Theft of electronics I.P. to start rival electronics company.

[EEVblog]

Wow that's one thing California does right!  I always found those clauses were pure BS.  My workplace actually has a clause that ANYTHING you create even on your own time, they own. 

The Altium employment contract had that (legally BS) clause, and said if you wanted to avoid that you had to detail what ideas and products are yours at the time of signing the contract. I handed over a 10 page document listing all my projects and ideas and they were stunned, no one had ever bothered to do that before.

I went for a job at Silverbook research once, got to the third and final interview with the 2IC and he wasn't happy with me doing anything outside of work. I finally got down to the ridiculous example of me writing a single gardening blog post, and that was a nope too. I left.

[ataradov]

Sorry but I don't understand the reference and hostility in this thread. Does Treez some history here I'm not aware of?

Yes, he and his "friend from China" get to some questionable adventures once every few weeks.

[Brumby]

Sorry but I don't understand the reference and hostility in this thread. Does Treez some history here I'm not aware of?

Yes, he and his "friend from China" get to some questionable adventures once every few weeks.

That's being diplomatic.

[electromotive]

The Altium employment contract had that (legally BS) clause, and said if you wanted to avoid that you had to detail what ideas and products are yours at the time of signing the contract. I handed over a 10 page document listing all my projects and ideas and they were stunned, no one had ever bothered to do that before.

Before I started at a major railcar repair company, I handed in a multi-page document as well. I retained the right to any specialized tooling and/or process efficiencies I discovered / created. I did the same at a major sawmill (formerly the largest supplier of rift and quartered oak in the United States). When I left the sawmill, my SQL scripts and automation software came with me. I developed them on my own time at home to make my job easier. There was no chance I was going to simply give it away.

[rstofer]

Patents by employees for non work related things used to be a problem.  I don't know how it works today but you just about signed your patent life away when you hired on.

The classic story was the guy working in an aircraft plant, driving a rivet hammer, who invented a baby bottle nipple and the company owned the patent.  This is another thing California gets right:

http://www.intellectualpropertylawfirms.com/resources/intellectual-property/patents/employee-patent-policy.htm

See "Limitations on Preinvention Assignments"

There's some pretty good case law coming out of California but notice that it may not apply to independent contractors and there's a lot of that kind of employment going around.

Shop Rights - another interesting way to get use of an employees patent without paying for it.

[AndyC_772]

My workplace actually has a clause that ANYTHING you create even on your own time, they own.  I've never actually heard of any instance of them enforcing it, but it's there.   I imagine it's reserved for very specific cases that cause a conflict of interest or something.

It's there to catch the situation where someone works in a particular industry, has a brilliant idea while at work one day, then goes off and starts their own business using it or takes it to a competitor. Without this clause, they could always claim that they came up with the idea during a period of insomnia at 3am (ie. their own time), rather than while in the office, and it would be impossible to prove otherwise.

[Zero999]

What have you been smoking? and where do I get some.

Sorry but I don't understand the reference and hostility in this thread. Does Treez some history here I'm not aware of?

I believe he was banned on a previous occasion for starting threads which broke the rules in some way, but you'll have to ask Simon,

Anyway, I often find his threads entertaining and he's never bothered me.

[Simon]

My workplace contract has nothing that stops me working for myself. i have quoted the same custers as them several times on the same job after the customer turned their nose up at works quote. I only do the electronics that go along with what my employer supplies so i am not "competing" over the whole shebang but it actually means I am potentially working for their competitors.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Because its basically theft of I.P.

That would only be the case if the Chinese co. was making stuff to the original company's designs. Even then there would need to be some pretty strong protection like patents or registered designs to stand any chance, and even then, chances are the only winners would be the lawyers.
Forget it and move on.

[EEVblog]

My workplace actually has a clause that ANYTHING you create even on your own time, they own.  I've never actually heard of any instance of them enforcing it, but it's there.   I imagine it's reserved for very specific cases that cause a conflict of interest or something.

It's there to catch the situation where someone works in a particular industry, has a brilliant idea while at work one day, then goes off and starts their own business using it or takes it to a competitor. Without this clause, they could always claim that they came up with the idea during a period of insomnia at 3am (ie. their own time), rather than while in the office, and it would be impossible to prove otherwise.

So what if you came up wit the idea at work.
If you were not paid to research those ideas, and especially if the idea has nothing to do with the companies products or industry, you'd be fine.

[AndyC_772]

That's the point you'd make as part of your contract negotiation, prior to starting work, but it's not in the company's interests to volunteer that limitation. By doing so, they only create the headache for themselves of having to prove that something was within the scope of the restriction.

In some cases it would be obvious, like if someone invents a baby product whilst working for an aircraft company.

