving a few £00s at the onset, they then have to fork -at best- a few £00s in advice, correspondence and an assignment (if the employee plays ball) and -at worst- a few £000s in entitlement proceedings (sometimes £0000s if US rights are involved). Thus they become 'more' experienced

[Cyclone]

Maybe the whole latter point of the thread is just three people talking at slightly cross purposes.

I did understand what you were saying about US contract clauses not necessarily being enforceable here in the UK, but you seemed to be contradicting Indizine saying that work done in work time would belong to work.

 

Ah, the reference to google actually came from TJC1 as an example of a progressive employer. I think he chose a bad example, they give you 1 day a week to work on your own project, but as that is part of your employment, in work time, even in the UK they will own the result of that work. It certainly doesn't demonstrate what he wanted, that employers will allow employees to compete directly with them by privately selling their services in the same market.

[indizine]

Yes I did point out some posts back, that Google was an exception to the normal UK employer. You cannot run your own business as a competing sideline just about anywhere apart from an inexperienced or small employer who hasn't got a proper and decent contract in place.....and if they haven't why would you work for such a company anyway?

[Cyclone]

Google isn't an exception either, they don't allow you to run a competing business whilst working for them.

[TJC1]

Yes I did point out some posts back, that Google was an exception to the normal UK employer. You cannot run your own business as a competing sideline just about anywhere apart from an inexperienced or small employer who hasn't got a proper and decent contract in place.....and if they haven't why would you work for such a company anyway?

 

Noone said competing sideline, only you did.

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2013 at 08:52 ----------

 

Google isn't an exception either, they don't allow you to run a competing business whilst working for them.

 

You're right but Google is one example.

The point was progressive tech companies allow flexibility.

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2013 at 08:53 ----------

 

I'd just carry on running your business if it's working. Unless you're really struggling then why even think about being an employee of someone else? (look at all the legal blah above as an example of why it's not a good idea)

 

Good advice. You always talk sense andy.

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2013 at 08:55 ----------

 

Maybe the whole latter point of the thread is just three people talking at slightly cross purposes.

I did understand what you were saying about US contract clauses not necessarily being enforceable here in the UK, but you seemed to be contradicting Indizine saying that work done in work time would belong to work.

 

Ah, the reference to google actually came from TJC1 as an example of a progressive employer. I think he chose a bad example, they give you 1 day a week to work on your own project, but as that is part of your employment, in work time, even in the UK they will own the result of that work. It certainly doesn't demonstrate what he wanted, that employers will allow employees to compete directly with them by privately selling their services in the same market.

 

No, I didn't say compete directly in same market. Indizine said that. I know exactly what google do.

[Cyclone]

Anyway, getting back to the original point, I've had permie work before, and it's fine, they don't expect to own your soul or for you to work 80 hours a week for 37 hrs pay. If you've been offered a good position with good money, then take it. Do your own work in your own time and don't compete with your employer.

[Thorpes]

I have heard it said that a company's greatest assets are its employees whilst this to some extent true "asset" does imply ownership (as in the OP) and good employees are not owned but are volunteers. They work voluntarily, yes for pay, but they work for the company voluntarily as they could always give their services elsewhere and all employers should understand this and offer the best working environment to ensure that these volunteers keep coming back.

 

There is nothing wrong with allowing employees to work on the side, I do even in the accountancy profession. These are mainly for their friends and family and the type of clients that I do not accept generally. Why wouldn't I allow it as they would do so anyway. I have actually gained some of these clients from my team when they have become too big for them to service themself.