Many companies make claims over their employees' intellectual property. How much of a claim they actually have legally is a different question, which depends on the country (and sometimes state) where the employee works, and companies routinely attempt to claim more than they legally can.

Compare e.g. https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/property-law/californ...

I bet Google lacks the copyright for many of the projects they claim.

Maybe true, but I am unwilling to try my luck. I mean, the process I mentioned above takes 30 minutes [1] if it's clear you aren't competing with Google and so I don't see a major issue about playing it safe and have written consent to develop your idea/project.

[1] you fill a form with the general idea description, you explain succinctly why it doesn't compete to any Google product, and you acknowledge you won't use Google time and resources to develop it. Then a committee reviews it and in ~1 week you get your approval or request for more details.

It takes maybe 30 minutes to fill out, but the O(days) approval latency is what absolutely killed me. No way to do impromptu commits to random non-Google-license-approved projects, no way to hack together something with friends over a beer, no way to quickly bash together a proof of concept and release it the same evening.

It might work for people who chisel away at their own long-term one-person pet projects, but breaks down if you're used to quickly hacking away collaboratively in various groups. Especially if you're an active member of a hackerspace.

Many countries have a "formula" (legal definition) for a "contract", which include fair exchange of something for something else, e.g. time and labor for money. If Google forces their developers to work for free (labor for nothing), then it fails to meet legal definition of the contract.

IMHO, such "forced labor for free" is a form of slavery. Slavery is forbidden by law.

If a developer want to publish his project under Google brand, then exchange may be considered as fair (project code for Google branding).

> I bet Google lacks the copyright for many of the projects they claim.

Good luck taking Google to court.

Btw, Google actually publishes this documentation externally.

https://opensource.google/docs/releasing/

They removed the `go/iarc` mirror recently, now seemingly only available on the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20210710210932/https://opensourc...

Well that interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Wonder why they did that.

Thanks, I didn't know this. I thought it was only internal stuff.

The IARC process is only necessary when Google might own copyright in the first place (those gray areas I mentioned earlier).

I went through the IARC process 2 years ago for a startup I was about to found in Tokyo, and obtaining clearance was easy, as you say. It's an extra precaution to avoid future litigation, but not legally required if you keep your personal coding activity clearly and provably separate from your work activity.