But, suppose you hire someone who, whilst working for you, comes up with an idea for something you don't currently make, but could. (Or maybe, a type of product which you already have plans to start making, or which you started making since the day the contract was signed).

Say your company makes batteries, and one of your researchers comes up with a novel charging method. You don't currently make battery chargers, but doing so would be a natural extension of your business, especially if you now have a unique selling point that your company could benefit from. The argument could go either way as to whether the invention was (or is, or could be, or could have been foreseen to be...) within the scope of your business.

[Simon]

But, suppose you hire someone who, whilst working for you, comes up with an idea for something you don't currently make, but could. (Or maybe, a type of product which you already have plans to start making, or which you started making since the day the contract was signed).

Say your company makes batteries, and one of your researchers comes up with a novel charging method. You don't currently make battery chargers, but doing so would be a natural extension of your business, especially if you now have a unique selling point that your company could benefit from. The argument could go either way as to whether the invention was (or is, or could be, or could have been foreseen to be...) within the scope of your business.

That is why i have at least one email saved from my MD telling me he does not want me to work on a certain project that he deems not a good use of my time as I'm too busy and he does not wan tto pursue the enquiry. The day they ever try to have a go at me I will pull it out and shove it up their arse.

granted to contact ones emplyers customers and offer to do work for them as an individual or ones own company is a no no, but if they come knoking to me i consider it fair game.

[tooki]

What have you been smoking? and where do I get some.

Sorry but I don't understand the reference and hostility in this thread. Does Treez some history here I'm not aware of?

Evidently!

Treez is (in)famous here for posting questions about LED streetlight drivers, usually beginning with some preposterous assumption that no amount of facts can dissuade him from, and from that assumption asking for help on things he (as someone working as an EE at a lighting company in the UK) should already know how to do, then rejecting sound advice, clicking "like" even on the most scathing comments, and then coming back a few weeks later with a new question based on a new preposterous assumption. And it's all peppered with conspiracy theories about how politics have decimated the UK electronics industry. It's rather entertaining to watch, though frustrating to participate in.

[ebastler]

It's rather entertaining to watch, though frustrating to participate in.

I fully agree. Yet somehow these threads stimulate rather lively discussion. Like the present one: Just a single initial post from treez has triggered 38 replies, and counting...

There must be pronounced masochistic tendencies among engineers. 
Now here's a psychology or sociology thesis waiting to be written...

[rstofer]

Say your company makes batteries, and one of your researchers comes up with a novel charging method. You don't currently make battery chargers, but doing so would be a natural extension of your business, especially if you now have a unique selling point that your company could benefit from. The argument could go either way as to whether the invention was (or is, or could be, or could have been foreseen to be...) within the scope of your business.

See "Shop Rights" in my link to Reply 30.  Basically, the company could use the idea or even the patent under "Shop Rights" if the device/gadget/process is related to their business even though it was developed off-site.

When you get into these arrangements, better bring a team of lawyers.  It's going to get ugly!

There are reasons why employment contracts are rare in the US.  Among them is the fact that both parties give up on "Employment at will".  That's a big 'give' for the employer.

https://www.alliottgroup.net/practice-management-resources-for-owner-managed-firms/guide-to-employment-contracts-in-united-states/

[nctnico]

There are reasons why employment contracts are rare in the US.  Among them is the fact that both parties give up on "Employment at will".  That's a big 'give' for the employer.

According to this article 20% of the working people in the US have a non-compete agreement. I wouldn't call that rare:
https://www.upcounsel.com/non-compete-california

[rstofer]

According to some estimates, upward of 20 percent of workers in the United States are bound by a non-compete agreement of some kind. 14 percent of those individuals make $40,000 per year or less.

The system is being used to create some kind of indentured servitude.  Even sandwich makers are having to sign non-competes.  Like there is something magic about making a sandwich.  The employers are trying to stop turnover.

States are slowly catching on.  Massachusetts is on board but allows 1 year limited coverage.  Others are getting close.
 
True, I only worked in California but I don't know of ANYBODY with a non-compete that would be enforceable.  Why would $40k workers have a non-compete?  By definition, they don't know enough about anything to make a median income living in the US ($56k) much less in Caifornia ($72k).  And none of the engineers in Silicon Valley are working for median income.  It is not unusual for a working couple to gross upwards of $400k if they have specific skills.

The effect of a non-compete is to lock an employee out of their field for the duration of the contract. Imagine an EE who signs one of these things leaving the company and joining another.  Even if the new company isn't a competitor, the old company could claim they are entering the same market and the employee knew stuff about the plans.  In effect, the EE would be out of work for the duration - at any company.  And some states don't limit the duration so it is possible the engineer is out of the field forever.

