他们给了我一个无法拒绝的提议 (1997)
They made me an offer I couldn't refuse (1997)

原始链接: https://jens.mooseyard.com/1997/04/13/they-made-me-an-offer-i-couldnt-refuse/

延斯·阿尔夫克在苹果工作期间开发了“Antler Notes”程序,类似于便签。系统软件(后为苹果)最初曾提议从他那里购买该实用工具,因为他们正在收购其他第三方工具。然而,管理层质疑为什么要从员工那里*购买*它,认为苹果已经拥有这项成果。 阿尔夫克获得了一笔奖金来弥补这种情况,但这次经历凸显了一个关键的法律现实:美国劳动法和版权法通常授予雇主对其员工与公司业务相关的创作的所有权。标准的“专有信息协议”强化了这一点。 加州法律为员工完全利用自己的时间,使用自己的资源完成的工作提供了一些保护,*除非*它与雇主的事业相关。对“相关”的解释常常存在争议,许多人认为为公司平台所做的任何工作都属于其所有。 阿尔夫克建议在开发*之前*主动与法律顾问讨论项目,寻求书面豁免,或利用雇佣协议中的“先前发明”部分来保护个人项目。他甚至分享了一个朋友的策略,即预先列出潜在的未来项目以确保获得豁免。

这次Hacker News讨论的核心是雇佣合同中严苛的知识产权(IP)条款,尤其是在谷歌和苹果等大型科技公司。许多评论者分享了雇主试图声索员工利用个人时间和资源创作的作品所有权,即使这些作品与他们的工作职责无关的经历。 一个关键的案例描述了一位潜在的谷歌员工,因为拒绝签署一份缺乏“无追溯条款”的协议而被撤销了录用通知——该条款旨在防止谷歌在进入某个市场后,声索对员工先前个人项目的所有权。其他人也讲述了类似的情况,凸显了公司优先考虑广泛的IP控制而非员工权利的模式。 讨论涉及法律保护,指出加州法律提供了一些保障,但仍然存在漏洞。评论者建议集体谈判、频繁更换工作以制造法律模糊性,以及优先进行与雇主业务无关的副业等策略。一个反复出现的主题是对大型企业的 distrust,以及“将一切写入书面形式”以保护个人作品的重要性。最终,该讨论描绘了一种权力失衡的局面,员工必须主动捍卫自己的知识产权。
相关文章

原文

System Software were looking for a Post-It Notes™ type of program for System 7.5. They were already buying several other utilities — including Find File, Scrapbook, SuperClock — from third parties, and offered Antler Software (me) the same lump sum deal for the “Antler Notes” utility I was working on. It was a nice piece of change. I was happy.

This came to the attention of certain people in upper management, whose conclusion was (I’m paraphrasing here) “Why are we going to pay for this? This guy works for Apple — we already own his program!” You can imagine an evil cackle here if you like; I certainly did at the time, although I’ve mellowed a bit since.

For a while it looked as though Apple was going to get Antler Notes / Stickies at no cost — wotta deal! As it happened, however, some of the nice people mentioned earlier in this story arranged for me to get a bonus, not officially in any way related to Stickies of course, but it made me feel better.

I now undestand the Marxist concept of alienation from one’s labor much better than I did before…

What The Law Says

The worst part of it is that they were right. According to US labor and copyright law, a worker’s employer owns anything the employee creates that relates to the business of the employer, regardless of where, when and on whose equipment the employee creates this work. If you work for a high-tech company, remember that “Proprietary Information Agreement” you almost certainly signed when you started? It probably says something like this:

I hereby assign and transfer to the Company my entire right, title and interest in and to all Inventions, whether or not protectable by patent, trademark, copyright or mask work right, and whether or not used by the Company, which are reduced to practice, made or conceived by me (solely or jointly with others) during the period of my employment with the Company, which relate in any manner to the business, products, technologies, techniques, processes, services or research and development of the Company.

However (and these agreements usually mention this in an oh-by-the-way manner near the end) this sort of thing is usually somewhat tempered by labor law. For instance:

Section 2870, California Labor Code. (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:

  1. Relate at time of conception or reduction to practice of theinvention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer;
  2. or result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.

Most of this is pretty straightforward — work at home on your own time on your own equipment and don’t use secret knowlege from work — except for the question of whether your “Invention” relates to your employer’s business. While I haven’t heard or read any authoritative analysis of this, or looked at precedents, most of the (non-lawyer) people I’ve talked with interpret this fairly pessimistically; that if you work for a company that makes products for platform X, anything you write for platform X would be covered. If anyone reading this has more information or experience, drop me a line.

What You Can Do

If you talk to your company’s lawyer or legal department early on — before you start your project, or at least at a time that you can later plausibly claim not to have started it on, and yes that would probably require “correcting” file creation dates — you may be able to get them to exempt a specific project. You’ll need to convince them that your project isn’t something that they would ever consider doing as a product and wouldn’t take away from their business or reflect badly on the company. Get this in writing from them, with all the necessary legalese.

Another way to take care of this stuff is when you begin your employment. Every “Proprietary Information Agreement” I’ve ever seen includes a “Prior Inventions” section where you can list existing inventions of yours that will be excluded from the Agreement and remain your own. You should absolutely list every project that you’ve either completed, are in the midst of, or started once and never finished. A friend of mine had a clever idea: he also listed several very vague descriptions of things he thought he might want to work on someday and gave them code names. Then, when he really did start to work on something that fit the description, he gave it the appropriate code name and it was already exempted. I don’t go so far as to recommend this technique, but it’s certainly interesting!

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com