It's been a non-started for a couple of companies, but if that's the case, I don't want to work for them anyway.

Once I worked for a company, and me and the owner had a disagreement that wasn't resolvable so I said that I'd have to quit. She leaned back, smirked, and said, "remember that you signed a non-compete." I simply replied, "No, I didn't." She suddenly had an "oh crap" look on her face and looked at the HR director, who said, "I thought I'd get him to sign it later so we let it slide when he came on." The owner then tried to stop me from leaving, but after seeing that shark smile on her face I knew it was only a matter of time before she found another way to screw me and left anyway.

There are more of us than there are them. We all need to stop agreeing to these clauses.

California Labor Code 2870 and similar laws in some other states protect you under certain circumstances. However, you basically cannot go work for one of the bigs, for two reasons.

First, these laws only protect you if the project doesn't relate to the business, and the bigs operate in so many different spheres that basically any software project can be argued as relating to their business.

Second, it doesn't matter what the law is if a huge company decides to sue you — they will throw lawyers at you until you are bankrupt.

What you can do to minimize your risk is work for a small company which does not overlap with the space that your side projects are in. They still might go after you anyway at some point (companies can get bought and new owners may have more resources and more inclination to sue), but for open source the odds that it happens are very small.

Hiring negotiations are the point where you have greatest leverage - the company won't want to burn another bucket of money screening bozos. They've decided they want you. Go read patio11's post on salary negotiation to get the correct mindset.

An anecdote: my current employer's _standard_ contract basically says "we own what you do for us, you own what you do for yourself, and if you're getting close to a grey area you should speak with legal". So there are businesses out there that do this.

The IP rights part may have an effect depending upon how it is phrased, and what it covers (say patents).

See Copyrights, Designs, and Patents Act, 1988; section 11

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/11

"11 First ownership of copyright.

(1)The author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it, subject to the following provisions.

(2)Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work [F1, or a film,] is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary."

Computer programs are deemed to be a "literary work".

The important part is that the work has to be "in the course of employment".

If the s/w does not relate to what the company does, then it would not be such. IANAL.

There are some employment contracts which widen the scope to cover stuff which is not in the course of employment.

You have already stated how one gets such resolved. Discuss with the employer and agree a change, or leave.

I've generally interpreted it as meaning acts performed in fulfilling your role/position as an employee. So if you're essentially doing free work for your employer on your own time, at home, using your equipment, it belongs to them.

Stuff done which has nothing to do with your employment, created on your own time, with your own resources, belongs to you.

Otherwise every poem, sketch, photo, or even a letter you wrote, etc that you create would be their copyright, which is patently a nonsense unless your contract explicitly states that. It would state such if "course" it referred to the time you were their employee.

The difficulty occurs where there could be a conflict of interest between what you create privately, using your own resources, and what the company employees you to do. So don't do that. However that may be difficult for companies which have their fingers in a lot of pies.

Of course next time tech unions come up, there will be 10 stories of how their uncle wasn't allowed to plug in a ventilator because he wasn't a union electrician or something.

I entirely disagree with those arguments, but I could see them being appealing to "501 developers" (https://501manifesto.dev/), and they're the majority.

It's literally on the page you linked to.

I would look for another job. While these clauses are relatively common, it's also relatively easy to find employers with less restricting policies. You'll probably have better luck at tech-led companies, in general. I think I've also heard that California's employment law doesn't allow this sort of thing, FWIW.

And companies typically have no trouble critically relying on OSS projects they have no chance of forking/maintaining if something changes that they can't accept.

They told you that already "if you don't like this then why are you still working here".

The way to get this limitation removed is to hand in your resignation. Preferably after finding another job.

Make sure that before you sign a contract at the new place, that you strike out anything in the contract that requires you to hand over IP of things developed outside of company time and outside of company resources.

Practically impossible with companies moving to electronic forms. I've found every electronic form presented to me has had less than zero ability to actually negotiate with the other party.

I've been working remotely for nearly a decade now, and the majority of contracts I've signed have been in electronic form, and for each of them there has been back and forth about certain items - IP and copyright in particular always coming up - and we go back and forth until the wording and meaning is something both parties are happy with.

Only once that's happened do I need to sign the electronic form - and that's where the negotiating leverage exists, because I don't need to work for someone if they impose conditions on me that I am not willing to accept.

It's easier when they offer you the job but all large companies will have lawyers who know what to do. It just takes willingness on their part.

Smaller companies might just be using a boilerplate contract so you might want to suggest alterations.

Basically the company wants you so they should bend.

I've recently moved to the UK to start a tech business here (https://www.hackworthltd.uk), and now that I'm on the other side of the table, I very much wanted to create a personal projects policy that was as employee-friendly as possible, while still protecting the interests of the business. I hired a UK IP lawyer to help me draft an acceptable policy, and I'm happy to share that with you, if it helps.

The intellectual property section of our employment contract is mostly standard boilerplate, as I understand it, except that it refers to our personal projects policy, which is contained in our staff handbook. I've copied the relevant sections of both and put them here:

https://gist.github.com/dhess/21b7d2d72c4f9d4e0cdd8004385ef7...

Please feel free to use it as a reference in future negotiations with your employer(s).

Comments from others are also welcome! I'm open to any suggestions for how it could be improved.

- 2.2.a I would like to not be required to tell you about them at all, and not need an approval from you before I contribute/develop, unless 2.2.b and 2.2.c apply. So basically the contract should forbid me to develop a project that directly competes with anything your company is doing (as it is right now). In case it's not competing I could ask for your opinion, in case I am unsure I am advised to ask, otherwise I'm responsible, and in case it has elements that are in competition, or work relevant then I need ask for your permission.

- 2.2.k about projects that someone "might otherwise consider inappropriate", isn't this going to far? I think 2.2.m (We cannot be held responsible or liable for anything to do with your personal project) and 4.2 should be enough, you don't need to act as a moral authority to be able to defend the company against employee wrongdoing outside of work.

- not sure how this situation (that I detailed in my post) would be handled by your clauses: a project/library I develop on my free time but end up using at work. The company should not claim it as it's own, any thought on that?

I'm bit surprised that practice is so prevalent in SV, with California Labor Code 2870 and all. Because of that law, I'd rate SV/CA as the place that position is the least enforceable (in the U.S. at least).

I have none of my personal project code on my work laptop, I’ve never searched or thought about personal project work on it and I never take professional development time in work hours (unlike many other members of staff).

I’m at work to work for the company, I’m at home to work on myself. I never blur the lines, the downside to this is that my employer massively benefits from my time investment at home but oh well, it makes me better at my job and so I’m happier.

Sadly, thinking non-competes don’t apply in the UK has led people to sign them glibly and then face problems later.

You don't.

One of the reasons companies want this clause is to limit their liability and exposure. They're not going to make a dime off of your side-show projects, so it's really not about the money, it's about the risk.

Their IP clauses will have been gone over and over by lawyers, and the costs involved in making exceptions/changes is very expensive, partly in billable hours, but mostly in risk.

Put another way: having 'your own special contract' is like 'roll your own security'. It just opens up 'legal attack surfaces' and it's just not worth it for a company that has a lot of money or IP, which makes them a troll target.

There'd generally have to be a pretty good reason for you to want to work on it, that also makes sense to the company, but obviously risk tolerances vary as well.