IP that doesn't relate to the role you're employed for, especially that wasn't made with company time, information or resources, is yours in California if you want to fight it out in court. Most bigtech companies also have a process to get explicit written recognition about such code before going to court because this is such a common thing. It usually amounts to filling out a form and sending it to legal for approval. There are a few companies with a reputation for somewhat more difficult processes (Apple, Amazon), but the above post is entirely plausible.

Sure: I cant think any of the above would say "yeah cool make a LinkedIn competitor part time"

(I worked at Google 2016-2023. Open source and video games were approved, anything else wasn't even worth the trouble of asking. i.e. it was well known to be "no" and a great signal to your manager you were unhappy)

We also have the benefit of _knowing they lied_: they were hired as a contractor to build it, and weren't at big tech.

By way of analogy: you're right, of course a German could hold up 3 fingers to order 3 beers. In practice, it is a tell.

This isn't really true.

In California specifically, Labor Code Section 2870 limits an employer's claim over inventions or products created a) outside of work hours, b) without using company resources like your work laptop, and c) not related to/competitive with the company's business.

Even outside of California, it's extremely rare for companies to try to claim ownership of side projects that check all of the boxes above. Legal action is expensive and bad PR unless the employee is clearly infringing or building something competitive.

> c) not related to/competitive with the company's business.

Is a loophole big enough for a train to go through. BigTech can, and will, with a straight face, claim almost anything as "related to" something they are working on--because they work on everything. I have worked at two BigTechs and had to basically stop working on side projects because they both emphatically threatened (during onboarding) that they will aggressively claim IP ownership of moonlighting projects.

Anyone considering doing potentially commercializable side projects should do their due diligence. Even if you're right and they can't claim it, do you have the $$$ to fight their army of lawyers?

EDIT: The loophole's actual wording is:

     "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"

Which I think we can all agree is pretty broad. Be careful out there!

In California statutes make it pretty clear that IP done off work hours without work equipment belongs to you not your employer, and it has repeatedly held up in court.

It also must not "relate to" the company's existing or demonstrably anticipated research, which is pretty broad in the case of "Big Tech".

I agree. Replacing LinkedIn is a great story. The story being spun seems disingenuous.