News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google accused of racketeering in lawsuit by rdtsc on Saturday October 07, 2017 @01:45AM (#15422445)
> Is this common behavior for Google, if the story is true?

It depends on details of his contract. It's quite plausible his employment contract in "Project X" did say that he would transfer knowledge and ideas in exchange for money. It's pretty standard stuff.

In other words, it might not be exactly a slam dunk case. A racketeering charge seems pretty outrageous as well.

However if Google did these things (which looks like they did), it would make them look shady. Maybe legally in the clear but ethically like you said, it would seem they threw their reputation under the bus.

Maybe once companies are a certain size they think they are untouchable and say stuff like "Yeah this is shady, but we've got lawyers and PR people to handle this, no biggie"

And this is why maybe a charge like racketeering is nice move - it might not be winnable in court, but it is outrageous enough to damage Google's reputation. Had it been some mundane case over a minor legal term, we wouldn't have found out.

Re:Google accused of racketeering in lawsuit by paul7986 on Saturday October 07, 2017 @03:18AM (#15422699)
Based on my similar experience with Google ATAP I bet they do this a lot! I've detailed my experience below...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15422475

Re:Google accused of racketeering in lawsuit by rdtsc on Saturday October 07, 2017 @04:08AM (#15422858)
Oh wow. That was pretty brazen of them. They sized you up and decided "What's the chance they'll have resources to sue us? No much probably. So just take their idea and go with it".
Re:Google accused of racketeering in lawsuit by alphonsegaston on Saturday October 07, 2017 @12:22PM (#15424381)
I hope you reached out to the legal team pursuing this case.
Re:Google accused of racketeering in lawsuit by bogomipz on Saturday October 07, 2017 @01:57AM (#15422474)
>"It's quite plausible his employment contract in "Project X" did say that he would transfer knowledge and ideas in exchange for money."

I'm curious about your comment that this is "pretty standard stuff." Do you mean in the context of Google X agreements? Do you transfer intellectual property to them as part of the employment contract?

Are you paid a flat fee? Do they pay a "kill" fee if Google X ultimately decides not pursue your idea and terminates your employment agreement?

Re:Google accused of racketeering in lawsuit by rdtsc on Saturday October 07, 2017 @02:29AM (#15422547)
In general in employment contracts in technology it seems. Any software written or ideas related to the field of employment get transferred to the employer. In some cases (have read it on HN here) people have successfully modified their employment contract to exclude some of the clauses like that.

> Are you paid a flat fee? Do they pay a "kill" fee if Google X ultimately decides not pursue your idea and terminates your employment agreement?

No idea, maybe someone could share. I would imagine it is a customized contract tailed for each contributor / collaborator. The important bit is it is a contract, so unless it is illegal any "kill" clauses could have been put in there.

Re:Google accused of racketeering in lawsuit by Normal_gaussian on Saturday October 07, 2017 @02:51AM (#15422625)
I recently turned down a job offer citing an overly broad IP clause. I had a call within minutes offering me a choice of how else it could be worded.

I still turned it down and decided to go freelance instead because the contracts I had read had raised all kinds of personal questions.

Re:Google accused of racketeering in lawsuit by amcooper on Saturday October 07, 2017 @10:44AM (#15423953)
I received a one-month contract—teaching, not developing—from a subsidiary of a large education company. I had to consult a lawyer and fight with them for a week over the contract's overly broad IP claims. They basically wanted ownership of teaching ideas I—or my partner (!)—came up with in perpetuity! I eventually got them to change it to my satisfaction, and had a great teaching experience with a cool group of students, but it really soured my relationship with the company and now i can't imagine working with them again.
Re:Google accused of racketeering in lawsuit by amcooper on Saturday October 07, 2017 @12:30PM (#15424414)
"This is the first time anyone's had a problem with this," the subsidiary's h.r. rep told me. This approach impacts people who have had experience with contracts and lawyers, and thus aligns with age discrimination.
Re:Google accused of racketeering in lawsuit by alexasmyths on Saturday October 07, 2017 @08:00PM (#15426325)
Any ideas you disclose to your company while your an employee could surely belong to you, that's reasonably standard.

As for 'your partner' - that seems pretty crazy, and I don't understand how that would hold up for a second in court.

As for 'perpetuity' - meaning - ideas you had long after employment? Or - that they'd own the ideas you give them while employed, forever. If the later, well, again I think that's somewhere near standard. If the former, that's beyond crazy and I think not even enforceable.

But the 'partner' bit alone seems beyond creepy because their lawyers are not stupid, they must know it's a pretty wobbly thing not likely to stand up in court, ergo it's kind of a scare tactic.