The way it is handled in Silicon Valley is simple:  Every company trains their employees in one way of another.  This raises the level for all their employees and when they change jobs, cross pollination occurs which raises the level some more.  You simply can't force people to work for a specific company.  They have the right to peddle their skills to the highest bidder, so long as they don't disclose trade secrets.  And that has to be proven in court, not suggested in a meeting.

California is famous for outlawing these non-compete agreements. They're one of the few states who prohibit any unlawful restraint of an individual's profession, business, company, or company property, with limited and circumstantial exceptions.

https://www.upcounsel.com/non-compete-california

That's a long but interesting write-up.  California is far ahead of other states.  Maybe that's why we make so much money both as employees and employers.  Working 'at will'...

[nctnico]

According to some estimates, upward of 20 percent of workers in the United States are bound by a non-compete agreement of some kind. 14 percent of those individuals make $40,000 per year or less.

The system is being used to create some kind of indentured servitude.  Even sandwich makers are having to sign non-competes.  Like there is something magic about making a sandwich.  The employers are trying to stop turnover.

States are slowly catching on.  Massachusetts is on board but allows 1 year limited coverage.  Others are getting close.

The alternative to a non-compete is an NDA which IS enforcable in California. So there is your loop-hole. People can choose to work for your competitor but they still aren't allowed to tell your competitor your company secrets.

[LaserSteve]

      I have an old NDA / Agreement that says I can not work on optics or lasers  in Gallatin County, Montana  or the three counties around it for one year after leaving my employer unless I was  downsized. It simply made me weary, and actually deterred me from buying a house there while I worked as a field engineer for the company.  It also turned out to be a common clause used by the 40 or so companies that do optics and lasers around Bozeman. Evidently before I joined the company the poaching / startup/ IP  wars became very damaging to the industry so the majority agreed to try to add the same clause.   In that state, it is enforceable because it is such a small community and culture.

I dutifully returned the customer list, test software,  supplier list, and company phone directory, and I'm glad I did.. It pays off to have good relations with your ex- employer, even though things ended on a bad note.  Simply because I'm part of a small niche industry.

My former Boss however decided that shipping the basically unused and expensive  company issue ergonomic desk and chair from Ohio to Montana was a bad idea due to expense. That ended up as a perk for leaving, but I was sweating having to return it out of my own pocket to be reimbursed later, if ever.

If I had to do it again I would have line item edited out some of the clauses in said agreement before signing.

Steve

[G7PSK]

It used be quite common to have contract clauses that prohibited employees in manergerial positions from leaving the company and setting up in opposition or moving into the same position in another company for a year after leaving.
I know of one instance in the mid 70's where two managers left a freight company and took all the customers with them and set up their own company which made theire former employers go bankrupt.

[Wilksey]

Is anyone else scrolling past the "serious comments" to get to the interesting ones (calling treez out)? 

How on earth can using someones customer list even be conceived as I.P theft?! Intellectual Property, the clue is in the name! 

Just because you single source doesn't mean they single supply, they don't exist for just one company, if someone is willing to cough up the dollar they will sell, like anyone in business would (within reason).

If someone walked into a shoe shop directly after you and bought the same shoes that you just walked out with, is that I.P theft??

Use your noodle dude!
(v.entertaining nonetheless)

[HwAoRrDk]

In the contract for a job I had many moons ago, there was a clause that stated that you had to provide the company with (and keep up to date) a list of all web sites or pages that you authored, published or otherwise contributed to. This was well before the days of social networks like Facebook or Twitter, and personal blogs were only just becoming a thing, so this was highly unusual.

I found out through the grapevine that what brought this about was that a former employee, after having been unceremoniously fired (if memory serves, him crashing and writing-off a company vehicle for a third time was the last straw), set up a website slandering not just the company but also the CEO personally, and had sent links around to various people he knew within the industry. I don't know whether there was any legal trouble (it all happened before I joined), but the CEO was from then on definitely very paranoid about keeping track of the 'cyber activity' of employees.

Of course, it was a futile endeavour, as no-one ever kept the HR department updated, and if someone were to ever do something similar again, why would they tell the company first?

[Simon]

I found out through the grapevine that what brought this about was that a former employee, after having been unceremoniously fired (if memory serves, him crashing and writing-off a company vehicle for a third time was the last straw), set up a website slandering not just the company but also the CEO personally, and had sent links around to various people he knew within the industry. I don't know whether there was any legal trouble (it all happened before I joined), but the CEO was from then on definitely very paranoid about keeping track of the 'cyber activity' of employees.

Seems like they were to stupid to realize that you can take someone to court for slander and therefore limit their future work prospectives instead of punishing all future employees.