The first example made me cringe.
Let's say that I work at EA (I don't), coding up the next iteration of Sport Ball 2k15. In this example, at home, I'm writing Yet-Another-Dungeon-Crawler (YADC) (tm). All the two have in common is that they are video games. Should EA get rights to YADC(tm)? What's the scope?
On the second, this is even worse. If I worked at Ford building cars all day and was working on a Go Karts on the weekend, is there a gray area here? What if I repaired and sold vintage Jaguars on the side? Can I not apply skills that I've learned in my side-pursuits?
Why would I not be able to use my training to produce things for myself? Why should companies be the default owner of the fruits of our personal labors?
>Your bartender case I have no idea how a judge would take that. The judge might see it as common sense.
I think it's a fun thought experiment.
Of course the bartender won't have to pay the bar owner for his labors outside of work, he's just making drinks! However, when your skills are technical, the non-technical audience treats it differently.
1. You're making a competing product.
EA makes games. You're making a game
2. You're have a conflict of interest.
If you figure out how to speed something up 20% at home you arguably have a duty to share that at work. If you have a game idea for your game at home you think it unique you arguably have a duty to share that at work.
It would be up to a judge to decide what "related to their business" means. There's a spectrum. Both are FPS games, One is FPS, one is RTS. One is Online, on is offline. Is a gaming web site related? EA runs a gaming website. I have no idea. Do you want to find out after spending XXX hours on something it belongs to your employer? No? Then maybe you should ask them.
Note: Many companies will sign an agreement on request and review that allow you to make things that might have a conflict of interest. My understanding is EA specifically does this because so many of their employees wanted to make mobile games on the side. I have no idea what that agreement says. It might say EA gets the first right to publish it. Again I have no idea.
I know Google allows outside projects with permission. You submit a description of your project. They review it. If they don't see a conflict of interest they'll give you a signed document saying so so you can work on it with no issues.
From what I understand on this kind of stuff, it's completely determined by what contracts an employee has signed. "We own everything you do on company property or with company equipment" is basically universal and things done at your job are understood to be works-for-hire, but a company can't just claim "We own everything you do in your free time if it's related to computers" unless the employee has agreed to that in a contact. Am I wrong here?
For your Google example, I would assume their review framework was set up by an agreement with the employees. I had an offer for a job where I was told "Anything you do on your own time is yours. And if you want to put that in a written agreement for a particular project, we're happy to." From what you say, maybe Google doesn't have quite as lax an approach, but their ability to decide what you can and can't work on must have been specified in an employment contract.
They are being generous (or maybe just trying to make sure people don't quit) by signing agreements that let you out of the default law.
I have long believed that this legal difference is a big part of why "doing a startup on the side" is far more common in California than New York.
Don't forget how common it is for companies to sign their staff to nonsense in the hope of scaring them out of their rights through ignorance.
I can sue you, and get you into court, for murdering my pet vampire using the power of forgiveness, if I want to, and am willing to waste the money.
I mean, to your actual point, yes, there are cases where this can come up and be valid, but my understanding of this part of the thread was that we were making comparison to New York state boilerplate contracts that would take ownership of anything produced on side time, and that has been tested and there is a significant body of "oh hell no" in California law.
IANAL, TINLA, etc ad nauseum.
Why it makes sense IMO. Without the company owning work related to their business outside of work hours that would seem to make something along these lines legal.
Employee is at home, after work hours, and thinks of solution to problem at work on his project. The next day he comes to work and demands if the company wants this solution he must be compensated for work he did on his own time that belongs to him.
Your bartender case I have no idea how a judge would take that. The judge might see it as common sense. On the other hand if the bartender took a second job bartending a judge might decide that's not okay. Examples: Bartender invents new drink in Bar #2. Does Bar #2 own that? Can Bar #2 trademark the new drink? Can Bar #1 claim bartender has a conflict of interest because while working at Bar #2 it's arguably his job to lure people away from Bar #1.
Here's a quote from Nolo: "
Moonlighting
Generally speaking, working more than one job is lawful. However, an employer has the right to limit after-hours work that is in conflict with the employer's own business. For instance, going to work for the competition could provide grounds for discipline or discharge.
"
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/off-duty-conduct-empl...
Here's another
"Employees Owe a Duty of Loyalty to Their Employers ... Thus, an employee who improperly competes with his employer, assists a competitor during the course of employment, or makes use of the employer's confidential information to compete with the employer after termination may have breached the duty of loyalty. " etc..
http://shawvalenza.com/publications.php?id=68